TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-04-29 Sitting 113 Showing 1–4 of 4

A bill to make many changes to Canada's immigration system and border enforcement, including giving the CBSA more powers and facilities, changing how refugee claims are processed, and increasing penalties for money laundering. During debate, the Conservatives focused on a recent personnel change at Canada Health Infoway while the Liberals discussed interim health benefits for asylum claimants.

Official Hansard ↗

Dan Mazier

Conservative 6:30 p.m.

“I'm filling my time with a red meat story about public sector waste andｰ in a follow up on a previous statement ｰ how the Liberals are giving too many government services to rejected asylum seekers.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to do the late show. I want to begin with a brief comment, given that we are discussing the work of the health committee. We just received word that the CEO and president of Canada Health Infoway, Michael Green, has been fired by the Infoway board. As Canadians are finding out, Canada Health Infoway is a taxpayer-funded organization the Liberals funnelled $300 million through to run the failed PrescribeIT program. This news comes just hours after Conservatives uncovered that Mr. Green pocketed over $830,000 in taxpayer-funded compensation last year, which included a maximum performance bonus of over $215,000. The only reason Michael Green was fired from Canada Health Infoway is that Conservatives exposed the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT failure. The health minister had every tool to audit and evaluate Infoway, but instead she let the CEO of a failing program pocket millions in taxpayer-funded compensation, including maximum performance bonuses. Conservatives will not stop investigating PrescribeIT until we find out where every dollar went and who else got rich. We are not here to discuss the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal, though. We are here to discuss the $1.5-billion interim federal health program scandal. Thanks to my colleague from Red Deer, Conservatives have uncovered that the Liberals have spent more than $275 million on health benefits for asylum seekers whose claims were rejected by the government's own Immigration and Refugee Board. According to the Liberal government, rejected asylum claimants remain eligible for deluxe health benefits like physiotherapy, home care and speech therapy. As such, my question is simple. Does the Liberal member believe it is fair that a rejected asylum claimant receives better taxpayer-funded health benefits than the Canadians who are paying for them?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Maggie Chi

Liberal 6:30 p.m.

“I want Canadians to know that our government is spending money on healthcare for asylum seekers in a fair and responsible way. The program is temporary and limited, and it's important for public health. We are trying to reduce the number of asylum claims and the time people spend in the system. The program is well-managed and we are introducing co-payments to keep it sustainable. This will save money in the long run.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians rightly expect public programs to be fair, responsible and sustainable. They expect that when people are seeking protection in Canada but are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance, the government manages that transition in a way that protects public health while maintaining the integrity of our health care system. That is the role of the interim federal health program, a program that has existed in some form since the 1940s. The IFHP provides temporary limited health coverage to certain migrants in Canada who are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance, including those who are waiting for a final decision on their asylum claims or for their removal to be safely carried out. The program exists to ensure access to urgent and essential services. Without it, vulnerable people may delay seeking care, which can lead to more serious health issues, higher costs later on and added pressure on emergency rooms and public health. That is why the program must be understood as both a public health measure and a system management tool. Let me be clear. The IFHP does not determine who is ahead or behind on health care wait-lists. Those decisions are made by provinces and territories based on medical needs. IFHP beneficiaries face the same wait times as all other residents. The IFHP provides health coverage, not faster or better access to health care. Moreover, the health needs of those seeking protection in Canada are important principles behind the program, and those who have filed asylum claims have the right to due process, which includes the right to appeal. The IFHP is tightly managed. All claims are monitored, audited and subject to integrity controls so that the program remains available only to those who qualify. Pressures on the IFHP are largely driven by higher asylum claim volumes and the length of time people remain in the system while awaiting a decision or removal. That is why our government has also taken action to reduce pressures on the asylum system. These actions are working. Comparing January and February 2024 to the same period this year, asylum claims are down by almost two-thirds, and with Bill C-12, we introduced new eligibility and efficiency improvements, which will reduce the time individuals rely on temporary federal support. We also announced co-payments in budget 2025 to help keep supplemental health care accessible for eligible beneficiaries while responsibly managing growing demand. This will support the long-term sustainability of the program as it continues providing essential support to current and future beneficiaries. The co-pays, set to come into effect on May 1, could result in approximately $126.8 million in savings in 2026-27 and $231.9 million onwards. In short, the responsible way forward is not to create confusion about who is ahead in line. Instead, we need to keep the IFHP targeted and well managed to avoid increasing the burden on our publicly funded health system while reducing pressures through stronger system integrity and faster processing. That is exactly what our government is doing.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Dan Mazier

Conservative 6:35 p.m.

“The previous speaker dodged my real question. I'll ask again, plainly: does this government believe it's fair to give rejected asylum claimants more taxpayer-funded health perks than actual taxpayers get? Yes or no.”

Maggie Chi

Liberal 6:35 p.m.

“The other side keeps asking about healthcare for failed claimants. I won't give a clear answer. I'll just say it's a small temporary bridge program. It doesn't decide wait lists. Paranoid people might avoid doctors without it. Our big government program saves money in the end. Claims are down anyway. We passed a bill with the word 'sustainable' in the name.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the interim federal health program provides temporary limited coverage until beneficiaries are eligible for a comparable provincial or territorial health insurance. It is a bridge, not a substitute, and it does not determine placement on health care wait-lists, which are managed from provinces and territories based on medical needs. Without that bridge, vulnerable individuals may delay seeking care, which can increase the risk to public health and wait times in hospitals and emergency rooms. In this way, the IFHP actually helps reduce pressure on our health system. The program is tightly managed and only available to those who qualify. Comparing January and February 2024 to the same period this year, we also see that asylum claims are down by almost two-thirds. Recent measures and legislation such as Bill C-12 ensure the IFHP remains fair, targeted and sustainable.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates