Issues & Positions
- Health Care
- Audism
- Captioning and Video Accessibility
- Cochlear Implants
- Deaf Culture vs. Medicalization
- Definition of “Deaf”
- Diversity
- Education
- Employment and Employability
- Human Rights
- Immigration & Medical Admissibility
- Income Tax, Custom Duties & Postage Rules
- International Concerns
- Interpreting
- Language
- Literacy
- Official Languages
- Physician-Assisted Suicide / Physician-Assisted Dying
- Political Participation and Activity
- Seniors
- Social Security and Assistance
- Statistics on Deaf Canadians
- Technology & Technical Issues
- Telecommunications
- Terminology
- Transportation
- Universal Design
- Universal Symbols of Access
- Youth
Immigration & Medical Admissibility
The issue
The Canada Immigration Act requires this country to reject applications for immigration from persons with any “disease, disorder, disability or other health impairment” which may cause them to be “a danger to public health or public safety” or which may reasonably be expected to place “excessive demands on health or social services.”
CAD's position
The provisions of the Canada Immigration Act discriminate against Deaf and disabled people and should be removed.
Deaf people in other countries who apply to immigrate to Canada are often rejected because of their deafness. But deafness is not a “disease, disorder, disability or other health impairment”, it is a cultural identity.
Deafness is not “a danger to public health or public safety”. It is not infectious. Studies have shown Deaf people have a better safety and health record than hearing people in the workplace and while driving.
Deaf people do not wish to come to Canada to exploit our health and social services. Deafness does not require constant attendant care, subsidized medicine, lengthy hospitalization, or similar treatment.
Most Deaf people wish to come here because they have no rights or privileges in their own countries. Many developing countries ban Deaf people from owning property, holding a job, marrying, and attending school. The result is that they have little or no education, poor or no employment, and no financial resources. These facts are often used as excuses to reject their application to immigrate to Canada.
The decision to accept or reject an application is often made by immigration officers who have no awareness of deafness and no ability to communicate effectively with Deaf people. The Deaf person's application is therefore often assessed unfairly solely on the basis of his/her deafness. This is unacceptable.
In February of 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a joint ruling in Hilewitz v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and de Jong v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that essentially upheld the “disability clause” that allows Canada to reject immigration applicants on the grounds that their disability will cause “excessive demands on social services”. This is the same clause that is used to reject Deaf applicants.
Despite the Court’s decision, their argument exposes the self-contradiction and bogus assumptions of the “disability clause”. The dissenting report of Justice Deschamps states, “The question is whether the demands on those services are excessive in relation to the demands generated by other members of Canadian society.” But “other members of Canadian society”, by which they clearly mean non-disabled people, do not use disability services! How can the usage of disability services by non-disabled persons possibly be used as a valid measurement by which to determine “excessive” demand on those services?
If the argument is that “other members of Canadian society” means other disabled Canadians, then again the demand cannot possibly be excessive, because the immigrants would be using the exact same services that are being used by Canadians that have the same disability. There is no difference in the amount of “demand” placed on Deaf services by Deaf Canadians and by Deaf immigrants to Canada. There is absolutely zero data proving otherwise.
This is not even to mention the fact that none of the judges, none of the Canada Immigration personnel, and none of the medical personnel hired to evaluate the immigration applicant’s disability are themselves disabled or Deaf and therefore qualified to pass judgment on the applicant.
Thousands of non-disabled applicants are approved for immigration into Canada even when they openly boast that their sole reason for coming to this country is to exploit our social support system; the infamous Khadr family is an example. In contrast, we have yet to come across a single Deaf applicant whose motive for coming to Canada is to exploit our social services. All of them want to come here for the purpose of furthering their education, finding employment, and/or learning the Sign language that is forbidden in their native country. We do not know of even one exception to this rule.
Canada Immigration and the disability clause are both indisputably discriminatory and prejudiced against Deaf and disabled persons.
APPROVED: 26 MAY 2007
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Canadian Association of the Deaf
303 - 251 Bank Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1X3
(613)565-2882 Voice/TTY
(613)565-1207 Fax
www.cad.ca
The issue
The Canada Immigration Act requires this country to reject applications for immigration from persons with any “disease, disorder, disability or other health impairment” which may cause them to be “a danger to public health or public safety” or which may reasonably be expected to place “excessive demands on health or social services.”
CAD's position
The provisions of the Canada Immigration Act discriminate against Deaf and disabled people and should be removed.
Deaf people in other countries who apply to immigrate to Canada are often rejected because of their deafness. But deafness is not a “disease, disorder, disability or other health impairment”, it is a cultural identity.
Deafness is not “a danger to public health or public safety”. It is not infectious. Studies have shown Deaf people have a better safety and health record than hearing people in the workplace and while driving.
Deaf people do not wish to come to Canada to exploit our health and social services. Deafness does not require constant attendant care, subsidized medicine, lengthy hospitalization, or similar treatment.
Most Deaf people wish to come here because they have no rights or privileges in their own countries. Many developing countries ban Deaf people from owning property, holding a job, marrying, and attending school. The result is that they have little or no education, poor or no employment, and no financial resources. These facts are often used as excuses to reject their application to immigrate to Canada.
The decision to accept or reject an application is often made by immigration officers who have no awareness of deafness and no ability to communicate effectively with Deaf people. The Deaf person's application is therefore often assessed unfairly solely on the basis of his/her deafness. This is unacceptable.
In February of 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a joint ruling in Hilewitz v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and de Jong v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that essentially upheld the “disability clause” that allows Canada to reject immigration applicants on the grounds that their disability will cause “excessive demands on social services”. This is the same clause that is used to reject Deaf applicants.
Despite the Court’s decision, their argument exposes the self-contradiction and bogus assumptions of the “disability clause”. The dissenting report of Justice Deschamps states, “The question is whether the demands on those services are excessive in relation to the demands generated by other members of Canadian society.” But “other members of Canadian society”, by which they clearly mean non-disabled people, do not use disability services! How can the usage of disability services by non-disabled persons possibly be used as a valid measurement by which to determine “excessive” demand on those services?
If the argument is that “other members of Canadian society” means other disabled Canadians, then again the demand cannot possibly be excessive, because the immigrants would be using the exact same services that are being used by Canadians that have the same disability. There is no difference in the amount of “demand” placed on Deaf services by Deaf Canadians and by Deaf immigrants to Canada. There is absolutely zero data proving otherwise.
This is not even to mention the fact that none of the judges, none of the Canada Immigration personnel, and none of the medical personnel hired to evaluate the immigration applicant’s disability are themselves disabled or Deaf and therefore qualified to pass judgment on the applicant.
Thousands of non-disabled applicants are approved for immigration into Canada even when they openly boast that their sole reason for coming to this country is to exploit our social support system; the infamous Khadr family is an example. In contrast, we have yet to come across a single Deaf applicant whose motive for coming to Canada is to exploit our social services. All of them want to come here for the purpose of furthering their education, finding employment, and/or learning the Sign language that is forbidden in their native country. We do not know of even one exception to this rule.
Canada Immigration and the disability clause are both indisputably discriminatory and prejudiced against Deaf and disabled persons.
APPROVED: 26 MAY 2007
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Canadian Association of the Deaf
303 - 251 Bank Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1X3
(613)565-2882 Voice/TTY
(613)565-1207 Fax
www.cad.ca
