Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

I'm not sure I have too much to say. Under the Canada Health Act, which I mostly support, as do many people, we like the idea of equality and portability of service across the country. I think having national standards is a good thing and I would encourage us on this front, as on many other fronts, to aim for national standards.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Hanes, I'd like to go back to the question I asked about predominant concerns and their costs. Can anyone answer that as well?

[Roy Hanes]

One of the things you mentioned is that families couldn't afford that—not that this isn't an issue—but what I'm getting at is that families I know and I'm working with are willing to cover the costs of the care, but they're still being denied entry.

The other thing is if we keep looking at the medical focus on disability, we're not going to get too far as a country. That's a problem. The family I'm working with gave me their report. The diagnosis of this person was made in 1985. They still use that.

One thing that I want you to think about is that if you keep looking at medical costs and medical diagnoses, that's not very good for prognosis. In other words, how do we know what people are going to be like as citizens? Nothing in a medical diagnosis tells us that per se.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for their thoughtful presentations.

I'd like to begin my questions with this premise. I think the committee is grappling with the issue on excessive demand as it is applied to a group of people, in this instance, people with different abilities. It's been advanced on the issue and the application of this policy on the principle of fairness.

To that end, what we do know, and I want to put it on the record, is that the assessment process that the government uses is a flawed process. The figures they've come up with in identifying the cost of what is deemed to be excessive demand are not accurately backed up. Its application in the process of evaluating different people is also flawed in that process.

First, I'd like to establish this. Canada, of course, has made commitments in our Canadian charter to equality and human rights and the rights of people with disabilities. We have enshrined those rights provincially and federally in our human rights legislation. We're also a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, we have an immigration policy that clearly discriminates against people with different abilities.

On that premise, what we heard yesterday—it was virtually unanimous—is that all of the witnesses said the government should repeal the section “excessive demand”, because it simply violates our basic human rights.

On that principle, not on the issue of cost, but on the principle of that violation, could I get quick answers from each of the panellists on whether you agree that it is a violation of our basic human rights with respect to this provision of the immigration policy?

[Roy Hanes]

Absolutely.

To start with, I've been involved in organizing and working with people with disabilities at the local, national, and international levels, and it does discriminate against persons with disabilities. In fact, the UN convention has discussions about mobility rights as well.

I would say yes, I think that, without a doubt.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Bennett.

[Sheila Bennett]

Of course.

Who would we be as Canadians if we didn't move ahead with that vision of the future we have that includes everybody?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Sweetman.

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

Clearly, it does.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Let's get into this second issue, the issue of cost, but on the flip side. This is along the lines that our chair was heading towards.

What we also know, and what was admitted by the officials who presented to us, is that they do zero calculation with respect to the contributions of different people and the family members they bring to Canada.

Ms. Bennett, you mentioned about the classroom, and you reminded me of something that I learned from my son. In his class, he has different children with different abilities. Something he has learned—and I'm so proud of the school and of him—that he talks to me regularly about is that different people with different abilities engage the students in a different way. They all participate. The value he brings from that experience is something that is not quantifiable.

In addition to that, of course, when people come as a family unit, you may have a family member with a different ability, but those families make different contributions as well, and that's not quantified.

To that end, how can we possibly come up with a formula that will be fair and accurate in this assessment, or is that at all possible?

Again, I'm just going to go down the line with respect to this.

Mr. Hanes.

[Roy Hanes]

One of the questions I would ask is do we really want it? I agree 100% that I find it very difficult to quantify that.

As I mentioned, with the people I know and am working with, we have the potential to lose great citizens. One young man I'm trying to help has a master's degree in engineering, a bachelor's degree in engineering. He's willing to cover the cost of his brother, but he may.... This is the part that some people don't understand. People who are trying to sponsor some of their family members, based on religious and cultural beliefs, may have to leave. That's a possibility.

I like your question and the concept of investment, in looking at persons with disabilities, and their families as well, as contributing, not taking away from....

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Ms. Bennett.

[Sheila Bennett]

Thank you for bringing up your child's experience.

When I teach around fairness in terms of disability, we have this statement, “Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same. Fairness means everyone gets what they need.”

If we use the first definition of fairness, which is giving everyone the same thing, then anybody on this committee who wears glasses would have to take them off, because not everybody can wear glasses.

When we talk about quantifying, in education we can quantify. In multiple studies over many decades, what we can quantify is that when you have an inclusive practice, bullying goes down for children, tolerance levels get high for all children, and learning improves for all children. That is quantifiable evidence in terms of the notion that when we add diversity, and with that diversity, add the support needed to protect it, we absolutely have an added benefit for that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Sweetman.

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

I think fairness and costs are different things. I agree with what the other people were saying.

My key point is that if we bring in people, if we change this regulation, and I'm certainly not opposed to doing that, we need to recognize there may be costs. As you said very clearly, I don't think we're very good at predicting. In fact, a large part of my opening statement was saying we're not good at predicting who will have costs.

Once we find out who does, because some proportion of the population and some proportion of immigrants do, we need to provide those people with sufficient services, so that they can have full and wholesome lives. We need the money to provide people with services to have full lives. That's a recognition that we need to take part and parcel with the decision.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On that issue, even the assessment on Canadians, in terms of our costs to the system, is not an accurate reflection, because the government does not take into consideration the calculation of social services in coming up with that number. When you talk about it in that context, and because you don't take into consideration the contribution of the value of the individuals coming in, I would submit that you can actually come up with a proper assessment based on cost.

Therefore, you have to go back to what we know as humans, and that is on rights. If we're truly a signatory to the UN convention and all the other stuff that we've signed on to, then you have to reflect that in policy, in every aspect, in every single policy within government.

I'm out of time, but I see people nodding. I want that on the record to show that our witnesses agree with the premise under which we have to evaluate our policies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mrs. Zahid and Mr. Sarai.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to our witnesses. I'll be sharing my time with my colleague.

Do you think that paragraph 38(1)(c) is creating a two-tiered system of entry, where those people who have the financial resources...? We understand, and we have heard that in some cases, when people got the fairness letter, they took legal advice, went for representation, submitted a mitigation plan, and were allowed to enter.

I would like all of you to answer this question: is it creating a two-tiered system of entry?

[Roy Hanes]

Yes. It's even more than a two-tiered system.

First of all, it distinguishes disabled from non-disabled. As I said before, this whole argument is over 400 years old, to control people. It is a two-tiered system.

The other part of that is a result of the Supreme Court decisions in Hilewitz v. Canada and De Jong v. Canada. Even if people can afford to pay, does that really help? It does help individual families of those who get those minister's permits, but at the end of the day, that's not what we're about. What about people who want to come here to join families, part of family reunification, and they can't afford those costs? That's an issue.

I know of families who come here, may have a child, and they're waiting for their citizenship. If that child is born with an impairment, they risk being deported. People who come here.... If you're working and you get injured here, and you're just shy of your citizenship, you can be deported.

Absolutely, to me, it's more than a two-tiered system.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Ms. Bennett.

[Sheila Bennett]

It is absolutely two-tiered, but we also forget that it's not just two-tiered in terms of how much money you have or how much money you do not have. If you're a family with a child who has a disability, or an adult who has a disability, for the most part, if we look at statistics around the disability population, you're already economically under stress, and already, on average, earning less than most people. The notion is that people who can afford to have expert help have a better chance. People with disabilities, in their social environment, have less of a chance because they have less economic resources. They also have less time resources. It takes time to do all the work that it takes to appeal.

Families who are under stress when they have a child with a disability, or they have a family member with a disability, are under both economic and time stresses. We're triple. We have three factors that work against them having the chance to become Canadians.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It's an emotional stress also. We as a family have gone through it. In 2002 my husband applied to sponsor his parents. His mother was rejected because of the high medical costs. They said the father can come. So we have gone through that.

I'll pass my time to Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

As you can tell, almost all of us have an inclination that this policy is discriminatory. We already can see that even within immigration there's a two-tiered policy. If it's family reunification, to other than parents and grandparents it doesn't apply. If it's refugees, it doesn't apply.

My question is for you, Mr. Hanes.

This is to determine the probably insignificant costs. Do you think there would be an increase in “persons with disability” applications to Canada if this were removed such that it would not be 900 we'd be looking at, or would there be a nominal shift? The reason I'm asking is that you may have observed other countries that have eliminated this discriminatory policy.

[Roy Hanes]

I'm not sure that people with disabilities would jump on the bandwagon to come here just for the sake of disability costs. It could happen, but I doubt it.

The other thing is that, speaking for myself, I would say, “Welcome.” I believe in diversity, and disability is just another form of human variation. I don't see it as an issue.

I know that there are many other concerns, for sure, but I keep reminding the committee to shift away from this medical model notion of disability, because I'm getting a message that many of you, as members of Parliament, have constituents who are being disabled as family members from sponsoring people as well.

I don't think it's going to happen, but I think that if it did happen it would be minimal. Again, I think that if it happened, it would also be an opportunity for diversity. Think about this. I raised the question earlier that if somebody like Stephen Hawking wanted to be a citizen of this country, would he be allowed to immigrate here. The answer is no.