There is something fascinating about the national outcry over the Syrian refugee crisis. On the one hand, it can only lead to more welcome assistance to those fleeing the crisis in Syria. But you also have to wonder why now, and not earlier? Why have so many, including our political leaders, largely ignored this issue until this time? Why has one horrific photo served as the tipping point for the public to finally react?There have been other potential tipping points when it comes to refugees. In 2012, for example, the federal Conservatives took the remarkable step of denying health care coverage to people who had come to Canada and claimed refugee status. Although the policy and subsequent court decision striking it down was the source of some media attention and public concern, there was a notable absence of a national outcry.Canada has long prided itself on being a welcoming jurisdiction for those fleeing persecution. Before 2012, those within the refugee system were eligible for federally funded health coverage that was basically equal to the benefits extended to Canadians on social assistance — health services, dental care and prescription drugs were covered. This policy made sense. Most people seeking refuge in Canada are poor and in many cases traumatized and in urgent need of medical care.In an effort to curb rising costs and deter unfounded refugee claimants from taking advantage of Canada's health care system, the Harper cabinet approved radical changes to coverage in the spring of 2012.  Under the new rules, entire categories of claimants, primarily those who had come close to exhausting all routes of appeal or had failed in their attempt to stay permanently in the country, either saw their coverage severely reduced or eliminated entirely. The hope, according to the government, was that these measures would save $100 million over five years.Denying health care to vulnerable individuals inevitably leads to some pretty horrific stories. Saleem Akhtar, a refugee claimant from Pakistan, was diagnosed with cancer soon after he arrived in Saskatchewan. Despite the seriousness of his condition, Ottawa refused to pay for his chemotherapy. Fortunately for Mr. Akhtar, the Government of Saskatchewan stepped in to pay the costs, causing Premier Brad Wall to state: “I don't understand this decision… I think it's very much part of Canadian values and Saskatchewan values to want to make sure that these people, who are obviously very vulnerable, especially if they have a medical issue that they developed either before or after they came here, that we help them.”The Federal Court was even harsher in its analysis. Declaring the denial of health care “cruel and unusual” treatment, the presiding judgeput a particular emphasis on the plight of the children involved in these situations. She noted that even if the refugee claim was fraudulent, the children involved had no responsibility for the deception. As the judge put it, the changes to the rules “potentially jeopardize the health, the safety and indeed the very lives, of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages our standards of decency.”The justice's concluding statement summarizes the situation well. Through these changes, she ruled, the Government of Canada “purposefully targeted a vulnerable, poor, and disadvantaged group, intentionally setting out to make their lives even more difficult than they already are in an effort to force those who have sought the protection of this country to leave Canada more quickly, and to deter others from coming here.”Were the Conservatives chastened by the ruling? Not at all. The Immigration Minister  immediately announced an appeal of the decision and, according to a CBC news report, a number of Conservative MPs bragged about the policy change through so-called surveys sent to their constituents that drew attention to the fact that the federal government was cutting “gold-plated” benefits to refugees.I am not challenging the fact that our refugee system can be abused and that the government has a responsibility to put checks and balances in place to deter fraudulent claimants. But there has to be limits. Is it really appropriate to use the denial of health care as a weapon in combatting fraud? As Premier Wall put it in explaining his decision to pay for Mr. Akhtar's chemotherapy, “this is just common sense… you cover it.”Our country is in the middle of a very important discussion about welcoming those who are seeking refuge in Canada. Many observers have characterized it as a debate over the type of nation that we want. Let's make sure that we place this discussion within the context of the current government's entire record in this regard and not be afraid to question the prime minister's claim, made during a recent a campaign stop, that Canada is “proud to be a world leader — the world leader — in refugee resettlement.”John Milloy is a former Ontario cabinet minister who served as MPP for Kitchener Centre from 2003 to 2014.  Prior to that, he worked on Parliament Hill, including five years in the office of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He is currently the Co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and Assistant Professor of Public Ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural Practitioner in Residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program. John can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on twitter at: @John_Milloy.