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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dawn Edlund  Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Caitlin Imrie  Director General, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Michael MacKinnon  Senior Director, Migration Health Policy and Partnerships, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Arshad Saeed  Director, Centralized Medical Admissibility Unit, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)) Liberal Rob Oliphant

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order. It's the 78th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We're here to begin our study regarding medical inadmissibility of immigrants to Canada.

We want to thank the officials from the department today, especially for coming on relatively short notice.

We're going to begin with an opening statement from Ms. Edlund.

I want to let the folks know that in these kinds of meetings, I give the benefit of the doubt to the witnesses to make sure they get to explain a technical point well, so if we start to go a little bit over the time on the questions, it will be because I'm trying to make sure they're given time to get us all the best answers. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'll let you go on forever if you start a question at 6:52 on the clock, but I am giving some leeway on this kind of briefing.

We're going to start with Ms. Edlund's opening remarks. Thank you.

8:45 a.m.

Dawn Edlund Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee today.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, appreciates the committee's decision to undertake this study.

Canada's medical admissibility policies and guidelines play a critical role in the immigration system. As a result of the increasing number of migrants to Canada and the health risks associated with migration, there is an ongoing need to assess the health status of immigrants. This screening identifies health and safety risks and helps reduce impacts on Canada's health and social systems.

As the committee is aware, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, permanent resident applicants and some temporary resident applicants may be refused admission to Canada if they have a health condition that would pose a risk to public health or public safety or would place an excessive demand on health or social services, which are mostly administered by provincial and territorial governments.

Health admissibility is determined through a two-stage process.

First, applicants undergo an immigration medical examination, including any supplementary tests, which are performed by a third party physician designated by IRCC. The department then performs an assessment of the examination's results to reach a decision on whether an individual is medically admissible. The department also notifies provincial and territorial public health authorities of the arrival of individuals who may require ongoing medical surveillance and follow-up for conditions such as inactive or previously treated tuberculosis.

In general, individuals are found to be inadmissible for public health reasons if they have a highly communicable disease that could have a serious impact on other persons living in Canada. Active tuberculosis and untreated syphilis are considered dangerous to the public, for example.

A finding of danger to public safety considers whether a foreign national's health condition could create a danger to the health or safety of persons living in Canada. This may include certain medical health conditions that could result in unpredictable or violent behaviour, such as sociopathic disorders.

In terms of the excessive demand provision, although the specific requirements have changed over time, there has been some form of screening for immigrants to Canada to minimize impacts on health and social services for most of our history. Currently, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, this provision applies to all applicants for permanent residency, with the exception of convention refugees, protected persons, and some members of the family class—for example, spouses, partners, and direct dependents. Excessive demand also applies to some applicants for temporary residency, where these are eligible for provincial or territorial services.

The objective of the provision is to strike a balance between protecting publicly funded health and social services and facilitating immigration to Canada, while also supporting humanitarian and compassionate objectives in Canada's immigration policy.

Excessive demand considerations are determined by a departmental officer, usually referred to as a visa or immigration officer. These officers consider the assessment of an applicant's immigration medical exam by a departmental medical official, as well as projected health or social services needs, the cost of those services in Canada, and the effect on wait-lists.

This entails reviewing the medical diagnosis and prognosis, the required services, the costs for services in the intended jurisdiction of residence, and, in the case of social services or prescription medication, the ability and willingness of the applicant to pay out of pocket. If the individual's anticipated costs are expected to be above the average per capita cost of publicly funded services over five years, which is $33,275 as of January 1, 2017, then the individual may be found inadmissible.

No specific health condition will result in an automatic rejection of an applicant. Each decision is made on an individual basis.

The provision has been found by our courts not to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it does not exclude persons based on a specific health condition. Rather, the decision is made according to an individual's likely demand on Canada's health and social services.

Of the approximately half a million medical exams performed annually by IRCC in recent years, only 900 to 1,000 applicants, or 0.2% of all applicants, received a finding of excessive demand by a medical officer. This includes about 200 to 300 individuals needing special education services.

The health inadmissibility provisions are designed, in part, to reduce impacts on Canada's publicly funded health and social services systems. We recently undertook a cost-benefit analysis, using data from 2014 arrivals.

The conclusion from the cost-benefit analysis was that the excessive demand provision results in avoided costs for provincial-territorial health and social services on the order of $135 million over five years, for each year of decision. That amount represents 0.1% of all the provincial and territorial health spending in 2015.

As you may know, IRCC has undertaken a fundamental review of the excessive demand provision. As part of this review, we launched consultations with provinces and territories in October 2016. Departmental officials also engaged stakeholders, including disability advocates.

The results of these discussions, together with consideration of public perspectives, judicial decisions, media reports, and internal departmental analyses, will inform the development of options to be presented for decision by the government.

As Minister Hussen recently stated at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of his counterparts, “...with the cooperation of the provinces and territories, I'm pretty confident that we will arrive at a place where we can both live up to the need to protect our health and social services from excessive costs, while also treating people fairly and including individuals with disabilities.”

In summary, I will say that IRCC's medical screening program takes a risk-based approach that balances the facilitation of immigration with the protection of federal, provincial and territorial health and social services.

Once again, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada appreciates that the committee has chosen to undertake a study of the immigration medical screening policy.

Thank you very much.

We look forward to answering your questions.

8:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you very much, Ms. Edlund.

We'll begin with Mr. Tabbara.

8:50 a.m.

Liberal

Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

On my first question, I'll let either of you choose.

If the family is a group of five, and the group of five has applied to come to Canada, but one individual within the family is deemed medically inadmissible, does the whole family get rejected in that application? Are they considered as one unit?

8:55 a.m.

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Dawn Edlund

It doesn't necessarily lead to a rejection, but yes, generally if one member of a family is inadmissible for whatever reason—criminality, security, medical, whatever—then the entire family unit would be considered to be inadmissible to Canada.

In the situation of medical inadmissibility, there are other avenues. Individuals can have their cases accepted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, for example, or be provided with a temporary resident permit.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

Can you tell us how many permanent resident and temporary resident visa applications have been deemed medically inadmissible to Canada in the past five years? I'm not sure if you have these figures on you. If you don't, can you table them for the committee?

8:55 a.m.

Caitlin Imrie Director General, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

We will follow up with the full data, but I have brought some figures to this committee.

For the year 2014 we had a medical recommendation of excessive demand of 930; in 2015, it was 713; in 2016, it was 1,101. Generally speaking, we say it's between roughly 900 and 1,000 in any given year, which represents 0.2% of all applications.

Remember that those are findings of medical inadmissibility, but there is a process after that point. There is a procedural fairness process, and there is a review by a visa officer, so the number of rejected applications will be significantly lower.

We will follow up with those statistics. I have a breakdown by category if you would like that.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

Yes, sure.

8:55 a.m.

Director General, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Caitlin Imrie

In 2014, just using that year as an example, for federal skilled workers, we had 114; Quebec skilled workers, 62; live-in caregivers, 150; provincial nominees, 101; parents and grandparents, 238; other family class, 6; students, 41; foreign workers, 36; temporary residents, 52; humanitarian and compassionate, 51; and unspecified, 64. Then there were roughly 50 who reapplied in other categories. That's the breakdown of that 930. Again, those were medical recommendations and not actual refusals, and we'll follow up with the full details.

Thank you.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

Is there a specific health condition that results in an automatic rejection?

8:55 a.m.

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Dawn Edlund

No, there is not. The health conditions are identified during the immigration medical examination process and then that is assessed by departmental medical officers to see whether or not that condition represents a danger to public health, public safety, or the excessive demand provision. There is no condition that will automatically cause them to be found inadmissible.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

The government wants to maintain a balance between welcoming new members into society and protecting our publicly funded health care and social services. We need to try to strike a balance with that, and also understand when a family does apply to come to Canada that we remain compassionate toward the whole family, because one member might need some health care, but many other members of the family can be very productive in our Canadian society.

Can you elaborate on the assessment that goes to determine medical inadmissibility?

October 24th, 2017 / 8:55 a.m.

Michael MacKinnon Senior Director, Migration Health Policy and Partnerships, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Yes, we can provide additional details in that area.

To be clear, the assessment does not do a cost-benefit analysis on an individual basis. It is an assessment based on the results of the medical examination and supplementary testing, from which a medical officer assesses the severity of the illness and the degree of service that would be required to treat it, which then forms the initial medical recommendations that are given to a visa officer.

At that point, however, as part of a procedural fairness step, individuals are able to prepare a mitigation plan to identify if they are able to offset the costs that are related to things that can be paid for here in Canada.

In other words, under the Canada Health Act, if individuals cannot pay for medically necessary treatment, individuals who are applying to come to Canada can say that they would be able to offset the costs of prescription drugs or of other social services that can be provided through the market. To the degree possible, this is a way of identifying their ability to make a contribution to offset those costs.

Other countries have considered approaches that use something more resembling a cost-benefit analysis—specifically, Australia—but they found that it was unworkable because it involved too many unsupportable assumptions as to what an individual's employment trajectory or income would be over the years following their arrival, so they abandoned this approach.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

9 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

You have 30 seconds.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

I read somewhere that the U.K. and the United States have a higher threshold than our $33,000 for five years. Is that correct? Can this threshold be increased?

9 a.m.

Senior Director, Migration Health Policy and Partnerships, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Michael MacKinnon

The U.K. and the United States have differing approaches, actually. Certainly in the United States it's difficult to argue that it's going to be a burden on publicly funded services, unless it's individuals who are very low income and who will be on Medicaid. In both of those cases that is left more to the equivalent of our visa officer's discretion and is done on a case-by-case assessment.

As for Australia and New Zealand, we do these comparisons with these large, immigrant-receiving countries that are like us. They also have a threshold-based approach, and the dollar values of their thresholds are remarkably similar to ours after you consider exchange rates.

9 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel is next.

9 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned, Ms. Edlund, in your opening remarks that you were preparing options for the government in terms of changes to this policy. Could you provide the committee with some details on what some of the potential options would be, and when you are planning to present them to the government?

9 a.m.

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Dawn Edlund

It's a bit difficult to answer that question as officials, because of course we provide our policy advice, options, and analysis to the government. When Minister Hussen appears before the committee later on during this study, he will be able to provide more details.

That said, I quoted Minister Hussen in my opening remarks. It's pretty clear from things that he said in the media and the guidance he's given us that he wants to strike that balance between excessive cost and making sure that continues to be part of the package, but also looking at fairness and equity for applicants and treating people reasonably, making sure that individuals....

He said publicly as well that the current provisions seem to be out of step with societal mores in terms of how we deal with individuals with disabilities and the contributions they can make. That will be part of our package.

9 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Sure.

You mentioned that the options you're preparing for the government were based on an aggregation of feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders. In terms of Minister Hussen's comments regarding a lack of fairness or a need to strike a balance, what feedback came forward from those consultations in terms of specific points that would suggest there isn't fairness right now?

9 a.m.

Senior Director, Migration Health Policy and Partnerships, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Michael MacKinnon

Mr. Chair, to answer that question we received feedback from a wide range of stakeholder groups. We also considered other activities that the department was undertaking in terms of its outreach and contact with Canadians. In terms of the identification of concerns about a lack of fairness, disability advocacy groups were quite vocal in this area.

9 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

What were their concerns?

9 a.m.

Senior Director, Migration Health Policy and Partnerships, Migration Health Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Michael MacKinnon

Disability advocacy groups see this as being discriminatory against individuals with disabilities, despite that being the position that is—

9 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Just due to time, I'm sorry for interrupting you. It's just the nature of the beast.

Have there been any court rulings to date that have suggested that our current policy is discriminatory?