“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?”

“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?”

“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.”

“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?”

“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.”

“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?”

“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?”

“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?”

“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?”

“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?”

• Little substance
  ?

  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 →