Evidence of meeting #78 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was services.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm going to caution the member to make sure we stay within the scope of this study.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I was laying out my logic specifically for that reason, because we're looking at overall costs.
Going back to my previous line of questioning around the demand on wait times, has it always been applied only to surgical or acute conditions? Has there been any thought of looking at the definition of potential wait times? For mental health services or other chronic medical support, we know there are long wait times. Has there been any discussion in your consultation around expanding or reducing the definition for the burden on wait times?
10:40 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's getting into the policy discussion angle again, but if there were to be such a discussion, and recommendations or decisions were made, we would need to be amending the regulations. Our wait times are only in relation to mortality and morbidity. A mental health issue and a mental health wait time isn't one that's going to run into that mortality and morbidity issue.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
If somebody presented with significant mental health support requirements, right now that wouldn't be considered in the medical inadmissibility determination.
10:40 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It wouldn't be considered in relation to the wait time.
10:40 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
In terms of the cost, if it's a mental health issue that causes someone to be violent, for example, then that would come into the public danger angle.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Great.
Larry or Bob, did you have any other questions?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
What occurs when new information is brought forward by an applicant? What mechanisms are in place to reopen an application if it's been denied based on a medical opinion? Is there a way to reassess it?
10:40 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
You mean if the case has actually been refused?
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Yes, or it could be that the medical officer originally ruled that it passed the $33,000 threshold and somebody now has new evidence. For example, if they're going through chemo or cancer treatment and now they're past that, or perhaps they're on a spectrum of autism and it's now managed better and they don't need these services as much, what would be the procedure?
10:40 a.m.
Director, Centralized Medical Admissibility Unit, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
An application is sent to the medical officer by the visa officer, and we look at the validity of that information. If the treatment required for that person is completed and it is no longer going to exceed the cost threshold for the next five years, they can be admissible. An example would be somebody with hepatitis C. The treatment for that is very expansive, about $70,000 to $80,000, but it only lasts 12 weeks, and they're deemed cured after that. They can submit documentary evidence that they have gone through that treatment in their country and provide lab reports to confirm it. We can then send our new opinion back to the visa officer.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I know of a situation of a child who required some special needs for schooling, and the father said he would pay for private schooling that offered those services. This is something I believe he was refused on. Is there a bond requirement when somebody commits to giving services in Canada, or is it just the ability to show sufficient financial means? What's the requirement when somebody offers to mitigate the cost to Canada or to just pay the cost himself? Is there a possibility of doing a bond? I don't think there is at this time. Is there any other way for someone to show that they would mitigate the cost to Canada?
10:40 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That would be part of the mitigation plan that the family would put forward. They would say, “We won't access these services, because we will do X, Y, or Z instead.” Our medical officers will look at that and evaluate whether it is a practical plan. If, for example, they said, “We won't access special education services because we won't send our child to school at all”, we would say that is not a plan, in terms of overall Canadian morals, that we would find acceptable.
In terms of the mitigation plans themselves, if that then turns the switch off with regard to the medical inadmissibility concerns, we have no authority to enforce that mitigation plan once someone becomes a permanent resident.
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay. Thank you.
I want to clarify something. On the question of collecting data and providing the data back to the committee for the people who don't qualify based on the amount by which they exceed the acceptable government rate of excessive demand, can we have that number broken down by increments of $500? Rather than getting the information to say that within $50,000 they exceeded this amount and so they don't qualify, could you instead provide the smaller amounts so that we can get a fuller sense of who's being rejected in smaller increments?
I know of one case in which an immigration lawyer came forward to say that her client was rejected because the client exceeded the amount by $400, so I would like to see by how much the people who are being rejected are exceeding the amount.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
That draws our meeting to a close.
As this meeting has progressed, my sense has been that probably for each of you new questions have arisen, questions you didn't have before this briefing.
For each party, if you have a new suggestion for a witness you would like to hear from because of the testimony we've heard today, we will entertain that. There are some issues on which maybe Stats Canada has been referenced here, and we haven't had a witness from there. We've had some provincial nominee issues raised. I think new requests for witnesses based on this testimony would be helpful, because a lot has been raised today.
Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Chair, for that. We appreciate it.
On that score, I think one of the officials mentioned that the minister was going to be coming to this committee on this issue. If that's the case, I wonder if the committee could get the information that we requested prior to the minister's arrival, because it would be useful and helpful to have that information so that we're not tempted to repeat our questions to the minister.
