Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.
I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the Conservative motion targeting the interim federal health program, and this is after the Liberals have already rolled it back.
Let us be clear about what the motion does. It scapegoats newcomers and refugees. It suggests that denying preventative care, prescription medication, dental treatment and mental health services would somehow produce savings. It would not. It would simply shift costs from preventative care to emergency rooms, from primary care to acute care, and from federal responsibility to provincial systems, where treatment is far more expensive and outcomes are far worse.
The Conservatives and the Liberals are approaching this challenge in the wrong way, and they should know better. Their previous changes to the interim health program were struck down by the courts because they were deemed unconstitutional in 2014 under the Harper government. This is the same playbook, same narrative and same fearmongering.
The Conservative leader keeps saying that he turned over a new leaf, but he is back to the same old games of politicizing social issues for political gain, whereas deeper nuance and compassion are necessary. It is disappointing watching the Conservatives walk the same path over and over again into a dead end.
The evidence is unequivocal: When governments adopt an emergency-only model of care, health outcomes deteriorate and long-term costs increase. Preventative and primary care are the most cost-effective interventions in any health care system. Denying early access to medications, mental health supports, dental treatment and assistive devices does not eliminate the need for care; it delays it until conditions become acute and far more expensive to treat.
We have seen this before. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, supplementary coverage under the interim federal health policy was restricted. The result was confusion, suffering and documented harm. Courts found the cuts to be cruel and unusual. After 2015, those restrictions were reversed because they were harmful and counterproductive. Canada learned that lesson once; we should not repeat it.
Nonetheless, taking a page from the Conservatives, the Liberals have now introduced copayments under the interim federal health program in budget 2025. They frame it as modest fiscal restraint, but decades of health policy research demonstrates that even small user fees deter access to health care, especially for low-income and medically vulnerable populations.
The population covered under the interim federal health program is among the most vulnerable in Canada: refugees and refugee claimants who often arrive after suffering war, persecution, torture and prolonged displacement. Many arrive with trauma, and many arrive with chronic conditions that have gone untreated for years. They have extremely limited financial means. For some living in deep poverty, a prescription charge is not symbolic. A 30% copayment for mental health counselling is not modest. A copayment for mobility aids, dental care or vision care is not a small inconvenience; it is prohibitive.
In practice these copayments function as a denial of care. The consequences are not hypothetical; they are predictable. When people cannot afford medications, hypertension goes untreated, leading to stroke, and diabetes goes unmanaged, leading to amputations, kidney failure or intensive care admission. Untreated infections escalate into hospitalization. When people cannot access mental health supports, traumas worsen, crises escalate and emergency interventions become necessary.
Each avoidable hospital stay costs thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars. The savings generated by a small copayment are dwarfed by the downstream costs of acute care. Instead of containing costs, this approach escalates them. Instead of relieving pressure on the system, it intensifies pressure on emergency departments and provincial health budgets. It undermines newcomers' ability to acquire language skills, to work, to contribute and to feel like equal members of society.
If we are serious about fiscal responsibility, then we must focus on the actual cost drivers within the interim federal health policy. One of the most significant drivers is the prolonged enrolment due to backlogs in the immigration and refugee system. The IRB needs resources. When claims take years to process, individuals remain on the interim federal health program coverage longer than necessary. That is an administrative problem, not a refugee health problem.
The solution is clear: Accelerate fair and timely claim processing, invest in adequate staffing and resources for the IRB, ensure early comprehensive primary care upon arrival and maintain full interim federal health program coverage without copayments during this transition period. Let us remember that the interim federal health program is a temporary program. Early care reduces long-term costs, and timely decisions reduce prolonged enrolment. These are structural, evidence-based solutions. Punitive copayments are not. Moral obligations and economic logic align.
Protecting access to essential health care for refugees is not only a moral obligation; it is also sound economic policy. Healthy newcomers integrate more quickly, enter the workforce sooner, contribute to taxes and support their families. When we deny care, we delay integration and increase long-term public expenditures.
The Conservative motion seeks to frame this as a question of fairness to taxpayers, but fairness requires facts. The facts show that cuts in copayments in refugee health care cause preventable harm, increase long-term expenditures, shift costs to provinces and undermines integration. That is neither fiscally responsible nor socially responsible. This is not evidence-based policy-making.
Rejecting division is what we must do. At its core, the motion divides. It suggests that refugees are a burden to be managed rather than human beings entitled to dignity and basic health care. Canada has chosen a different path. We have chosen evidence over ideology. We have chosen compassion aligned with fiscal prudence.
New Democrats will not support measures that scapegoat vulnerable people or repeat policy failures we have already corrected. We have to learn from the past. We know that restricting refugee health benefits causes preventable suffering and greater long-term expense. We know that even small user fees deter access for people living in deep poverty. We know that preventative care is more cost-effective than emergency intervention.
The Conservative motion is misguided, and the NDP will reject the motion. The Liberal government's decision to impose copayments under the interim federal health policy risks repeating a costly mistake. The responsible course of action is clear: Maintain full coverage under the interim federal health program, eliminate copayments, address administrative backlogs and invest in early comprehensive primary care.
For these reasons, the NDP will oppose the motion and any other attempts by the Conservatives or the Liberals to roll back this important health care delivery for all.
