A federal program to provide health care for refugees is — once again — sparking a fierce debate.

The Conservatives believe that the costs of the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which provides health care benefits to refugee and asylum claimants living in Canada, should be cut. And the Liberals couldn’t completely disagree — in last fall’s budget they announced plan of For the requirement of claimants cover a portion of some costs.

But conservatives are going much further in both proposed action and rhetoric.

one in social media post Last weekend, he announced his party’s intention Proposal on IFHP Before the House of Commons, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre explained that he wanted to cut “deluxe benefits” for “bogus refugees”. As mentioned in party proposalThe official opposition wants a full review of the program and the federal government to cover only “emergency life-saving health care” for people whose claims are rejected.

The basis of criticism of conservatives is a Recent report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. From 2021 to 2025, the annual cost of IFHP increases from $226 million to $896 million due to the increase in the number of people claiming asylum. Without changes, the PBO estimates that the annual cost of the IFHP could reach $1.5 billion by 2030.

A sixfold increase in the cost of any program may raise questions – even if there are many more programs that cost much more. But during the debate in the House on Tuesday, Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi attack Conservative Party rhetoric and proposals.

“What this proposal would do has nothing to do with the facts or how we might possibly improve a system,” he said. “This is absolutely about dividing Canadians, we are trying to use Trumpian sentiments to bring to our country the level of debate that we are seeing south of the border.”

was a conservative proposal Defeated Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP MPs voted against it Wednesday evening.

The concerns, rhetoric and disagreements expressed are reminiscent of the last time changes were made to the IFHP – an episode that ended with a Federal Court rebuke.

what happened in 2012

Fourteen years earlier, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper had reduced the coverage provided by the IFHP, arguing that “illegal immigrants” and “fraudulent refugee claimants” should not receive “gold-plated health care.” advocate for refugees objected, but did it doctors, medical association And provincial governmentsMany of which established programs to cover those who have lost their federal coverage.

“It’s unbelievable,” said Brad Wall, Saskatchewan’s premier at the time. Said It comes after it emerged the federal government will not cover the cost of chemotherapy for a refugee claimant suffering from lymphoma. “Decisions taken by the union are having an impact on those who are clearly the most vulnerable.”

Ultimately a legal challenge was filed by several parties, including two refugee claimants.

One was an Afghan man whose refugee claim was rejected, but who could not be deported because Afghanistan was not considered a safe country. He suffered from diabetes and lost coverage for insulin. The second was a man whose refugee claim was rejected, but who was seeking permanent residence through his wife. The federal government was refusing to cover the cost of surgery for a detached retina that could result in permanent loss of vision.

Justice Anne Mactavish of the Federal Court Judgment delivered in July 2014 That the changes to the IFHP are “cruel and unusual” treatment by the federal government and thus a violation of section 12 of the Charter – particularly because the changes may affect children who came to Canada with their parents.

“The 2012 amendments to the interim federal health program potentially jeopardize the health, safety, and indeed the lives of these innocent and vulnerable children, which shocks the conscience and offends our standards of decency,” McTavish wrote.

He also took a dig at the Harper government’s argument about “fairness”, countering that the benefits received by refugee claimants were roughly equivalent to the benefits provided to low-income Canadians by provincial health-care plans.

harper government appealed that decisionbut that was the appeal abandoned After Justin Trudeau’s Liberals came into office.

The Conservatives now argue that their proposals do not extend to the 2012 changes and that some of the objections raised by Mactavish would not apply. A full committee study of the IFHP could better explore both the program and proposals to change it (although conservatives have accused the liberals of blocking further investigation).

But the lessons of the earlier debate may still apply: that, beyond rhetoric, policy proposals should be carefully examined for their real impact on the lives and health of vulnerable people.

Does IFHP need to be replaced?

Even before the conservative proposal, there were concerns about liberal changes to the IFHP.

“I know the government has portrayed these policy changes as co-payments, but the reality is that a 30 percent co-payment on a counseling service actually means those services are not available to refugees or refugee claimants,” said Dr. Meb Rasheed, director of the UN Refugee Agency. Crossroads Clinic In Toronto she has seen refugees who have fled war zones or who are victims of torture and who need mental-health services.

Rashid, who was part of organized pushback In 2012 against the Harper government’s changes, it also stated that the cost of basic services is less than the ultimate cost of dealing with untreated diseases.

The phrase “fake refugees” is tossed around without much specificity – a point Liberal MP Doug Eyolfson, a doctor, made The quip was made during the debate on Tuesday.

But on the question of restricting coverage to “rejected” claimants, Rasheed points out that some of those claimants can later receive approval in appeal and eventually become Canadian citizens (it is unclear whether the change proposed by the Conservatives would apply after a first denial or only after someone has exhausted all avenues of appeal).

While the Conservatives have framed their arguments around larger concerns about access to health care in Canada, it might be asked whether refugee claimants – and “failed” claimants, in particular – should be blamed for the breakdown of provincial health systems.

It might not make for splashy social media videos, but, rather than reducing the health care available to people in Canada, would it be more impactful to reduce the number of people who are waiting for a decision on their asylum claims?

As the Conservatives themselves note, the backlog of claimants has grown rapidly. The Carney government is currently proposing change the rules For asylum claimants who were in the country for more than a year.

Much has been made – understandably – about a Significant decline in public support To current immigration policies.

“Under the Liberal government, we have seen a dramatic decline in public support for immigration to Canada,” Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner said in the House on Tuesday.

And that decline has led to an increase in skepticism about those claiming refugee status – a environmental survey last found that most Canadians agreed that “many refugees are not genuine refugees.”

Politicians can choose how to respond to those concerns and how to talk about them. But beyond the rhetoric involved, the 2012 fight was, above all, a reminder that when health care policies are being contested, it is the real lives of real people that may be affected.