Poste - Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
Poste - Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
Poste - Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Selection criteria <strong>of</strong> demonstrating an ability to<br />
successfully establish can prevent particularly<br />
needy refugees from being selected.<br />
—<strong>Canadian</strong> Council <strong>for</strong> Refugees 43<br />
Because priority should be given to <strong>the</strong> most<br />
vulnerable, we recommend that <strong>the</strong> likelihood<br />
<strong>of</strong> successful establishment in Canada not be a<br />
requirement.<br />
—Immigration Legislative Review Advisory<br />
Group 44<br />
On those occasions when refugees with “greater needs”<br />
are selected, <strong>the</strong> numbers are usually small. For example,<br />
Quebec annually accepts five claimants with physical<br />
disabilities and gives priority to those with <strong>the</strong> most<br />
minor disability. 45<br />
The Minister <strong>of</strong> Immigration and Citizenship Canada is<br />
now proposing to “shift <strong>the</strong> balance toward protection<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> ability to settle successfully in selecting<br />
refugees.” 46<br />
In cases where assistance by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Canadian</strong> government or<br />
sponsorship by a <strong>Canadian</strong> group is arranged, assistance<br />
can include “housing, food, clothing, incidental expenses,<br />
community orientation, help in finding a job and some<br />
support in dealing with <strong>the</strong> challenges <strong>of</strong> settling in a new<br />
country.” 47<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r discriminatory element <strong>of</strong> Canada’s refugee<br />
system is that in some cases, a refugee may not be<br />
admitted because <strong>the</strong> refugee “might reasonably be<br />
expected to cause excessive demands,... on health or<br />
prescribed social services.” 48<br />
H O W D O E S C A N A D A M E A S U R E U P ?<br />
107<br />
The Immigration Legislative Review Advisory Group said<br />
it was inappropriate “to require that persons in need <strong>of</strong><br />
protection or <strong>the</strong>ir families meet <strong>the</strong> requirements<br />
regarding excessive costs <strong>for</strong> health services.” 52<br />
Citizenship and Immigration Canada recently<br />
acknowledged that “<strong>the</strong> current excessive demands<br />
provision as applied to spouses and dependent children is<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten perceived as inhumane, and <strong>the</strong> decision-making<br />
process slow. A significant number <strong>of</strong> refusals <strong>of</strong> spouses<br />
and dependent children on excessive demands grounds are<br />
overturned ei<strong>the</strong>r on appeal to <strong>the</strong> Immigration Appeal<br />
Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Immigration and Refugee Board or on<br />
humanitarian or on compassionate grounds when a<br />
Minister’s permit is issued.” The department says that<br />
“fur<strong>the</strong>r research is being undertaken to assess <strong>the</strong> impact<br />
<strong>of</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> excessive demands provision” and that<br />
“discussions with provincial and territorial governments<br />
will take place.” 53<br />
Claiming Refugee Status<br />
in Canada<br />
The fundamental weaknesses in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Canadian</strong><br />
refugee determination system lie at <strong>the</strong> beginning<br />
and end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process, ra<strong>the</strong>r than in <strong>the</strong> refugee<br />
determination itself. Barriers to access to <strong>the</strong><br />
system mean that refugees in need <strong>of</strong> protection<br />
are never allowed to be heard by <strong>the</strong> Immigration<br />
and Refugee Board. At <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r end, claimants<br />
who are refused status are not given a fair<br />
opportunity to have <strong>the</strong> decision reconsidered or<br />
have o<strong>the</strong>r reasons <strong>for</strong> fearing removal reviewed.<br />
—<strong>Canadian</strong> Council <strong>for</strong> Refugees 54<br />
What are excessive demands on health or social services?<br />
These medical requirements <strong>for</strong> permanent residence status deny a disabled person, whe<strong>the</strong>r he or she is in Canada<br />
or abroad, from becoming a permanent resident. 49 In Yogeswaran v. Canada (Minister <strong>of</strong> Citizenship and Immigration)<br />
(1997): 50<br />
The applicant sought to review a decision <strong>of</strong> a visa <strong>of</strong>ficer refusing his application <strong>for</strong> permanent residence<br />
due to <strong>the</strong> medical inadmissibility <strong>of</strong> his 11-year-old dependent son. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> medical doctors who<br />
provided <strong>the</strong> respondent with <strong>the</strong> opinion stated that <strong>the</strong> key social service that <strong>the</strong> boy would require was<br />
a placement in special education classes.... There was sufficient evidence be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> medical <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>m to determine that <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dependent’s son would cause excessive demands on social<br />
services and <strong>the</strong> court was satisfied that education is a social service. Given that this was a medical opinion<br />
being given by <strong>the</strong> medical <strong>of</strong>ficers, it was not reasonable to expect a full examination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> social<br />
services in such an opinion. Excessive demand means more than normal. The application <strong>for</strong> judicial review<br />
was dismissed. 51