Immigration Archives

Immigration

November 17, 2017

DISABILITY GROUP TO CALL FOR REPEAL OF DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION IN CANADA'S IMMIGRATION ACT

“Disability is the last major characteristic that remains a barrier to settling and building a life in Canada, and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities believes this provision is outdated and discriminatory and must be removed from the Act,” says John Rae, 1st Vice Chair of the Council. Read more.

March 23, 2012

Immigration and Disability

Canada has removed biases which prevented the immigration of some groups of people; it is now time that Canada removes discrimination on the ground of disability from the decision-making process in the immigration system.   Read more.

April 13, 2011

CCD Dismayed Family with a Disabled Child Ordered Deported

CCD calls upon the Minister of Immigration to allow the Barlagne family to remain in Canada on humanitarian grounds.Canadians with disabilities also call upon all political Parties to commit to an overhaul of Canada's immigration policy to remove the discriminatory practices that put the Barlagne family's immigration to Canada in jeopardy. Canada's immigration policy is based upon a negative and outdated understanding of disability that fails to recognize the contribution that people with disabilities can, and do, make.The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), a human rights organization of people with disabilities, works for an inclusive and accessible Canada.
  Read more.

January 20, 2011

None is Still Too Many: An Historical Exploration of Canadian Immigration Legislation As It Pertains to People with Disabilities

While trumpeting the values of diversity, Canada's current immigration practices exclude immigrants with disabilities who are deemed likely to place an "excessive demand" on health and social services. The ethics of these practices are challenged by Dr. Roy Hanes, Associate Professor of Social Work at Carleton University and a member of the CCD Social Policy Committee, in a paper titled "None is Still Too Many: An Historical Exploration of Canadian Immigration Legislation As It Pertains to People with Disabilities" that outlines the discriminatory trajectory of Canada's policy on immigrants with disabilities, from 1869 up until the 2001 passage of the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act. The paper first appeared in Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, Volume 37 (Number 1 & 2), 2009. Read more.

January 14, 2011

Immigration Video

Marie White and Laurie Beachell explain how Canada’s immigration practices discriminate against people with disabilities and why this is an issue being addressed by CCD. Read more.

May 27, 2010

Immigration and Disability

CCD urges you to undertake a review of the excessive demand clause of the Immigration Act. Canadians with disabilities are insulted by Canada’s immigration law. Our current law belittles our contributions and reinforces the old stereotypes that people with disabilities will be a drain upon our society, not contributors to it. Read more.

February 24, 2010

Disability Group Challenges Canada on 'Excessive Burden': $5,259

In the short term, CCD is calling upon the Minister of Immigration to allow the Barlagne family to remain in Canada on humanitarian grounds.In the long term, CCD is calling upon the government of Canada to overhaul Canada's immigration policy to remove the discriminatory practices that put the Barlagne family's immigration to Canada in jeopardy. Canada's immigration policy is based upon a negative and outdated understanding of disability that fails to recognize the contribution that people with disabilities can, and do, make.
  Read more.

February 23, 2010

Immigration and Disability

February 22, 2010

Covarrubias v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FCA 365 (F.C.A.)

The Court concluded that s. 97(1)(b)(iv) is meant to be broadly interpreted, so that only in rare cases would the onus on the refugee applicant be met. Proof of is required that the country is not unable to furnish medical care that is adequate for the applicant or, in other words, that the country is able to provide medical care, but chooses not to. Read more.

February 22, 2010

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Colaco, 2007 FCA 282

In response to the Colaco decision, Citzenship & Immigration Canada issued Operational Bulletin 063 on September 24, 2008 which states, “It is clear from the [Colaco] judgment that the Court views Hilewitz and de Jong as applying to all categories of immigrants.” As a result, medical officers “must consider all evidence presented by an applicant, before making a decision of inadmissibility due to excessive demand on social services.” Read more.

February 22, 2010

Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1841

The Court found that financial ability does not change entitlement or access to available health care, and this, compounded with the reality that there is no private health care available, results in the conclusion that financial ability to pay for health care is not a salient consideration in granting permanent resident status. Read more.

February 22, 2010

Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 57

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Hilewitz and De Jong families had applied under the “investor” and “self-employed” categories which were to a large extent concerned with an individual’s assets. It found that s. 19(1)(a)(ii) was an assessment of whether an applicant’s health may cause or might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on Canada’s social and health social services. The term "excessive demands" is inherently evaluative and comparative, and shows that medical officers must assess likely demands on social services, not mere eligibility for them. Since, without consideration of an applicant's ability and intention to pay for social services, it is impossible to determine realistically what "demands" will be made, medical officers must take into account both medical and non-medical factors. This requires individualized assessments. Read more.

February 22, 2010

Disability & Immigration Law in the United States of America

The US immigration system is significantly more flexible and open with regards to disability than the Canadian system. Applicants with mental or physical disabilities are only excluded if they are at risk of harmful behavior, pose a threat to either themselves or others or are likely to become a public charge. Because social and medical services are much more privatized, the American system is not as concerned about immigrants creating excessive demand. Read more.

February 22, 2010

Disability & Immigration Law in Australia

The Australian system’s approach to disability is quite similar to the Canadian system. Both exclude applicants who may cause excessive demand on social or health services. The similarities between the systems are largely due to both Australia and Canada offering universal health care and significant social programs for residents. Immigration controls are in place to ensure that these services are not overburdened. The Australian system differs from the Canadian by not automatically exempting children and spouses. Read more.

February 22, 2010

Disability & Immigration Law in the United Kingdom

UK medical examination requirements are much less stringent than Canadian requirements. Unlike in Canada, medical examinations are not required of all visa applicants. Screening for HIV and tuberculosis is also not standard. Waivers are available where an applicant agrees not to rely on publicly-funded medical treatment through the National Health Service. Read more.

August 1, 2008

Immigration and Disability: Stephen Hawking Could Never Become a Canadian

CCD provides an overview and critique of Canada's on-going discrimination against people with disabilities who want to immigrate to Canada. Read more.