Jenny Kwan
Vancouver East, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table three petitions today. The first petition is signed by electors of Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby and Vancouver Quadra, who brought their petitions to their local MPs but had to ask for my assistance to table this in the House.”
“Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules.”
“They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries.”
“Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes.”
“In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indig…”
“It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province.”
The complete record
Every one of 508 lines we hold for Jenny Kwan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 11.
“The bill is an attack on people who are already vulnerable, such as refugees fleeing violence, migrant workers facing exploitation and families trying to build a life in Canada. These individuals are not statistics. They are members of our communities; they contribute, they work, and they care for others. They deserve a system that treats them with dignity and fairness. The consequences extend beyond individuals. Denying refugee claimants due process puts people at risk of persecution, torture or worse. It also damages Canada's credibility on the world stage. The same UN Human Rights Committee has raised broader concerns about the state of civil liberties in this country, from surveillance to systemic discrimination and barriers faced by marginalized communities. New Democrats believe there is a better way.”
“Even though the amendments from the Senate are significantly pared down from their original form, the Liberals want to reject the Senate amendments to respect the privacy rights of citizens and permanent residents. The Liberals have introduced this at a time when migrants are increasingly being blamed for broader social challenges. We hear claims that migrants are responsible for housing shortages, for pressures on health care and for affordability challenges. I will be very clear: Migrants do not create these crises. These are the result of policy decisions about housing supply, public investment and economic priorities. Blaming migrants does not solve these problems. It distracts from them, and legislation like Bill C-12 risks reinforcing that narrative.”
“The Senate wanted amendments to restore some balance so that measures to block refugee hearings; the arbitrary, retroactive one-year bar; the breach of privacy to share information about applicants; and cabinet's ability to cancel or suspend documents en masse under vaguely defined public interest terms are done away with. Unfortunately, these amendments were voted down by the Senate committee on public safety. In the end, the Senate passed amendments to limit the sharing of personal information from citizens and permanent residents and to make mandatory annual reports on asylum claim processing times, ineligibility data and statistics on post-one-year asylum claims.”
“If there is even the perception that accessing these services could expose their immigration status, people will hesitate. They will delay seeking care. They will avoid reporting exploitation. They will withdraw. That has consequences, not just for those individuals but for our communities. Public systems work best when people can access them safely and without fear. This bill risks undermining that. The Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, after studying the bill, called for the draconian measures in part 5 to part 8 of the bill to be deleted.”
“We have seen exclusion justified; we have seen rights denied, and in hindsight, we have recognized those decisions as wrong. The question before us is simple: Have we learned from that history or are we just repeating it, but this time under different language? Another serious concern is the expansion of information sharing. The government argues that this is to improve coordination, but coordination must not come at the expense of rights. Under this framework, personal information, status, identity and immigration history can be shared more broadly across government systems. While the government says that safeguards will exist, many of these arrangements would depend on agreements that are not transparent. (1215) This creates real risks, because migrants rely on public services, health care, housing and legal supports.”
“Bill C-12 would also grant sweeping powers to the government to cancel immigration documents, potentially affecting an entire group of people. Under the broad and undefined concept of public interest, legislation needs to be precise. It must include clear limits and safeguards, but the bill does not do so. Instead, it would open the door to decisions being made without transparency, without independent oversight and without adequate recourse. This should concern all of us, because when power is concentrated without accountability, mistakes are not just possible, they are inevitable. We do not have to look far to understand the risks. Canada has a history, one we must acknowledge, of making decisions in moments of fear that disproportionately harm marginalized communities.”
“This is exclusion, and this is procedural duress. Frankly, this is a system stacked against the claimant. Who would this actually affect? It could affect a child who once visited Canada with their family, a human rights advocate who came to Canada to speak about conditions in their home country or a survivor of gender-based violence who needed time to process trauma before coming forward. All could be captured by these sweeping exclusions, and it gets worse. These provisions are retroactive. They would apply to people who entered Canada years ago, going back to 2020, who had no way of knowing these rules would one day be used against them. It undermines the very principle of legal certainty. However, that is not all.”
“It has warned that Bill C-12 's new ineligibility provisions would deny refugee claimants adequate procedural safeguards, and it has called on Canada to ensure access to fair and efficient procedures in line with our international obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement. Civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have said the same. There is no evidence that the legitimacy of a refugee claim is linked to how quickly someone files it. The introduction of a one-year bar is particularly troubling. Refugee claimants are expected to navigate a complex legal system, often without legal advice, often in situations of trauma. Under this legislation, they would be told that if they do not act within an arbitrary timeline, they will lose access to a full hearing. This is not fairness.”
“Under this legislation, people would be found ineligible for a full hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, not because their case lacked merit but because of some arbitrary timeline. Instead, they would be pushed into a pre-removal risk assessment process. The government says that it is fine, but the process would deprive individuals of the opportunity for their case to be heard by an independent tribunal. Under the pre-removal risk assessment process, decisions are made by an immigration officer. There is no meaningful right to appeal. Due process is not a luxury. It is a fundamental principle of justice, and the bill would erode that. This is not a concern just raised by me in the House. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already sounded the alarm bell.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House for their grace in allowing me to speak to this important bill today. I rise today with ongoing and deep concerns about Bill C-12 . Behind the language of “efficiency”, “integrity” and “streamlining”, the bill would do something very real and very harmful. It would take rights away from people who are seeking protection, handing more unchecked power to the government and scapegoating newcomers. The intention in the logic behind this legislation is not just flawed, it is dangerous. That is why New Democrats cannot support Bill C-12. Let us begin with the refugee system. Canada has long prided itself on offering people a fair hearing and an opportunity to present their case before an independent decision-maker. However, Bill C-12 would weaken that foundation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the rules and laws are there, and the judges will make those decisions. The problem with Bill C-9 , of course, is that it is so subjective and vague that it allows for law enforcement to interpret it however they want to interpret it. There rests the problem. If we want to bring in precise law, let us do so. Let us not rush this through. Instead of whamming it through and bringing in the guillotine, let us have honest, true debate on the issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a New Democrat, my principles do not change. People change their political colours. We have seen it in the House quite regularly, both Conservatives and an NDP member crossing over to the Liberals. The question that remains for them is this: Do their principles remain intact? Are they true to what they believe in? I believe the comments by the member for Nunavut that I cited in the House. They were valid criticisms of the government. More than ever, we need principled stands, and the New Democrats and I take principled stands on Bill C-9 . I hope those who cross the floor will do so as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality, of course, is that we already have laws in place. The Criminal Code already targets hate and the incitement of hate. What is needed is the government investing in the enforcement of those kinds of activities. What we have seen is the Liberal government cutting budgets for measures that make sure enforcement is in place. We need to make sure that what goes to the courts results in justice for the people. Changing the laws, though, and then further criminalizing people who want to exercise their democratic right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is wrong.”
“It must address real threats like organized white nationalist violence and not cast overly broad nets that risk infringing on fundamental freedoms. That is why, as noted by the member for Nunavut when she wore the NDP banner, “With all the alarm bells going off about this bill, the NDP cannot support it in its current form.” That remains our position. The NDP will not support measures that compromise civil liberties, expand punitive approaches without evidence, or fail to address the root causes of hate. Canadians deserve better. The NDP will remain principled and firm on the issue, and we will oppose Bill C-9 .”
“Let me be very clear: There is no credible evidence, none, that longer sentences deter hate crimes. What reduces crime is prevention, stability and investment in community housing, mental health care, education and opportunity. Evidence-based policy requires us to ask whether these measures would actually reduce harm or simply expand the reach of the criminal justice system in ways that may be counterproductive. I conclude by returning to where I began. New Democrats are committed to fighting hate unequivocally. We believe in protecting communities, confronting extremism and building a more inclusive society, but we also believe in getting this policy right. We believe that legislation must be targeted, evidence-based and consistent with the charter.”
“The member for Nunavut is correct to say, “This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.” I should note that Canada is not starting from zero when it comes to addressing hate. As pointed out by the member for Nunavut , “There are existing laws that address hate, [and hate] is already an aggravating factor in sentencing.” In fact, the Criminal Code already contains robust provisions, including offences related to disturbing religious worship, mischief against religious property, criminal harassment, uttering threats and intimidation. What, then, is this bill actually doing? The member for Nunavut rightly pointed out that the bill would increase maximum sentences to five years, 10 years, 14 years and even up to life imprisonment.”
“Let us be honest about what that means in practice. It means police officers deciding in the moment what counts as fear. It means broad discretion. It means inconsistent enforcement. In this country, we know exactly how that story goes. It is indigenous land defenders who are arrested and surveilled. We have seen, historically and recently, how activists have been monitored and movements disrupted by law enforcement. It is racialized communities that are overpoliced. It is activists and protesters who are treated as threats, not because the law says so explicitly but because vague laws are applied unevenly. This is not justice.”
“If legislation creates a chilling effect and if people begin to fear that speaking out could lead to criminal consequences, then we have fundamentally altered the nature of a public discourse. Canada already recognizes that free speech has limits. We recognize that free speech can go too far and cross a line, like when it incites violence against an identifiable group. That threshold exists for a reason. Lowering it, as this bill proposes, risks capturing conduct that should remain protected. We must be cautious not to conflate offensive speech with criminal conduct. New laws in Canada must protect communities without perpetrating or creating new injustices. Bill C-9 would create new criminal offences based on vague and subjective standards, particularly based on the idea of causing fear.”
“Indigenous leaders fighting for their land rights for self-determination and fair treatment is not extremism. Bill C-9 would open the door wide for Canada's institutions to continue to engage in these nefarious operations. How can we be certain that those who dare to oppose the government's Bill C-5 on major projects, which has already trampled on the rights of indigenous people, would not be criminalized under Bill C-9? As the member for Nunavut further noted: New Democrats are concerned with vague language in this bill, because once broad definitions are on the books, they can easily be weaponized against groups. She also noted: On freedom of assembly...any protest that is loud enough or disruptive enough would be seen as meeting this criterion. Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democratic engagement.”
“Just yesterday, the CBC exposed the RCMP's “Native extremism program”, whereby dozens of first nations leaders were put under surveillance by the RCMP and labelled as extremists, based not on credible threats but on a sweeping, intrusive campaign that treated legitimate political advocacy for land rights, self-determination and fair treatment as something to be monitored, controlled and even disrupted, with jaw-dropping intelligence dossiers stuffed with documents, wiretaps, paid informants and covert operatives with code numbers. The operation aimed to divide movements, withdraw funding and interfere with organizing in violation of their right to freedom of association and political expression and privacy. (1750) Let us be very clear. In a democracy, disagreement is not a threat; it is a necessity. Protest is not a crime; it is a right.”
“This bill requires that Canadians trust that the police will know when an action is motivated by hate and when it is not. Could the minister respond by sharing what safeguards protesters will have that ensure that law enforcement does not use these new powers to criminalize protesters? No satisfactory answer was provided by the minister . This is not just theoretical.”
“She continued: Our public discourse must not give us fear that we will be criminalized [but this] bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people. This is a profound critique and one we must take seriously. In fact, at committee, this important question was asked of the minister by the member for Nunavut . She stated: Wet'suwet'en land defenders were criminalized. Nunavut land defenders were on the verge of being criminalized. Why? It was because they were protesting government decisions. She went on to say: In about a week in 2024, between August 29 and September 8, Canadian police killed six first nations people. Racialized people in this country have a similar experience with law enforcement.”
“She stated: The NDP believes the federal government must take comprehensive action to fight the rising tide of hate in Canada. She went on to say: Yes, we need to combat hate, but we do not need to criminalize people speaking up, and we definitely do not need to keep them jailed for longer. I am disappointed that this bill does not address the violent activities of the growing white nationalist movement. The Liberals' failure to include that aspect in this bill leaves racialized communities, indigenous communities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community without the necessary tools to combat the largest source of hatred in Canada. We are in polarizing times, for many reasons. People are either for or against Palestine. They are either for or against Israel.”
“We understand both the urgency of addressing hate and the necessity of protecting civil liberties. Let me be clear. Hate is real. It is rising. It is harming communities across this country: racialized communities, indigenous people and members of the 2SLGBTQ2+IA community. However, the legislation must be precise, effective and just. It must target the actual sources of harm, not cast a wide net that risks criminalizing legitimate expression and dissent. That is why we continue to have serious concerns with the bill before us. In fact, the member for Nunavut , on behalf of the NDP, tabled amendments at committee to try to address some of those concerns, but all of those amendments failed. The NDP position, as articulated by her, remains the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to affirm a central New Democrat principle, which is that we must take real, meaningful action to confront hate in Canada without undermining the fundamental freedoms that define our democracy. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and more than 40 civil society organizations raised a red flag with respect to the language in Bill C-9 . It said that the bill: ...could be used to criminalize peaceful protest and silence unpopular expression. Instead of meaningfully addressing these concerns, the truncated Committee process did very little to improve the bill and actually made the bill worse by removing the Criminal Code’s good-faith religious defense without putting anything adequate in its place. New Democrats could not agree more.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a national housing crisis, the Liberals have quietly pulled funding for the Right Fit program, a program that directly connects wheelchair users with accessible housing. With just days' notice, funding is being cut as of April 1, leaving some of the most vulnerable Canadians, people with disabilities, without support, without housing options and without answers. At a time when accessible housing is already in critically short supply, how can the housing minister justify abandoning wheelchair users in such a cruel manner and cutting the very programs designed to help them find a place to live?”
“Mr. Speaker, after the last atmospheric river and flooding in the Sumas Prairie, the Liberals promised support, but those were just empty words. Last week, there were two atmospheric rivers, but the Liberal government continues to delay action on flood protection in this nationally significant corridor for food production. Ottawa has yet to deliver the millions needed for flood mitigation plans, leaving people, infrastructure and farmland at risk. When will the Prime Minister deliver the funding needed to protect this vital economic corridor?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told a story about living within a lie in Davos and said, “The power of the less power starts with honesty.” Former Liberal cabinet ministers Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy, who have been honest about Canada's complicity in the killing of civilians, have come out publicly in support of Bill C-233 . They said that Parliament now faces a clear choice to maintain an outdated exemption that undermines Canada's credibility or adopt a modern principled statement that reflects our commitments and responsibilities. Will the Prime Minister be honest with reality and vote yes to Bill C-233 ?”
“New Democrats oppose these attacks and call on the Prime Minister to condemn them, end any complicity through arms exports and make it clear that Canada will not participate in this war.”
“Mr. Speaker, the NDP strongly condemns the U.S. and Israeli bombardment of Iran and the devastating impacts on civilians, including the deaths of children at school. This marks a dangerous and reckless escalation that risks plunging the entire region into catastrophic conflict, which will have global consequences, and there is no end game. Make no mistake, the oppressive regime in Iran, with its human rights abuses and repression of its own people, is appalling. This includes reports of tens of thousands of killings during recent protests. The Iranian people deserve democracy, peace and justice, and the future of Iran must be decided by Iranians themselves, but military strikes are not the answer. International law is clear under article 51 of the UN charter and under the International Court of Justice.”
“There have been credible reports indicating that Canadian arms have been used in various conflicts, including in Gaza, Israel, Sudan, Yemen and so on, killing civilians, which is in violation of international humanitarian law. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to enact legislation to close the existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the United States, strengthening oversight and ensuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from the residents of Victoria. They asked me to table this petition because the MP for Victoria would not do so. The petitioners note that Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019 and that the promise was made to Canadians that Canadian arms, components and weaponry would not be used in human rights violations and against humanity. However, they note there is a significant loophole, in that exports to the United States do not require any permitting. In fact, the vast majority of the exports to the U.S. do not require any permitting and therefore do not require risk assessments.”
“They reminded us that Canada played a leadership role in building global arms control norms, from the Ottawa Treaty to the Arms Trade Treaty. The exemption shields the majority of our transfers from scrutiny and undermines that legacy. They were clear: The issue is not whether we trust the United States but whether Canada exercises its own sovereignty and responsibility to assess the risk that Canadian-origin arms could contribute to serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws. (1150) I urge all members to look at the facts and vote in support of Bill C-233 .”
“Without a Canadian permit requirement, Canadian-origin components can enter the U.S. system and be transferred onward without Canada ever conducting its own risk assessment. We have seen this concern in reporting by CBC News, which documented that Canadian-origin military goods moved through the United States and onward to Israel during a period when the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Canada was not exporting arms to Israel. This example underscores the oversight gap that Bill C-233 is designed to address. Former Liberal cabinet ministers Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy recently argued in a Globe and Mail op-ed that Canada's credibility as a champion of the rules-based international order depends on aligning practice with principle.”
“That means no individual risk assessments and no comprehensive reporting. Annual reports tabled since the 1990s do not capture the majority of U.S.-bound transfers because those exports are exempt from permits. A reporting framework cannot be considered complete when most of the exports fall outside of its scope. We are told that the U.S. exemption is not a loophole and that it reflects a long-standing bilateral defence relationship. That may be true, but its practical effect is that most conventional weapons exports to the United States proceed without permit, without assessment and without detailed transparency. This is, by definition, a regulatory gap. Canada and the United States do not apply identical risk thresholds. The United States may authorize transfers to end-users that Canada would deny directly.”
“Military assistance to Ukraine is transferred through Department of National Defence mechanisms, not through the commercial export permitting processes that Bill C-233 would address. This legislation would concern commercial exports primarily to the United States. It would not impede direct government-to-government military aid. In fact, ensuring that Canadian-origin components are assessed before entering the U.S. supply chain reduces the risk of diversion to high-risk end-users. That objective is entirely consistent with NATO's collective security framework. There is also the claim that Canada already exceeds the ATT requirements. Yes, Canada applies vigorous human rights criteria when issuing permits. That is not in dispute. The structural issue is that most conventional arms exports to the United States require no permit at all.”
“Conflating the two is simply misleading. Other state parties to the Arms Trade Treaty manage highly integrated defence supply chains while still applying oversight mechanisms, including open and general licences where appropriate, and the United States is part of that regime. Administrative efficiency and legal compliance are not mutually exclusive. We have also heard that this bill would weaken Canada's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and delay support to Ukraine. Nearly all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are state parties through the Arms Trade Treaty. Aligning Canada's export controls with our treaty obligations would strengthen our credibility within the alliance.”
“Madam Speaker, let me begin by addressing the central claim we have heard repeatedly, which is that Bill C-233 would somehow decimate Canada's defence industry and disrupt integrated supply chains. That assertion is simply incorrect. Bill C-233 would not prohibit exports. It would not restrict production. It would not alter the list of controlled goods. It would standardize permit requirements for items already listed under group 2 of Canada's export control list by applying to U.S.-bound exports the same permit review that already applies to exports to every other destination. Canada already administers a global export permitting system. Extending permit review to U.S.-bound exports would not create a new regulatory regime. It would remove a destination-based exemption. Regulatory oversight is not prohibition.”
“Petitioners further note that this loophole undermines Canada's international commitments, risking making Canada complicit in human rights abuses abroad, and allows Canadian arms to be used in conflicts against civilians. They also note that international bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council and independent UN experts, have called on all states to hold arms transfers where there is a substantial risk of their use in violations of international humanitarian law. The petitioners therefore are calling on the House of Commons to enact legislation to close the existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the United States, strengthening oversight and ensuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table an e-petition signed by more than 3,300 Canadians who have joined the call to support Bill C-233 . The petitioners say that whereas Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, committing to prevent the transfer of arms where there is a substantial risk they could be used in human rights abuses, war crimes or crimes against humanity, a significant loophole in Canada's export laws currently allows Canadian-made weapons, parts and components to be exported to the United States, from where they may be transferred to third countries engaged in armed conflict or with records of grave human rights violations.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are preying on the most vulnerable for their own political gain, and frankly it will escalate anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiments in the broader community. That does not do anybody any good, so I call on the Conservatives to do the right thing: Stop the rhetoric and stop trying to gain with their fearmongering on the backs of refugees and migrants.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. What the government must do to address the situation we are faced with right now, which is a problem caused by the government's inaction, is to ensure that there are adequate resources to process the applications in the system. When the Liberals do not, they create a huge backlog, and that has implications and ramifications. Quebec, for example, is in fact faced with a situation where health services are being impacted because there is a huge backlog. The government must be fair and just. Quebec and all provinces deserve equitable treatment. They deserve support from the federal government in support of immigration and for refugees so people can access health care when they need it, and at the same time, have applications processed in an expeditious manner.”
“Mr. Speaker, I actually know the motion very well, as well as the intentions behind the Conservatives. Let us be clear: What they are also talking about is denying access to care for people who are under an appeal provision. In Canada, there is a thing called due process. By the way, the federal court and the Harper government already did this. The Harper government took away interim health care provisions for supplementary benefits for refugees, and the courts ruled this to be unconstitutional. Apparently the Conservatives have not learned their lesson, because here we are talking about the same thing with the same old approach again. What the NDP fights for is head-to-toe care for every single person in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well, in terms of refugee status, what the requirements and eligibility rules are. Those would apply to the individuals who are applying. That determination should be made independently and not by politicians. It is made at the IRB. The government should be properly funding the IRB so it can process the claims accordingly, instead of creating a huge backlog like the one we are faced with right now that, as a result, is having an impact on the interim federal health policy. That is what the government should do, and the member knows it.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1310) 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.”