Kheiriddin: Poilievre's Trumpian 'complete deportation' gamble
This week, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre released
about the preferential treatment of asylum seekers in Canada. In it, he states that 6 million Canadians can’t get access to a family doctor and specialist wait times average 30 weeks.
Then he drops the kicker: rejected asylum claimants, who have never paid taxes, get free “deluxe supplementary heath care” such as physiotherapy, dental and eyecare that Canadian citizens have to pay for out of pocket.
Poilievre is referring to benefits available under the government’s Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP). It was designed to provide health care to persons fleeing persecution and war zones, such as the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015. Due to a flood of applicants and a massive backlog of claimants in the system — now estimated at 300,000 — the IFHP now costs taxpayers over $1 billion annually, and
to $1.5-billion for 680,000 eligible beneficiaries in 2029-30.
The Parliamentary Budget Office
these numbers two weeks ago. Someone likely noticed a problem earlier, however, because in Budget 2025, the Liberals require that claimants or their sponsors pay 30 per cent of the cost of supplementary care and $4 for drug prescriptions.
But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the actual cost. So on Tuesday, the Conservatives
to curb these abuses.
The motion aims to ensure that asylum seekers whose claims are rejected get only “life saving emergency care.” It would require judges to give full sentences to foreign nationals who commit crimes in Canada (lesser sentences can allow them to avoid deportation) to ensure
of non-citizens.
“Enough is enough,”
“We can’t allow foreign criminals to take advantage of our system.”
Here’s the rub:
Yes, it is unfair that refugees can access benefits unavailable to Canadian citizens. Why should asylum claimants get discount supplemental health care when millions of Canadians are lining up at food banks?
Why should criminals get lower sentences, remain in the country, and get health care on the taxpayer’s dime?
These things are wrong and must be remedied.
But as with most things in politics, communications matters. Timing and framing can decide whether an issue gets resolved or simply serves as an occasion to grandstand. And in the current case, I fear it’s the latter.
Deporting foreign criminals is exactly what U.S. President Donald Trump promised to do during his 2024 election campaign. Since then, the word “deportation” has become a lightening rod, conjuring up images of ICE agents detaining five-year-olds and shooting their own citizens.
You can’t talk about this issue, and use the identical vocabulary, without being linked to the current administration in Washington.
So why is Poilievre using this language? There are two possible answers: one, he and his comms people don’t see it, or two, they do and are making a calculated appeal to MAGA-friendly voters in Canada.
This does a disservice to the very issue they are championing. The Conservatives know they aren’t going to get the changes they are asking for — but they will shore up their base,
are Trump fans.
Why now?
Poilievre’s party may have given him an 87 per cent endorsement at his policy convention, but he just lost another MP — Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) — to the Liberals.
His best frenemy, Durham MP Jamil Jivani, just returned from a White House meet-and-greet with his former law school buddy, Vice-President J.D. Vance, which he
all over social media.
Caucus is grumbling at the prospect of Prime Minister Mark Carney cobbling together a majority, leaving them warming the opposition benches for another three years.
And the Liberals have
in the polls, should they choose to call an early election.
The Conservatives’ concerns about immigration aren’t misplaced. But in the current climate, they’re more rage farm than reform.
Tasha Kheiriddin is Postmedia’s national politics columnist.