Kody Blois
Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives credit. They are now talking about actual measures that could support affordability, but I would ask them where they have been for the last number of months and years.”
“Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are challenges across the country. That is exactly why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. It is why we have put in the groceries and essentials rebate. It is why we have doubled down on social programs that matter for everyday Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask why that member votes against the measures that support the good people of Oshawa and the people across this country? As we said in the last answer, we are here fighting for Canadian industry and business. That member has voted against tax cuts for Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, what I find quite remarkable is that in the Conservatives' questions there is never a recognition that the U.S. administration has imposed tariffs on some of our key sectors in this country. We are continuing to make the case to try to remove them.”
“Madam Speaker, we know the challenges for certain sectors in the Canadian economy on aluminum, on steel, on auto and forestry. Our Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade and our ambassador in Washington, Janice Charette, who has been appointed, are engaging with the U.S. administration. The member talked about jobs.”
“I give credit to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health , who have focused quite intensely on the ability to have an economic lens around the decisions of what was formerly called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and also of the CFIA.”
The complete record
Every one of 674 lines we hold for Kody Blois, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 14.
“has put in place and whether it could actually exacerbate the problem as we try to make a case to the U.S. administration that the tariffs it has unjustly imposed on the Canadian industry are counterintuitive not only to the benefit of American communities but also to Canadian communities and to the close integration we have enjoyed. There is no level of nuance from the opposition benches about whether removing that GST would even be compliant. The government of course has said we should boost domestic manufacturing and focus on reworking environmental policy, while at the same time putting incentives to encourage the uptake of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. The hon. member who spoke before me talked about keeping the auto industry in his communities.”
“We should continue to make the case, and we should continue to work through CUSMA and our North American trading partners, to continue to promote an auto industry that has been mutually beneficial for communities in all three countries, frankly, Canada, Mexico and the United States. (1535) Therefore, yes, in that way we agree, but the idea that we are going to have a tit-for-tat auto policy is probably even against the provisions of the existing trade agreement we are in. It is a great idea in principle to remove the GST on Canadian-built vehicles. However, we are going to have something to answer for vis-a-vis the conversation right now with the United States around that: about whether this could be seen as reciprocity in terms of some of the measures the U.S.”
“The way in which the government is using the remission order for companies that are continuing to produce in Canada, signalling future investment and continuing the cross-border collaboration that has existed for quite some time, is that the remission order is functioning, in some way, on the principles of what they are talking about vis-à-vis the 1965 auto pact, which not enough people in this debate today have highlighted. The auto pact was built in an environment where there was no foreign importation of vehicles whatsoever. It was a true closed-loop system. That no longer exists. There are 500,000 foreign-produced vehicles imported into Canada every single year. We can close our eyes and pretend it is 1965. It feels like it was a golden era.”
“Those would certainly be some areas of principle in which I think we could find agreement with the opposition. I want to start by saying that the first pillar is exactly that. It is to boost domestic manufacturing. That is somewhat tied to the strategic response fund. It is $3 billion to incentivize and draw investment into the country. There is a number of tax incentives. Also, what the Conservatives have not mentioned today in debate is the remission order.”
“Assembly is important and that matters, but as the minister highlighted, Linamar, Magna and Martin are three major auto parts producers in the country. There is no mention in the Conservative strategy about what we are doing to support that element of the supply chain, which also has extremely important jobs. I do want to take a moment, and if Canadians at home have not necessarily heard from the government already on this, they deserve to hear exactly what the five pillars are, which the government launched well over a month ago now. The government has actually put in place a Canadian auto strategy, recognizing the moment that we are in, recognizing that we have to both protect Canadian jobs and protect and incentivize the industrial build-out.”
“It has been noted in debate, and it was noted in question period, that the Conservatives seemingly did not do much engagement with unionized labour in this country about their vision and how their plan would connect and support workers, or not support workers. We heard the Minister of Industry during question period talk about how there is deep concern within Unifor and some of the major unionized workforce in the country that the Conservative plan would actually inadvertently impact and hurt workers in what is already a difficult and delicate time. The government is working to be able to address that. I thought one of the most compelling things the Minister of Industry said in question period was that there is nothing in the opposition day motion, or the proposed plan, about the auto parts sector.”
“I believe it employs close to 3,500 workers in Nova Scotia. The supply chain for the auto sector exists all across this country, but it, of course, is heavily concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. I am going to start by highlighting a few things. I was surprised that the opposition took this amount of time to give, to call them compelling would be too generous but, some thoughts on the auto industry. I will point to elements that I think are not bad public policy, and elements that I think are so unrealistic they are not worth the paper they are written on. It is surprising that it took the Conservatives this long to be able to get to this point.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise today to debate the opposition day motion in relation a really important subject, the Canadian auto industry. I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore . As I was saying, I think it is important that we have this conversation. I welcome it, and the government certainly welcomes it, because we have been deeply focused on what comes next and how we can support the workers, industry and communities that are impacted by the auto sector. I know a lot of the debate in the chamber today will be about communities in Ontario, southwestern Ontario in particular, and perhaps communities in Quebec, but the auto industry touches all elements of our country. I think about my own communities in Kings—Hants , where Michelin manufactures component parts of vehicles.”
“If the answer is China, I am curious as to what she would say to farmers in the western provinces about why the government should not have engaged to remove canola tariffs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that the issue of British pensions extends back to far before the time of this government. The Harper government was not able to resolve it. We agree with what she is saying, and we are continuing to push. The member is the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. She is certainly a fair dealer, and I am going to ask this question with the desire of getting an honest answer. The government is doing a lot of work around the world to build relationships. I asked the last colleague this question as well: Is there a country that Canada has either signed a trade arrangement or worked with that the Conservative Party does not agree that we should have?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a critical moment for Canada. We need to create different free trade ties with our partners and other countries. We need to build new relationships. More specifically, this bill seeks to expand the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership by adding another reliable partner. This is good news for exporters in Quebec and across the country, as well as for British investment in businesses and projects here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that it is now important for Canada to have conversations around the world, particularly with governments whose systems and values may differ from ours when it comes to society in general. However, it is now very important to have very strong partners, and China is the world's second-largest economy and largest consumer market. It is important for Quebec exports, for connecting Quebec jobs and for access to markets in general. Also, when we have disagreements, it is important to be at the table and to have this discussion with leaders. It has been nine years since the last meeting between the previous prime minister and the president—”
“Regarding the beef and carcass wash, again, on a technical basis, I would agree with the hon. member. There is no scientific basis for why that should not be accepted. We are pressing, but this is part of the political reality that we have to keep an eye on, including with the European Union.”
“Mr. Speaker, regarding British pensioners, Canada actually indexed Canadians who are living in the United Kingdom with our requisite social safety and our pensions, so we are not unnecessarily having impacts. It is British pensioners in Canada who are not being indexed. There is, of course, a cost to government in the sense that, if this is something that is not addressed, it could be coming out of our treasury to disproportionately pay. It may be a relatively small amount. I assure the hon. member that this is something that is being raised. This is not a matter of political will to raise the issue and to drive it forward. This is a real sticking point. I raise it on the floor of the House of Commons here to be reasonable about what I see as a pathway that we need to continue to work forward.”
“The United Kingdom is a great partner, but there are some small, specific areas that we need to continue to focus on in the days ahead. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.”
“It is something the government is raising. Mr. Speaker, you come from a constituency that has a lot of agriculture, dairy, I believe, in Perth—Wellington . I want to raise the European Union regulations around SPS. This is something that the U.K. is in negotiations on right now with Europe. We ought to keep a close eye on those conversations, because Europe is increasingly narrowing the list of products that are available on critical farm inputs. We will continue as a government to make sure that we are raising that with the European Union, but as it relates to the facilitation of trade, particularly in agriculture and agri-food, that is some work that we can continue to do. We have great market access around the world, but this is the next stage. This bill is not controversial. We should move it forward.”
“There are differing amounts given for what the cost of this would be to the British Treasury, but as the chair of the delegation, I want British pensioners in Canada to know that this is something that was raised. This is something we continue to press the U.K. government on. We understand there are challenges around their Treasury, but we think it ought to be something that all Canadian parliamentarians would support. We index Canadians on their social benefits and their pensions in the United Kingdom, and we think there should be reciprocity. I want colleagues in the House to know that is the position of the government, and it is something that our former minister of trade and our current Minister of International Trade have raised. It is a bit of an inflection point that we are hoping we can see some resolution on.”
“However, I would like to add that, thanks to the work my hon. colleague has done with China, India and other countries, particularly with regard to beef producers, our farmers now have many opportunities. (1335) [ English ] In the time I have remaining, I want to highlight British pensioners and a little around the specifications in Europe. There are about 100,000 British pensioners in Canada. Their pensions have not been indexed, and this is a point of consternation in our bilateral relationship. British pensioners can go to the United States and have a fully indexed pension, but if they go to 50 of the 56 Commonwealth countries, their pensions are not indexed.”
“I will now turn to some of the things that make the relationship difficult. We had conversations with our counterparts last week about rules of origin for the automotive sector. Many of the parts used to manufacture vehicles in the U.K. come from the European market, and the British are frustrated with the most favoured nation principle, which requires them to pay 6.1% tariffs to import auto parts from Canada. However, as my colleague mentioned, we are somewhat frustrated by the lack of access to the beef and pork sectors. We are frustrated because of technical specifications, particularly when it comes to carcass washes, and the fact that our standards do not meet theirs. I understand why the government has raised these issues with regard to access for our farmers and why it wants to continue to raise them.”
“I believe we have the opportunity to advance our partnerships, including in defence and procurement. For instance, I represent the riding of Kings—Hants in Nova Scotia. Halifax has shipyards where military vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy of the future are being built. We also have BAE Systems, which is managed with the United Kingdom. (1330) There are many examples of our military procurement industry sending goods to the United Kingdom. Their system is the same. The governments in London and Ottawa now both want to increase their defence spending, and we have an opportunity to expand this partnership. I am also thinking about tourism. Nova Scotia has the largest Gaelic-speaking population outside of Scotland. Perhaps this could attract people who speak Gaelic or who have family ties here, for example.”
“We have military partnerships with a number of countries, but also with the United Kingdom. Lastly, I believe that Canada and the United Kingdom share the same values. This bill is fairly straightforward, and I believe that it has cross-partisan support in the House of Commons. At the very least, I believe that the two major parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, are going to move this bill forward because, overall, it is not complicated and it does not raise any major issues. It is worth noting that 97% of the free trade in products, goods and services between Canada and the United Kingdom is tariff-free. That said, there are some relatively minor issues, which I would also like to point out. I think it is important for all parliamentarians to reflect on how to advance our other partnerships.”
“We held talks with Prime Minister Starmer and with First Minister Swinney, the head of the Scottish government. The issue we are discussing today is connected to my work, my family ties and my community. Obviously, many people in Kings—Hants trace their heritage to the United Kingdom and Great Britain, which means we have very strong ties with these communities. First, I would like to point out that the Canada-United Kingdom partnership is absolutely amazing. We have the same King and the same parliamentary tradition. Canada's Parliament is directly modelled on the Westminster system, in London. We also have family ties that bind us together. We fought side by side during the First and Second World Wars. We defended and supported Great Britain during these wars and, of course, we continue to work together through NATO.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-13 , that seeks to enable the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a partnership with 11 other countries. I will try to deliver my speech entirely in French. Some of it may be interspersed with English, but we will see. I have family ties with the United Kingdom. My wife has Scottish heritage. I also have family ties with the United Kingdom on both sides of my family, specifically with communities in Scotland. I also chair the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association. Our parliamentary group includes Conservative and Bloc Québécois members as well as senators. Last week, we had the opportunity to attend a meeting with our British counterparts.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government is doing a lot of the work externally. The Prime Minister is seeking to build market access and trading relationships around the world. Is there a country that Canada is seeking to deepen its relationship with and the member opposite disagrees with the direction of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, certainly you can sense my frustration. If there was any unparliamentary word that members heard, I certainly withdraw it and do not mean to offend this House. It is part of the frustration at what I am hearing from the opposition, and I am asking them to be better.”
“Mr. Speaker, why does the member stand up in the House of Commons and talk about rejected asylum claimants? I just explained very clearly to the opposition benches what happens once an individual goes through the two processes for making the administrative claim, the IRB process and the ability for an appeal. Once those are exhausted, they are then a rejected asylum claimant and have no access to what the member just talked about. Why is the member standing up, so uninformed about the process, to jam this out on social media and to gin up his constituents, with no ability to know what the heck he is even talking about? That is a prime example of the Conservative members not even knowing what they are talking about. If a person goes through the process that they are entitled to and is not successful, they do not get the benefit, Mr.”
“This follows what other countries are doing around the world, including G7 countries, in terms of making some adjustments in our policy. Ultimately, this is before the Senate. The upper house is scrutinizing this now, and we will act accordingly when we determine what they choose to come back with.”
“Mr. Speaker, what this government is seeking to do is exactly what I said in my speech, which is to ensure that for vulnerable individuals, Canada continues its compassionate pathway for individuals who want to make their case, but at the same time has measures to ensure that there is an orderly process, that Canadians believe in that process and that there is no abuse in said process. Those provisions are meant to try to address a compassionate country that wants to have entitlements for individuals to make their case but at the same time ensure that individuals who could be trying to abuse the system do not have the ability to do so. I am confident that the House has scrutinized these rules and that it is within the parameters and both compassionate and orderly.”
“colleagues across the way that this is 0.004% of the entire budget of the Government of Canada, and we are talking about legitimate claims that are taking place. When they say that it is rejected asylum claimants, but no rejected asylum claimants in this country are getting benefits, that is dog whistle politics in my mind.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I tried to express during my remarks is that I have no problem with the Conservatives coming forward and saying, for example, that they would like to have a changed process. I have no problem with the Conservative Party coming forward and talking about how we can make sure that we have programs in place to support individuals and how, if there are additional challenges in that process, individuals should not be entitled, but that is not what we were talking about today. The Conservative Party continues to use the claim that a rejected asylum claimant is the reason Canadians, in some cases, may struggle to get access to health care. It is utter BS. I do not agree with that at all. I have explained to the hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why the government introduced changes to the general process for asylum seekers in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 . We have a system in place to ensure that, in general, the process takes less than 40 months. Most asylum seekers, 80%, are accepted at the end of the process. We have a process. We want to create a faster process for determining status. That is precisely the reason for Bills C-2 and C-12.”
“member talks about copay, we have introduced the requirement for individuals to contribute toward supplementary benefits under this program. The last thing that I am going to say is important. We have 10 minutes. We are talking about $800 million out of $486 billion, and we are talking about legitimate—”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague on the other side. I am going to tackle “interim”. Interim is the interim process while someone is going through the asylum process. Once a person registers and seeks an asylum claim, they are entitled to the benefit. The moment they have exhausted any of the administrative processes they are entitled to, the benefit goes away. It is that interim period until there is a determination by the authorities in this country. That is what we are referencing. It has gone from $211 million to $896 million. We take issue with the way in which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has framed up the forward-looking numbers, because of the provisions in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 . We are making adjustments. When the hon.”
“As far as this goes, the government is already taking any actions that reasonably could have been seen from the opposition benches. I just wish we could have a little more serious debate. There is plenty of room for questions, so I look forward to the conversation from my colleagues.”
“Again, we are choosing to spend an entire day on the floor House of Commons to gin people up about individuals who come to Canada on the premise that they are vulnerable individuals coming from war-torn countries and challenging political situations where they cannot go home. We have a program of services that Canadians would be proud of. Individuals are not jumping the line. They do not get access to medical services above and beyond a Canadian. If and when they are able to access the medical services in question, the Government of Canada helps contribute to the cost as part of our international obligations and as part of our humanitarian programs. We have taken measures in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 to make sure that any abuse of that program is reined in. We have introduced copays.”
“If the Conservatives would like to suggest that the process is, in their mind, too fair or too long, then they should just come out and say it, but when they come out and say that rejected asylum claimants should not get the benefit, at the end of the day that is not actually the case. Once an individual, a vulnerable individual who arrives, is fully rejected through the process by which they are entitled to seek and to make their claim, any cases regarding individuals who do not have validity are being challenged. These are the things on which we just have to have better debate on the floor of the House of Commons. I know it is easy for me to say that, but I would invite all members to see that we have to be more thoughtful than this.”
“Why has the budget overall gone from about $200 million to $800 million in the last four years? I will go back to where I started this speech. Look at what is going on in the world. We have a war in eastern Europe. Individuals have fled Ukraine and have sought refuge here. We have war in Sudan. We certainly have war in the Middle East. We have geopolitical conflicts all over the world, so I wonder if we could ask ourselves why there might be a rise in asylum claims when we look at Canada, a country of stability, a country of rule of law, and a country of institutions where people say, “That is a place where I would like to take my family.” Now, people are not entitled to that process illegitimately. Individuals are not just allowed to come to Canada and stay. We have rules, order and process.”
“Conservatives stand up and speak about rejected asylum claimants, but that already happens. Once they go through the process and they have no other recourse, they do not get the benefit. How many more times do we have to say it? Why do the Conservatives not just say, “We do not want individuals to have the benefit when they are halfway through the process”? They might as well just say they do not want an appeal court for individuals who might be convicted. This is the same thing. We have a process in this country through our institutions. It is fair game if they would like to suggest that individuals have only one shot at IRB; that is fine, but let us actually deal with that. They should just say it. Those are important points. That is what I find deeply frustrating about this.”
“The government is already taking measures to address any of the concerns, as I have mentioned, in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 . We are not going to stand idly by if there are individuals arriving in Canada who are trying to use the asylum system, which has been compassionate in Canadian history, and if these are not legitimate claims. We have a way to deal with that. We have a way to try to expedite the work around asylum claims. There has been the hiring of individuals at the IRB to try to speed up these processes and ensure that we are legitimizing the vulnerable individuals who are arriving and seeking refuge in Canada to be able to contribute to our communities as part of our social fabric. At the same time, we are making sure that we have a pathway for individuals to leave the country if their claim is not met.”
“I asked about things such as the clean fuel standard. I said that instead of real, substantive policy, what we get from the Conservative Party is the idea of getting rid of the clean fuel standard, which is driving biofuel policy, which is benefiting rural western Canadian farmers, particularly in the canola sector. They are talking about eliminating Canada's most effective greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to get a negligible benefit on the farm. (1620) That is the quality, or lack thereof in my personal view, of the policy direction we are getting from the Conservative Party of Canada. I want to see better. I will take it, because it is going to continue to provide the Liberal Party and the government an ability to show a real contrast in terms of our differences. This is not thoughtful public policy, in my respectful view.”
“This is the kind of stuff that frustrates Canadians, and rightfully so. By the way, I stand here as a parliamentarian of six-plus years. There is plenty to criticize of any government that sits on this side in a Westminster system. This government is not perfect. I am proud of the work of our Prime Minister and our government, but I am sure there are ample areas where the Conservatives could stand up and talk about issues that perhaps deserve attention. This is not about valid public policy. This is about trying to gin people up at home in a political context, with zero context about what is and what is not true. That is where I see it. I am just going to take a quick tangent that is connected to this. There was a group of farmers in my office today, and we were talking about food security and support for farmers.”
“We heard some responses from the ministers in question period about the idea of gaslighting and the dog whistle stuff. I have belief in my hon. colleagues that there are good members across the way, but this is playing with fire a little. The facetious part is when I hear reference to “rejected asylum claimants”. They should say that “asylum claimants who have appealed within their internal process” should not be entitled. They should just come out and say that, because these individuals are not yet fully rejected. There are not terrorists getting asylum benefits in this country. There are not criminals going through this process who are getting these benefits. Those are the monikers and the names that are used to gin people up at home, because any rightful Canadian would say of course that is BS, but that is not what is happening.”
“That is a bit more damning for Canadians getting health care than 0.004%, which includes legitimate asylum claimants. The Conservatives suggest to us that they do have a compassionate heart for these vulnerable Canadians and that we should continue to support these individuals. We are talking about an even more minute number, and this is what the Conservatives choose to bring before the House of Commons. How about dental care? There are almost 9,000 constituents in Kings—Hants who received the federal dental care program. Conservatives voted against it. I find the premise a bit rich that, as we try to work through the challenges of health care and a larger baby boomer demographic and as provinces are making choices on how they are going to allocate, this is the type of policy being brought forward.”
“At the end of the day, we are talking about 0.0004% of the entire expenditure of the Government of Canada. Part of the opposition day motion reads, “Canadians that have paid into the healthcare system their whole lives are unable to get the healthcare they deserve in part because resources are going to false asylum claimants”. The Conservatives have not made out that we are talking about $211 million four years ago; that number has gone up. The government has taken adjustment measures within its legislative authorities. We are talking about 0.004%. If the Conservatives have a problem with access to health care in this country, why did they not support the government when it put 40 billion dollars' worth of new health care spending over a 10-year period? They voted against it.”
“If they want to suggest there should not be an administrative process where one can appeal one additional time from the initial ruling, then they should just come out and say that. Already, in Canada, any individual who is rejected on their asylum claim is not entitled to this benefit, but we do not hear that from the opposition. We are not going to see that on the 45-second clip that is going to be put out there to say how terrible this is and that the government is trying to deceive people. This is the kind of stuff that is corrosive in our society. The government has already taken measures to introduce copay. That is important. It is not a problem for the Conservatives to raise this in Parliament, but I think it is outrageous that they are using an opposition day motion to do so. This work can be done at committees.”
“It is trying to gin people up at home, and I do not think there is validity to what has been said here today in the House of Commons. I think that is important. (1615) Let us think about the entire augment of every vulnerable individual who arrives on Canadian shores, where we have a process. By the way, if, when they go through that process, they are determined to have not met the threshold, both in the IRB and then afterward in the appeal, they are not entitled. When an individual is truly rejected, i.e., they have no ability for any additional recourse from an administrative process, they are not entitled to additional benefits. The Conservatives need to come clean with that message, because they are talking about rejection halfway through the administrative process.”
“I would point my colleagues on the Conservative benches to provisions in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 , where the government is already taking action on this front to ensure that if there is any undue influence, or this idea that individuals are trying to use the asylum system improperly, we have the safeguards to be able to deal with that situation. The Prime Minister today in question period was very clear that if we look at the number of asylum claims in this country, the amount of temporary foreign workers and the amount of international students, all of those numbers have gone down. Any suggestion that the immigration system in this country is “out of control” or that there is not due process, I think, again, is trying to create a narrative that is not helpful.”
“We have heard a lot from the opposition benches that that is unjust, that the cost overall should not be necessarily borne by the system, but we have not heard a whole lot of statistics backing up what actual percentage of the program is tied to individuals who may be asserting one final ability within their entitlement, their due process, and having access to those benefits. We have put before the floor of the House of Commons changes to this program. We certainly would concur that if there is any concern around abuse of programs, we want to make sure there is no abuse. Of course, people are entitled to a process.”
“There is an ability for someone, once they have their initial hearing before the Immigration Review Board, the IRB, if they are ultimately not successful, to have one more recourse, which is to apply for an additional process to argue, basically, an appeal to the initial ruling. The government's policy for quite a long-standing period of time has been that those benefits would continue to flow for individuals, so long as they are still within their entitlement of that process. Now, people could reasonably make different assertions.”
“There are what are called supplementary benefits, and the government has actually moved to introduce copay contributions. Individuals going through this process have basic medical care. I have heard the idea that they are somehow jumping the line. They are not jumping the line. They have an ability to go, like any one of us as Canadians, to see family physicians. When they see a doctor for whatever ailment they may have while they are going through that process, the cost is recovered by the Government of Canada. That is something the Government of Canada pays to the medical physician in question. That is what individuals are entitled to. The Conservatives are making big hay around rejected applicants.”