Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

In question period on immigration, Conservatives said nearly 74,000 people whose refugee claims were rejected remain in Canada, some untraceable, and are receiving public health coverage, and that the government is still funding municipalities to house asylum seekers. They also raised the case of a non-citizen who received house arrest for thefts, asking why the government did not support their proposed Criminal Code changes to require deportation or stop lighter sentences for non-citizens. Liberal ministers replied that the health coverage is a temporary program limited to essential services, that asylum claims have fallen 59% and the measures will save about $400 million a year, that current law does not allow judges to reduce sentences based on immigration status, and that criminals are prosecuted while Canada still has obligations to protect vulnerable people. They also noted a 2013 Supreme Court ruling on the sentencing issue.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

11 statements

Burton Bailey

Conservative
“Thousands of people whose refugee claims were rejected are still in Canada getting public health care. The government has lost track of 28,000 of them. Where are they, and when will the government deport them?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, 74,000, three‑quarters the size of Red Deer, is the number of rejected refugees still in Canada getting luxury, taxpayer-funded health care that Canadians can only dream of. They are supposed to be deported, not given better care than those paying for it. Worse, the Liberal government has lost track of 28,000 of these fraudsters. They have vanished into our communities and are still billing Canadians. Where are these 28,000 fraudsters, and when will the Liberal government deport them?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Lena Metlege Diab

Liberal
“This temporary health program only covers essential care, and its cost depends on how many people use it. We reduced the number of users by 59 percent. This will save taxpayers over $400 million a year.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, this is a temporary program for health coverage. It covers essential services. The cost is tied to volumes. The good news, which the Conservatives do not want to hear, is that we brought the volumes down by 59% because of a Liberal budget, because of a Liberal bill. As the PBO said this week, we will save taxpayers over $400 million annually.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Dan Mazier

Conservative
“The government gives rejected asylum seekers extra health benefits, even when they commit serious crimes. I want to know why the government gives them better health care than Canadians get.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal House leader defended luxury health benefits for asylum claimants whom his own government rejected, stating they are “the most vulnerable people on...earth”. Really? How about William Imona-Russel, the rejected asylum claimant who raped two women and murdered a 20-year-old girl while still in Canada? Under the Liberals, criminals like him remain eligible for luxury health benefits like physiotherapy and home care. Do the Liberals still believe these rejected asylum claimants deserve better health benefits than Canadians?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“We believe criminals should be prosecuted and put in jail.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 49 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we believe that criminals should be in jail. We believe that criminals should be prosecuted to the full— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“We believe criminals should be jailed under the law. We also believe Canada must welcome vulnerable people who are fleeing war.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we believe that criminals should be prosecuted and jailed to the full extent of the law. We also believe that Canada has an obligation under international treaties to accept vulnerable people from war-torn and ravaged areas around this world. Every single Canadian I know, except perhaps that member, would give care to a vulnerable human being who arrives on Canadian shores and needs our care.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Costas Menegakis

Conservative
“The government is still paying cities to house asylum seekers, and nearly 74,000 failed claimants are still getting health benefits. I want the Prime Minister to admit his immigration policies have failed and stop giving health benefits to failed claimants.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal asylum system is a dumpster fire. The minister told Canadians the government stopped paying for asylum seekers’ accommodations, but it is now simply bankrolling municipalities to do that for it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has found that nearly 74,000 failed asylum claimants are also still receiving luxury health benefits. After a year, the Prime Minister’s immigration system looks like the anniversary edition of the last 10. Will the Prime Minister stand up, admit that his Justin Trudeau-inspired immigration policies have failed and finally end the luxury health benefits for failed asylum claimants?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Lena Metlege Diab

Liberal
“We are managing immigration responsibly. Asylum claims are down by 59 percent. Our actions, including this bill, will save $400 million every year. We will still protect people who need our help.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 93 of 100

    Of this answer, 90% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that member and I respect him, and I know he knows that I am here to manage immigration and migration responsibly to strengthen our rural communities. That is exactly what we are doing. Our asylum claims are down 59%. The PBO confirmed with us that because of the measures we have taken with co-pays and with Bill C-12, we will be reducing those costs by $400 million annually. We will continue to protect those who are in need of protection.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Michelle Rempel Garner

Conservative
“A non-citizen committed major thefts and got house arrest instead of being deported. The Liberals voted against our bill that would stop light sentences for non-citizen criminals. Why did they do that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a non-citizen on a student visa organized major theft from an Alberta store not once, but 14 times. They were convicted of a major crime under Canada’s Criminal Code, which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. They should have been deported, as the law requires, but today we found out that they were not. The National Post reported that a judge gave them a sweetheart deal, house arrest, so that they could avoid deportation. By voting against our bill to ensure non-citizen criminals do not get sweetheart sentences, the Liberals sent a message that it is okay for non-citizens to commit major crimes. Why?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Lena Metlege Diab

Liberal
“Our laws do not let judges give lighter sentences to asylum seekers. Anyone who commits a crime in Canada will face consequences. We have introduced crime bills, but the Conservatives refuse to vote with us to pass them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that there is nothing in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that allows judges to discount any sentences. She also knows that, Canadian or not, no one can commit a crime on Canadian soil with impunity, including those who are on asylum and anyone else. We have brought in measures. We have brought in criminal bills. The Conservatives keep avoiding voting with us. We expect them to let us, in the next couple of weeks—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Michelle Rempel Garner

Conservative
“We proposed a bill to change the Criminal Code and stop this problem, but the Liberals refused to support it. People in Canada must respect the rule of law. Why does the government disagree?”

  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. There is not anything in the Criminal Code. That is why we put forward a bill to put something in the Criminal Code to stop this. When she had an opportunity to sway the justice minister to support the bill, the man who created the massive Liberal dumpster fire that she is perpetuating, she said, “No, it is fine.” Today, the Liberals are defending this abysmal practice. This is divisive post-nationalism that the Liberals have put forward for years. The respect for the rule of law is a minimum requirement for anybody in our country, and when they erode that, they erode our national identity. Every normal Canadian would agree with this. Why do the Liberals not agree?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

Sean Fraser

Liberal
“The member did nothing about this problem when she was in cabinet, even after the Supreme Court ruled on it in 2013. We are making big changes to our criminal laws. Anyone who commits a serious crime should face serious punishment, including deportation if the court decides.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the issue that the member raises has been an issue in Canada for a number of years. She should know well that the Supreme Court of Canada, in 2013, actually ruled on this specific issue. What is interesting about the timeline of that decision is that she was sitting in the federal cabinet at the time and chose to do absolutely nothing about it. For our part, we are in the midst of launching the most serious set of criminal law reforms to strengthen the Criminal Code that this country has seen in generations. Regardless of one’s immigration status, if they commit a serious crime, they should be met with a serious penalty and, where a court deems appropriate, that can and should include deportation.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 123

All 40 items ·
  1. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  2. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions Climate Change 7 statements
  4. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Taxation 7 statements
  6. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Affairs 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  8. Oral Questions Sport 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 11 statements
  10. Oral Questions Government Priorities 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Sport 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 8 statements
  13. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  16. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 11 statements
  17. Oral Questions National Defence 8 statements
  18. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 16 statements
  19. Private Members' Business Canada Labour Code 12 statements
  20. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  22. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements