Immigration and Refugee Protection Act’s discrimination against persons with disabilities

Effort to stop Immigration and Refugee Protection Act’s discrimination against persons with disabilities reinforced by Chris Mason deportation

The recent deportation of Winnipeg resident Christopher Mason has provided yet another dramatic example of a wrong in Canada’s immigration process that quickly needs to be righted.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sets out a number of criteria that must be met by applicants wishing to immigrate to Canada. In addition, however, Section 38.1(c) of the Act (the ‘excessive demand’ clause) gives an immigration officer the power to reject applicants if the officer estimates that they “might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services” – even if they fulfil the points requirement for economic immigration or qualify under family reunification. Even those who are eligible under provincial nominee programs can be rejected.

This outdated and discredited approach views persons living with disabilities primarily as a drain on the economy and ‘a burden’ to society. It reinforces a negative stereotype that those living with disabilities continue to have to struggle against. It is even likely in this context that world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking would be rejected if applying to immigrate here. Under our immigration system, looking only through the myopic lens of potential lifetime costs to the government, Hawking, who suffers from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), wouldn’t stand a chance of immigrating to Canada.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities says the Immigration Act “continues to discriminate against persons with disabilities and does not meet the equality guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms… perpetuates long held stereotypical views… devalues Canadians with disabilities and does nothing to recognize the contribution persons with disabilities and their families can and do make to Canadian society”.

Section 38.1(c) in the Act has undermined countless otherwise successful immigration applications. Two of these have drawn particular attention because they were taken to court – the Hilewitz case and the Chesters case. David Hilewitz’s immigration application was rejected because his son had a mild learning disability; Angela Chesters, who wanted to move back to Canada with her Canadian husband, because she had multiple sclerosis. Last summer, the experience of the Chapman family from Britain with circumstances somewhat similar to the Hilewitz’s drew some media attention, but most rejections go unreported.

In Chris Mason’s case, the ‘excessive demand’ clause was cited directly by government authorities in rejecting his appeal to stay in Canada (Chris had become paraplegic after moving to Canada to work). Despite his home being here, having a network of friends to support him, and wanting to contribute to Canadian society — whether receiving assistance or not — Chris was deported in January. And, despite my advocacy on his behalf, including a letter appealing directly to the Minister, Chris was sent to England where he was born but has not lived since childhood.

Many Canadians living with disabilities still face barriers to employment and financial security solely because of the misconceptions about their potential to contribute. While each specific circumstance may differ, it is my view that Canadians’ commitment to an inclusive society based on equality obliges us to root out the systemic causes of inequality. I believe the impact on persons with disabilities of the ‘excessive demand’ clause in the Immigration Act clearly shows this clause to be one of these systemic barriers to equality. That is why I have attempted to change this legislation in the past and will continue to do so. Removing this restriction from refugees coming to Canada was the right thing to do and extending equal treatment to other immigrants is long overdue. Regrettably, other families and individuals like Mr. Mason will continue to be singled out for discriminatory treatment in the meantime.

Judy Wasylycia-Leis, MP
Winnipeg North
NDP Critic for Persons with Disabilities

(On January 27th, Judy introduced Bill C-254 to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that the ‘excessive demand’ section would no longer apply to successful applicants under the Provincial Nominee Program.)