Based on coverage from The Globe and Mail and CHAT News Today.
Conservatives are set to force a House of Commons debate Tuesday on who should qualify for federally funded health benefits for asylum seekers, and how much coverage should be offered while a claim is being appealed.
At the centre of their motion is the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), a long-running program that covers certain medical services for asylum seekers, refugees, and other protected people in Canada. The Conservatives argue the program has grown too expensive and too generous in areas many Canadians do not get through public coverage.
Conservative motion targets asylum seeker health benefits
The proposed Conservative motion, shared with The Canadian Press, calls for a review of benefits provided to asylum claimants with the goal of finding savings.
It also proposes a major restriction for a specific group: asylum seekers who are appealing a rejected claim would be covered only for emergency, life-saving care.
Another piece of the motion focuses on transparency. Conservatives want an annual report to Parliament on how the program is being used, with special attention on supplementary benefits, which the motion notes generally are not covered for Canadians.
PBO projects rising IFHP costs to 2028
The push comes alongside new cost projections from the parliamentary budget officer (PBO), in a report requested by the House of Commons health committee.
According to the Conservative motion, IFHP costs have more than quadrupled since the 2020 fiscal year, rising from $211 million to $896 million in 2024-25, based on the PBO’s figures.
The PBO projects the program will keep growing, reaching $1.5 billion annually in 2028-29.
What the Interim Federal Health Program covers
The federal government uses the IFHP to fund a range of medical services for eligible people, including routine medical treatment, hospital visits, and lab work.
It also includes supplementary coverage for services such as urgent dental procedures, some vision care, psychological therapy, and prescription drugs. Those add-ons are part of what Conservatives are flagging, since similar services are not consistently covered for Canadians through public plans.
A separate opinion column by Robyn Urback argues it is the right time, socially and economically, to scale back extended health benefits for refugees.
Asylum claim volumes and system backlogs
The PBO report says about 624,000 people were beneficiaries of the IFHP in 2024-25, up from about 200,000 in 2020-21. The PBO says a majority of beneficiaries are asylum claimants.
On the immigration system side, the Immigration and Refugee Board is dealing with about 300,000 pending asylum claims in its inventory.
There are also signs of a recent dip in new claims: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) data show asylum claims fell by about a third in 2025 compared with 2024, dropping from about 190,000 claims to almost 108,000.
Ottawa adds co-pay for dental, drugs
The federal government is already moving to reduce costs inside the program.
Starting May 1, Ottawa will introduce a co-pay for supplementary coverage and prescription drugs. The measure was first announced in the November federal budget as part of IRCC’s plan to find 15 per cent savings over the next three years.
Under the change, a notice published by IRCC says claimants will pay 30 per cent of the cost of services under supplemental coverage, including dental care, vision care, counselling, and assistive medical devices. There will also be a $4 charge for each eligible prescription filled or refilled.
The PBO did not include these co-pay measures in its cost report, citing time and data limitations.
Crime and deportation language added to motion
The Conservative motion also includes a line calling on the government to immediately expel foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes in Canada.
Canada already has laws allowing deportation of foreign nationals and permanent residents convicted of crimes with maximum sentences of 10 years, even if the actual sentence is less than 10 years, and for people sentenced to more than six months in prison. People facing removal under these laws also have access to appeal options.
Tuesday’s motion will put political pressure on the government to defend the current scope of coverage, while signalling that asylum-related health benefits are becoming a sharper line of debate in Parliament as costs and caseloads collide.
Support Independent Canadian News Analysis
The Canada Report is supported by readers like you. If this article helped you understand what’s happening, you can support our work with a one-time tip.
Support The Canada Report
