Cuts to refugee health care “cruel and unusual”
On July 4, the Federal Court of Canada ruled the government’s cuts to health care coverage for refugee claimants constitute “cruel and unusual” treatment and should be struck down.
The case was brought forward by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Justice for Children and Youth and the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care when the government created a two tiered system for refugees in 2012.
Two years ago, Ottawa trimmed medical benefits for newcomers, leaving most immigrants with basic health care but without supplementals such as vision and dental care. However, rejected refugee claimants, and refugee claimants from countries the government considers safe, would be eligible for care only when they pose a threat to public health.
Government lawyers argued the rules bring health benefits for newcomers in line with what other Canadians receive and deter those who would abuse the health care system. They argued refugee claimants can still access health care through other programs, such as those put in place by some provinces to reinstate access to essential and emergency care.
In her decision, Justice Anne Mactavish wrote: “With the 2012 changes to the Interim Federal Health Program, the executive branch of the Canadian government has intentionally set out to make the lives of these disadvantaged individuals 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.”
According to Justice Mactavish, the government has painted a bad picture of refugees: “The limits on refugee health care demean and endanger those from countries the government deems safe. It puts their lives at risk, and perpetuates the stereotypical view that they are cheats, that their refugee claims are ‘bogus,’ and that they have come to Canada to abuse the generosity of Canadians. It undermines their dignity and serves to perpetuate the disadvantage suffered by members of an admittedly vulnerable, poor and disadvantaged group.”
James Clancy, National President of the National Union of Public and General Employees, was pleased with the ruling. “People have come to Canada to seek refuge, and the Conservative government treats them like criminals. Taking away critical health care is ensuring children and families are destined for pain and poverty. It speaks to the true nature of this government that they think this is something Canadians would accept. We don’t, and thankfully, our courts won’t either.”
The government has been given four months to make changes to reinstate health care coverage to pre-2012 levels.
Immigration Minister Chris Alexander has promised to appeal the ruling. He contested the facts of the case, claiming refugees would be receiving better treatment than Canadians receive and suggesting refugee health care costs are too high.
Lorne Waldman, lead counsel on the case and president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers said, “With the decision, the Federal Court has recognized that the government’s cuts to refugee health care violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, without any lawful justification.”