In Canada, the provision of basic health care for refugees and refugee claimants is regulated by the
Interim Federal Health Programme (
IFHP) before they are covered by provincial or territorial health insurance plans. The IFHP was introduced through an
Order in Council by the federal government in 1957, and has been managed by
Citizenship and Immigration Canada since 1995. Prior to June 2012, the IFHP provided refugees and asylum seekers with basic health care coverage as well as supplemental coverage including access to medication, dentistry, and vision care. Those whose application for refugee status were denied retained coverage until they were deported.
2012 Reform The Canadian government introduced a series of changes in April 2012. As of its date of effect on 30 June 2012, IFHP divides asylum seekers into three categories with differing levels of health coverage depending upon the person's country of origin. There are now three baskets of services: • expanded health care coverage; • health care coverage; and • public health or public safety health care coverage. If the refugee claimant is from a designated country of origin, they will receive "very limited" health coverage. Some of the provinces have stepped in to cover services and medication no longer provided under the IFHP.
Government rationale In defending the changes, the government explained its rationale as being to ensure equality between the health care received by refugees and that afforded to Canadians such that refugees would not receive superior benefits. Former Citizenship and Immigration Minister
Jason Kenney emphasized the generosity of Canadians and Canada's immigration system, stating that the government did "not want to ask Canadians to pay for benefits for protected persons and refugee claimants that are more generous than what they are entitled to themselves." The government also made cost and deterrence arguments in favour of reforming the legislation. These changes were estimated to save $100 million over five years. The government argued that the cuts would deter claimants who are drawn to the country for its health care. The heads of eight major professional associations including nurses, social workers, and physicians signed a letter opposing the cuts, demanding that pre-2012 refugee health provision be restored. These advocates argue that the differential treatment of refugees and refugee applicants depending on their country of origin is discriminatory. Ontario's Health Minister
Deb Matthews called for the changes to be reversed stating that "this policy change will create a class system for health care in Canada."
Legal challenges of right to health The
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not include any express protection of the
right to health, but this right has been protected indirectly by Courts through the use of other provisions, such as the
section 15 equality guarantee. Cousins Section 15(1) provides that:[E]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.The current legal test for a section 15 equality analysis comes from Andrews as affirmed in
R v Kapp. It requires that the court satisfy two conditions: (1) the law creates a distinction based on an analogous or enumerated ground; and (2) the distinction creates a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping.
CDRC and CARL litigation The right to health has been litigated under Charter provisions outside of section 15. Specifically, CARL proposes that both "country of origin" and "immigration status" are discriminatory grounds under section 15(1) of the Charter. The CDRC/CARL challenge to the IFHP reforms is founded on two additional Charter provisions: • the right to life and security of the person under
section 7; and • the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment under
section 12.
Nell Toussaint v. Attorney General Prior to the 2012 reforms, in
Nell Toussaint v Attorney General, Toussaint challenged the constitutionality of the IFHP on the basis of the proposed analogous grounds of disability and citizenship. The Court found neither of these grounds to be applicable to the claimant in question, but made a point of leaving open the question as to whether immigration status could be an analogous ground. If found to be an analogous ground, the applicant's exclusion from IFHP coverage could have been in violation of section 15(1) of the Charter. The
Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in its
intervenor factum, drew a comparison between immigration status and
non-citizens. A number of cases have recognized that non-citizens, which capture many different types of immigration statuses, constitute an analogous ground under section 15(1). For example, in
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, the Court held that citizenship is an analogous ground since it was a personal characteristic "typically not within the control of the individual, and in this sense, is immutable." In
Lavoie v. Canada, the Court held that "non-citizens suffer from political marginalization, stereotyping and historical disadvantage." == Quality of healthcare ==