CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 international human rights law. It submits that States parties ought to consider and apply policies and practices that represent a proportionate response to any legitimate aims that might exist with respect to compliance with immigration laws. 7.8 In its legal opinion Amnesty International Canada also argues for admissibility of the complaint. It notes that the author has exhausted domestic remedies as leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied, leaving her with no further domestic recourse available. It recalls that it is only in the context of an absence of specific claimants who can be individually identified as having had their rights violated that a communication amounts to an actio popularis, and therefore inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 7.9 On the merits, Amnesty International Canada submits that the denial of access to necessary health care to irregular migrants amounts to unlawful discrimination, considering that the exclusion of irregular migrants from IFHP constitutes unequal treatment which is not based on reasonable and objective criteria and therefore cannot be justified. It underscores that the Supreme Court of Canada has already found that Canada had a positive obligation under section 15 of the Canadian Charter. In the case of Eldrige v. British Columbia, the Court stated that “the principle that non-discrimination can accrue from a failure to take positive steps to ensure that disadvantaged groups benefit equally from services offered to the general public is widely accepted in the human rights field”. 16 Regarding the alleged violation of the author’s right to life, Amnesty International Canada requests the Committee to recognize that the obligations of Canada under the Covenant require it to take positive measures to protect the right to life. It recalls that the Committee’s jurisprudence has established that, although the Covenant does not contain a self-standing “right to health”, article 6 engages issues of access to health care. 17 It also recalls that the Committee has found that restricting “access to all basic and life-saving services such as food, health, electricity, water and sanitation” is inconsistent with the right to life under article 6.18 State party’s additional observations 8.1 On 30 March 2016, the State party reiterates, as stated in its observations of 14 August 2014 and 2 April 2015, that the communication should be declared inadmissible. 8.2 Responding to the author’s comments on emergency care under provincial legislation, the State party recalls that the administration and delivery of health-care services is the responsibility of each provincial or territorial government, guided by the Canada Health Act. It recalls that provinces and territories fund these services through public health-insurance programmes, with assistance from the Federal Government in the form of fiscal transfers. The State party argues that health-care services include insured primary health care and care in hospitals, and that the provinces and territories also provide some groups with supplementary health benefits not covered by the Health Act such as prescription medicine coverage. 8.3 The State party submits that public health care is administered and funded in Ontario through the Ontario Health Insurance Program. It recalls that the author inquired about her coverage under this programme in June 2009 but was told she did not qualify under the Ontario Health Insurance Act as she was not lawfully a resident of Ontario at the time. Under the Health Insurance Act, individuals must have a citizenship or immigration status that renders them eligible for publicly funded health care. The State party notes that many such types of residents are recognized, including permanent residents, eligible applicants for permanent residency, protected persons and persons with valid work permits issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The State party submits that foreign nationals without legal status in Canada are not eligible for publicly funded health care. 16 17 18 8 See Supreme Court of Canada, Eldrige v. British Columbia (Attorney General), judgment of 9 October 1997, para. 78. See Cabal and Pasini Bertran v. Australia, para. 7.7. See Human Rights Committee, concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Israel (CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4), para. 12.