Question for Canadian DUers re: medical admissability for Canadian residency

[WildEyedLiberal]

I am currently enrolled in a graduate program in the US, but I've been accepted into a dual degree program with a Canadian university, where I will complete two years at my university here, and two years at the Canadian university. I saw a thread in GD yesterday about Canadian medical restrictions on immigration, and some people were saying that no one with "pre-existing conditions" is permitted to emigrate to Canada? Is that true?? I have a "pre-existing condition." I understand that there are probably fairly strict requirements for contagious diseases, such as tuberculosis or HIV, but is the prohibition across the board and applicable to people who have, for example, a heart defect, or back problems which have required surgery?

This was the first I'd heard of any of this, and while my condition is not one that requires frequent care, it's still something I'm not worried would make me ineligible to move to Canada. Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks in advance.

[CHIMO]

1. Can't give

Specific information.

But your best track would be to inquire with the provincial requirements.

For example I found this.

http://secure.vec.bc.ca/health-care-canada.cfm

[iverglas]

2. beware

the ignorant and/or malevolent morons who attempt to use Canada to justify their own racist positions on US immigration policy.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2001-c-27/latest/sc-2001-c-27.html

Health grounds

38. (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition

(a) is likely to be a danger to public health;

(b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or

(c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.

I doubt you'd find much different in any country that is a comparable immigrant destination.

"Pre-existing condition" is a term that belongs to the US "healthcare" system, not the Canadian immigration system.

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. Yeah, that is the language I found on the official Canadian govt website

I thought "pre-exiting condition" was probably a too-broad US terminology, but I was hoping for some clarification as to what constitutes an "excessive demand on health services." I would assume that only pertains to conditions that require constant or round-the-clock care, but as I am not Canadian, I don't know. Thank you for your clarification.

[iverglas]

4. more

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush last night, and I am so sick of the bullshit game that is played at this site. I hadn't been around here in months and months, dropped in to visit last month, and found it well underway in threads on LBN about US immigration policy. Well look what Caaaanada does. Malevolent right-wing crap.

I practised immigration law for many years, but that was many years ago now. These days my work still brings me into regular contact with it, but not as comprehensively as when I was in practice. So I'm best to direct you to resources rather than use my own words.

The Immigration Manual is the instructions that officers are given.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/index.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op12-eng.pdf

4. Does the applicant require a medical examination?
• 4. Determine whether the applicant must undergo a medical examination, as required by R30. Foreign students must meet the same medical requirements as those that apply to all temporary residents. For more information, please consult IR3 or the FW Manual.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ir/ir03-eng.pdf

M3 Has a condition for which the potential demand on health or social services is not sufficient to exclude admission under A38(1)(c).

M5 Has a condition that might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services to such an extent that the applicant is inadmissible under A38(1)(c).

In the olden days, I fought a case of a father refused under the "excessive demand" category relating to a heart condition. In those days, the Health Canada manual where all the assessment criteria were laid out wasn't published for public consumption, but I got a copy from an officer at Health Canada headquarters and pored over it, and determined that the father had been improperly evaluated. His codes under the various headings did not add up to an inadmissible rating. However, the law was that we could not challenge the opinion of Health Canada in medical matters. What I was doing, though, wasn't challenging their medical opinion, I was challenging how they had done the math to apply the medical opinion.

I carefully photocopied and bound copies of the relevant parts of the manual, and took it to the appeal hearing with me. The three-person panel was agog with wonderment. They had never seen the manual before. So I walked them slowly through it, trying to be sure they followed me at every step. If he was assessed "X" under this heading, and "Y" under this heading, he came out as M3, not M5 (see pages 13-14 in the above manual). They seemed to be listening in rapt attention and nodding that they were following as I went along. I got the decision some weeks later, and it contained no reference to the Immigration Manual or anything I had said about it. They denied the appeal. I used to wonder why I bothered getting out of bed some days.

I had a phone conversation with the head of immigration health services at Health Canada one day, a woman widely regarded as a dragon lady. The media had asked me to comment on the policy on HIV-positive applicants -- which was that being HIV positive did not make an applicant inadmissible (I think this was more from the "public safety" standpoint). This was in the mid-late 1980s when the subject was first having to be addressed. I wanted to get the info from the horse's mouth before commenting. She got quite vehement; I think she'd had a lot of calls and thought I was one more in need of educating. HIV was present in Canada, people already in Canada or coming to Canada could contract HIV right here, and there was no basis for excluding people with HIV.

I won another case when Immigration refused to process a client because he had a condition that required a surgery. A provincial health official testified that this was an unnoticeable drop in the bucket of health care.

So anyway. War stories. I think the actual medical admissibility ratings are probably still in a Health Canada manual rather than an Immigration manual. And I'm not finding it. Maybe they still don't publish it. ;)

But you can see how "Has a condition that might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services" does not equate to "pre-existing condition".

If someone has a condition that is not going to need major surgery during their stay in Canada or put any other kind of excessive demand on the health system here, they are not inadmissible.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. This is very helpful - thank you

My specific condition likely will require a surgery at some point in my life, and it is not a condition that is likely to ever be "resolved" in the sense that I will never have to see a specialist, so from your personal anecdotes, it looks like it could go either way. Of course I realize that the rules and regulations may have changed now, and made it easier for people with conditions that simply require surgery to be admitted. To be honest, if I get a job in Canada after my degree is completed, I would be interested in considering permanent residency. But this issue complicates things. Nevertheless, you've shed some light on the system, so thank you.

[iverglas]

6. for student status

I can't see your situation affecting your application at all. Just my opinion, but I wouldn't worry! For permanent resident status later, well, one option would be to have the surgery at home before applying, but again, a condition that "will require a surgery at some point in my life" is something that most people end up with some day. ;)