Hill Times: Failed asylum-seeker motion shows Conservatives ‘smelled blood in the water’ with minister, immigration as wedge issue, say politicos

On Feb. 25, MPs voted down a motion tabled by Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, Alta.) that called on the government to review federal benefits provided to asylum claimants, and to restrict benefits received by rejected claimants to emergency care only.

Ottawa’s Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) pays for urgent or essential health care in Canada for refugees, protected persons, or asylum claimants on a temporary basis.

Rempel Garner said the program has “morphed well beyond its initial intent” of providing health care to legitimate refugees who were fleeing to this country from war zones, and that it’s an unfair system favouring non-citizens over Canadians.

“Today, it is a massive boondoggle that provides care to many bogus asylum claimants. The cost of this program has ballooned, too,” she said in the House on Feb. 24.

Asylum seekers whose claims are denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board may be able to remain in Canada while they appeal the decision.

A Feb. 12 report by the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that total IFHP costs will reach almost $1-billion in 2025‑26, and rise to more than $1.5-billion by 2029‑30. The report, prepared in response to a request from the House Health Committee, notes that between 2020-21 and 2024-25, the program’s cost grew from $211-million to $896-million as both the number of beneficiaries and the cost per beneficiary increased significantly. 

“Enough is enough,” Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre (Battle River–Crowfoot, Alta.) said about the program in a Feb. 23 video posted on X.

“We can’t allow foreign criminals to take advantage of our system, false refugee claims to overwhelm the services that you pay for.”

‘Political risk’ for Conservatives in criticizing immigration in Canada: Leichnitz

Some critics argue that the motion never really had a chance of passing with Liberals inching closer to having a majority in Parliament, and that the Conservatives are using a populist narrative around immigration that echoes United States President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.

Ekos Research data from October 2025 suggested that 49 per cent of Conservative voters approved of how Trump was doing his job, while, for Liberal voters, that support was at just two per cent.

Leichnitz argued that the Conservatives have picked up on the low public support for immigration in Canada over the last couple of years, and are trying to exploit that as a wedge issue.

Public opinion polls have shown that, over the last three years, there has been an increase in Canadians who think the government is accepting too many immigrants, and managing programs poorly. Abacus Data findings from last fall suggested that 49 per cent of Canadians look at immigration negatively, citing impacts on the cost and availability of housing, and pressure on the health-care system.

“They [the Conservatives] have smelled blood in the water with a minister who appears to be weak, so they were taking an opportunity to put pressure on the government on this file,” Leichnitz said.

Immigration Minister Lena Diab (Halifax West, N.S) has been under scrutiny for poor performance, drawing criticism from some of her Liberal colleagues—nine of whom told Radio-Canada she seems overwhelmed with the portfolio. Sudanese Canadian and Turkish Canadian groups have also reported difficulties in securing meetings with Diab to discuss issues with various resettlement programs.

Last December, Rempel Garner called Diab “a very bad minister” at a House committee meeting after Diab struggled to provide responses to MPs’ questions on whether she will use powers under the government’s border security bill C-12 to extend temporary visas.

Tim Powers, a former adviser to Conservative political leaders and current chairman of Summa Strategies, also said the timing of the Tory motion could suggest that it is aimed to go after Diab.

“According to different reports among stakeholders, she is not doing super well, so I suspect the Conservatives are trying to add to her burden by throwing this motion out there,” he said.

“It might also be a bit of a play to some of the Conservative base [who] think that our immigration policy is full of holes, and certainly there are holes.”

In her response to Conservative criticism, Diab said Canada has a “robust” immigration system, and that each asylum application is processed rigorously.

“Those who clearly fit in the system are in there, and we will continue to honour our humanitarian, constitutional, and international obligations,” she said in the House on Feb. 24.

The number of asylum seekers in this country dropped by 33 per cent in 2025 compared to 2024, according to Diab. 

Liberal strategist Jonathan Kalles called the failed motion a “political ploy by the Conservatives to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment.”

“This was simply, literally, out of the MAGA playbook to try to embarrass the government and stir up an emotional reaction regarding immigration and asylum seekers,” he said in a Feb. 26 interview.

Kalles argued that Poilievre has been “flailing” both in polls and within his party, and that he is trying to reinforce his support with his base, which Kalles said is a sign of trouble on its own.

On Feb. 18, MP Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend, Alta.) became the third Conservative to join the Liberal ranks since November. The Liberals now hold 169 seats out of the 172 needed to form a majority government.

“Conservatives know they’ll lose an election and don’t want to force one. So motions like this are simply desperate attempts to get some attention,” Kalles said. 

That approach presents political risk for Tories against the backdrop of violently anti-immigrant rhetoric in the U.S. with Trump and the controversial deportations conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Leichnitz said.

“There’s always a political risk for the Conservatives that by engaging in rhetoric or debates that create space for criticism of immigration and refugee and asylum claimants in Canada, that Canadians will see a connection between that and what they’re seeing in the United States,” she said.

“I won’t go as far as to say ‘is this MAGA populism?’, but I would say there is a chord that [the Conservatives are] striking there among people who think that our Canadian immigration system is broken, and they’re somehow being disadvantaged by it,” Powers said.

“The challenge for the Conservatives is you can’t go too far here, either, because you will get that label [of] just like Trump, just like that crowd—and I don’t think that’s one Pierre Poilievre wants to invite at the moment.”

On Feb. 26, Poilievre delivered a policy speech in Toronto that outlined his proposed approach to Canada-U.S. relations, and highlighted areas of economic disagreement with the American president.

‘Lazy, disingenuous, and malicious’ to draw Trump comparison: Baran

Yaroslav Baran, co-founder of Pendulum Group and a former Conservative Party communications director during Poilievre’s leadership campaign, rejected the idea that the official opposition rhetoric around immigration is ringing too closely to the MAGA movement, calling it “lazy, disingenuous, and malicious to draw those kinds of parallels if you actually look at the facts.”

Baran said the issue is less about political tactics and more about Tories reflecting on what they hear from their constituents, which he said is the belief that rejected asylum claimants get stronger health-care benefits than Canadian citizens and permanent residents. The IFHP also covers dental and vision care, psychologists, and physiotherapists, which are not usually included in provincial healthcare for Canadians.

Noting that the Tory motion centred on health-care access for rejected asylum claimants, Baran said that if the federal government does not address the public’s concerns, then the issue could “fester” and lead to a growth in anti-immigration sentiment.

Kalles suggested the motion fits within a Conservative pattern of targeting immigration policies.

Last September, Poilievre called on the Liberal government to scrap the Temporary Foreign Worker program, and to immediately stop issuing new permits under its umbrella, which also drew criticism from immigration experts. 

“When you don’t have answers to other policy issues, you try to distract [the public] by finding somebody to blame,” Kalles said.

Powers argued that the “angst and anxiety people have around Trump is far exceeding some of the more bare-bones populist affordability things that cross political lines,” and that Poilievre needs to expand his game to deal with the more “acute challenges” such as his leadership position and how to deal with the U.S. 

Leichnitz also defined the move as “counterprogramming” to some of the Conservatives’ more recent co-operative work in the House as a way to signal that they are still working on issues that are very animating for the Conservative base.

Despite her criticism of the Conservative rhetoric, Leichnitz highlighted that the findings of the PBO report tie back to the huge backlogs in asylum claims in Canada, and said this is an administrative problem on which the government should be working.

The government has taken significant steps to expedite the process for asylum seekers, said Kalles, adding that the advancement of Bill C-12 should significantly decrease the processing times.

“That’s a concrete solution to this challenge,” he said.

The 2025 budget also indicated that a “co-payment model” will be introduced to the IFHP for supplemental health products or services. 

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, B.C.) said the government is “taking a page from the Conservatives” with the co-payment model, and that framing it “as modest fiscal restraint ignores decades of health policy evidence demonstrating that even small user fees deter access to essential care for low-income and medically vulnerable populations.”

[email protected]

The Hill Times