With terms like 鈥渂ogus refugees鈥� and 鈥渜ueue jumpers,鈥� our national conversation about refugees has become noticeably negative.
Nowhere is this more apparent than on the issue of refugee health care, where last year the federal government made drastic cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program. This program had provided critical access to medication, diagnostic services and vision and dental care for refugee claimants awaiting approval to settle in Canada.
There has been significant public pressure on the government to rescind these cuts, and rallies were held on Monday in 19 cities across Canada, including here in Victoria. The event brought together local doctors, nurses, midwives, lawyers and human-rights groups.
Gagan Leekha, who co-ordinated the Victoria Day of Action, says: 鈥淚t is unprecedented for this group of people to come together on an issue publicly like this.鈥�
The government has given three reasons for their cuts to the IFHP: cost, equity and deterrence. Yet if we dig a little deeper into each of these rationales, we see not only faulty logic, but also a troubling recasting of how Canada views and welcomes refugees.
First, the federal government anticipates a cost savings of $100 million over the next five years. But by cutting the IFHP鈥檚 preventive health-care coverage, costs will likely increase due to expensive emergency room visits down the road.
鈥淭heir rationale is to save money in the short term,鈥� says Ken Agar-Newman, a board member of the Victoria Coalition for Survivors of Torture, 鈥渨ithout cognizance of the enormous costs to refugee health and the larger financial burden to the provincial health authorities in the long term.鈥�
Jean McRae, executive director of the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria, worries about the impact on refugee sponsors.
鈥淢ost groups are made up of volunteers struggling to raise the sponsorship money and this makes it more difficult for them,鈥� she says.
Second, the government argues that these cuts will achieve greater equity because the old system provided refugees with so-called 鈥済old-plated鈥� health-care benefits, far better than what average 91原创s get. Yet the vast majority of 91原创s receive supplemental health-care coverage from their employers, schools or, in the case of people living in low-income social-assistance programs. Would we deny refugees the same health coverage we believe we deserve for ourselves?
The government鈥檚 argument here pits refugees against the 鈥渞est鈥� of 91原创s and implies refugees are somehow freeloaders. It also ignores the particular struggles of refugees who come to Canada with severe health problems as a result of the hardship they faced in their home countries. If anything, we should be raising the bar for health standards in Canada, not racing to the bottom.
Third, the government is hoping to deter those refugees who come to Canada from 鈥渁busing鈥� our generous health-care system. Yet it鈥檚 quite absurd to think that refugees, in the midst of fleeing war, hunger and violence, will be shopping around to find the country with the cushiest social safety net.
The only health coverage that has been maintained for all refugees is for conditions that pose a threat to public health and safety, such as infectious diseases. In doing so, the well-being of 91原创s has been set as a higher priority than the well-being of refugees. Agar-Newman believes the changes will have long-term negative effects on Canada.
鈥淚t destroys our reputation as a safe haven for vulnerable groups,鈥� he says. 鈥淚 feel ashamed.鈥�
Today is World Refugee Day. To mark it, the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society is holding events throughout the week at libraries across the area. We need to continue to create spaces like this where we can promote a positive vision for refugees in Canada and give serious thought to how we are welcoming people to our country.
Brad Wassink is with Citizens for Public Justice, a member-driven, faith-based public policy organization in Ottawa.
