“The budget officer confirmed that our costs are based on the number of asylum claims, and those numbers are going down. We have cut claims by 60%. Our changes will save $200 million a year within three years. Our plan is working.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am actually very glad to receive this question today because the Parliamentary Budget Officer verified, today, what we have known all along. That is that the reasons for the costs are tied to volumes, and volumes are coming down. We have substantially reduced the asylum numbers by 60%. Within three years, there will be $200 million in annual savings from changes to the supplemental coverage that we have put in place. We are taking action and it is working.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

“I already agreed to attend the meeting for all four hours. Asylum claimants pay taxes too. They get work permits, and in 2023, the taxes they paid equaled the amount of help they received.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that member does not understand. I have said yes. I will be there for the four hours. There is nothing magical about that. That is exactly why I am here. Let me continue, though, about the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Let me remind people that claimants are not just service users. They are also taxpayers. The people she is talking about are real human beings. We give them work permits. In 2023, the budget officer confirmed, the amount that went into general revenue for this population equated the amounts that they were getting.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Respect 85 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “I do not know what that member does not understand”.

  See full analysis →

“Our government has reduced the number of temporary residents and asylum seekers, and we saved Canadians money. The minister will answer more questions this week to defend this work. The Conservatives need to explain why they oppose giving health care to vulnerable people fleeing war in Ukraine.”

“Mr. Speaker, the minister has just gone through and, this Thursday, will again be going through extensive questioning. She will be defending results that have achieved incredible results in one year of government. We have reduced the number of temporary Canadians. We have reduced the number of asylum seekers. We have saved money for Canadians. The real question is why Conservatives are against providing health care to some of the most vulnerable people on this earth, including claimants from Ukrainian war zones?”

“Our health program covers only basic, temporary care for people who cannot get provincial health care yet. It is not for luxuries. We have cut the number of people using it by 60 percent since 2024, and we will keep cutting that number.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us do this one more time. This is what we are actually doing. The interim federal health program covers limited temporary health coverage to vulnerable people who are not yet eligible for provincial coverage. It covers essential services. It is not for luxury items, and the cost is tied to volumes. As I have said, over and over again, we have reduced that volume by 60% from 2024. We will keep reducing that pressure.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

“The parliamentary budget officer said our changes will save over 200 million dollars within three years. Our asylum reforms will also save more than 200 million dollars every year.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is what the PBO actually said today. The PBO said that within three years we will see substantial savings from changes to the supplemental coverage of $200‑plus million. We will also see another $200‑plus million in annual savings from the asylum reform measures that we took in Bill C-12. I thank the member for finally agreeing to put that law into action.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →