THE SITUATION IN BRIEF
The Conservative Party of Canada has tabled a motion today to drastically restrict health care coverage for asylum seekers under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP). Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre released a video yesterday making a series of claims about the program that are factually incorrect or misleading.
Importantly: the Liberal government has already introduced cuts to the same program. Starting May 1, 2026, refugees will be forced to pay out-of-pocket co-payments for medications, dental care, mental health counseling, and vision care. The Conservative motion would go further – stripping nearly all non-emergency coverage entirely.
Both developments require scrutiny.
Click here to sign a petition against cuts to refugee healthcare.
QUOTE
“The people being targeted by these cuts survived war, torture, and persecution. They came to Canada because we told the world we were a country that offered refuge. Now both political parties are competing to see who can take more away from them – and they are doing it by lying to Canadians. The IFHP is not out of control. Refugees are not the reason you can’t find a family doctor and stripping sick people of basic medications will not reduce your wait time by a single day. We are asking Canadians: don’t let politicians use vulnerable people as a punching bag to score points. Learn the facts. Reject the division. Speak up for refugee healthcare.” – Syed Hussan, Spokesperson, Migrant Rights Network
CLAIM-BY-CLAIM FACT CHECK
(1) CLAIM: “Cutting refugee health care saves money”
VERDICT: False — Liberal co-payments policy shift costs to the most expensive part of the system
The government still covers 100% of emergency visits. When a refugee cannot afford a $4 insulin prescription and ends up in the ICU for diabetic ketoacidosis, that hospitalization costs an average of $7,826. When untreated hypertension leads to a stroke, costs run into the tens of thousands — all downloaded onto provincial systems.
The evidence is unambiguous: multiple peer-reviewed studies, including a randomized controlled trial that found removing a small $5 co-payment reduced hospitalizations by over 60% for chronic disease patients, confirm that co-payments cause low-income patients to forgo medications and end up in emergency rooms. A Canadian study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis found that during co-payment periods, hospital admissions rose while prescription fills fell. The College of Family Physicians of Canada warns the $4 fee will result in deferred care and worse outcomes. Co-payments do not reduce costs — they move them.
(2) CLAIM: “The IFHP costs over a billion dollars and has grown 1,000%”
VERDICT: Misleading and partly false
The IFHP costs a fraction of what Canadians cost the healthcare system. The IFHP represents approximately 0.2% of Canada’s total health spending of $399 billion. Put another way, Canada spends $9,626 a year on healthcare per Canadian, versus just $1,645 a year per refugee claimant. The “1,000%” growth claim is simply false: costs grew from $211 million in 2020–21 to $896 million in 2024–25 — an increase of approximately 325%, not 1,000%. Costs grew because asylum claim volumes increased and processing backlogs extended the amount of time claimants had to wait for a decision on their case – not because benefits expanded. Asylum claim referrals have already dropped over 43% from 2024 to 2025 — from 190,483 to 108,060. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects annual cost growth of the IFHP will slow from 33.7% to 11.2% going forward – without any cuts to coverage.
(3) CLAIM: “The IFHP provides deluxe benefits that Canadians don’t get”
VERDICT: False
IRCC’s own program description states IFHP supplemental coverage is comparable to benefits available to low-income Canadians on provincial social assistance — the same level of dental, vision, and prescription coverage as someone on Ontario Works. The claim that asylum seekers receive better care than Canadians lacks any defined comparator and is contradicted by IRCC’s program design. Canada recently launched a national dental care plan precisely because gaps in supplemental coverage hurt low-income Canadians – the answer to that gap is expanding access, not stripping it from refugees.
(4) CLAIM: “Money is being diverted from Canadian health care to refugees”
VERDICT: False
The IFHP is federally funded and entirely separate from provincial health budgets. Cutting it does not free up a single dollar for family doctors or specialist care. What it does do is shift costs — when refugees forgo preventive care and end up in emergency rooms, those costs download onto the very provincial health systems the Conservatives claim to be protecting.
(5) CLAIM: “6 million Canadians can’t find a family doctor because of asylum seekers”
VERDICT: False – causation not established
The OurCare Survey 2025, conducted by St. Michael’s Hospital in partnership with the Canadian Medical Association, found 5.9 million Canadians lack access to a regular primary care provider – but asylum seekers are not the cause. The Canadian Medical Association has documented a deficit of 22,823 family physicians driven by decades of underfunding and inadequate workforce planning. The IFHP is a separate federal program with no connection to provincial budgets that fund family doctors. Asylum seekers make up less than 1% of Canada’s population. Cutting their health care will not free up a single spot on a patient waitlist.
(6) CLAIM: “It takes 30 weeks for the average Canadian to see a specialist”
VERDICT: Mischaracterized metric
The widely cited figure measures median wait time from GP referral all the way to treatment completion — not time to see a specialist. The most recent data puts this figure at 28.6 weeks for 2025. More importantly, this has no relationship whatsoever to refugee health coverage. The IFHP is federally funded and is entirely separate from provincial health budgets. Cutting it will not reduce wait times by a single day.
(7) CLAIM: “Most asylum claimants are bogus”
VERDICT: False
In 2025, 63% of finalized refugee claims were accepted by Canada’s own legal system. Nearly a third of appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division are granted — meaning the system itself regularly finds that initial rejections were wrong.
(8) CLAIM: “Rejected claimants unfairly continue receiving benefits”
VERDICT: Misleading
Rejected claimants remain covered only while exhausting their legal right to appeal – a right that exists because the system makes errors that require correction, as evidenced by the high number of appeals that are successful. There are currently approximately 300,000 pending claims before the IRB. Both the PBO and IRCC identify this backlog as a primary cost driver. The solution is faster, fairer processing – not stripping health care while people wait increasingly longer to get a decision.
(9) CLAIM: “Asylum seekers have never paid taxes”
VERDICT: False
Asylum seekers have work permits and those that work pay income tax, HST, and payroll deductions – the same as any Canadian worker. All refugee claimants pay HST on every purchase.
(10) ON THE PROVIDER BILLING CLAIM
Some Conservative messaging has claimed providers charge up to five times provincial rates under the IFHP. This claim is disputed in Parliamentary committee testimony – IRCC officials state the IFHP uses fee schedules aligned with provincial rates. Where billing irregularities exist, the appropriate response is targeted audits of those providing care, not punishing the people receiving care.
(11) CUTS WILL COST MORE, NOT LESS
Creating financial barriers to treatment for communicable diseases — including tuberculosis, HIV, and hepatitis — poses risks beyond refugee communities. As the HIV Legal Network and HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario have warned, reduced treatment uptake increases transmission and the likelihood of outbreaks, undermining public health for all Canadians.
(12) THE LEGAL PRECEDENT
In 2012, the Harper government made similar cuts to the IFHP. A peer-reviewed study documented increased emergency room costs as hospitals absorbed care that had been withdrawn. The Federal Court struck the cuts down as “cruel and unusual treatment” — a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The cuts were reversed. The current co-payment policy faces the same constitutional vulnerability.
Prepared by: Migrant Rights Network
Contact: Syed Hussan, hussan@migrantworkersalliance.org, 416-453-3632