Big Issues in a Small World

By Raymond D. Cohen

It seems to me, given current global circumstance, and in our ever-shrinking world, that our Canadian society should be becoming more expansive in its policies and activities. The order of the day should be one of inclusiveness – and less of restriction.

But when it comes to people with disabilities, especially those hailing Canada from foreign shores, quite the opposite appears to be the case.

The current admissibility guidelines of our federal immigration department fly in the face of our own human rights code, as demonstrated in Angela Chesters’ case before the federal court.

Angela Chesters has been refused Canadian citizenship even though she is married to a Canadian, is well educated and has extensive work experience. The reason: her disability. Chesters has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair. Section 38. 1. (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, known as the “medical inadmissibility clause,” allows the government to turn down immigrants who might be taxing on our health and social services.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any clauses which in fact assess the incredible value that people with disabilities often bring to our society – assets not incidental to, but often existing as a result of, disability.

Qualities such as tenacity, patience, inventiveness, acceptance and empathy are a few that leap to mind – and they take on real meaning when manifested within communities across our country.

Chesters, a successful, taxpaying professor who is physically independent and has never been unemployed, says the immigration law is discriminatory. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination," regardless of disability.

After Chesters lodged her complaint, the federal government did offer her a special permit to live in Canada, but she refused to drop her case because she believes it is an important constitutional challenge.

We believe it, too. Currently, a young family in Kenya waits and hopes to bring their seven-year-old child to Canada for a better life. The little boy has been deaf since birth and has a cochlear implant. Recently, the family received the following crushing words, excerpted from a letter from our embassy:

“I am now completing the assessment of your application for a permanent resident visa. It appears that you may not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada. I have determined that your family member, [name of child withheld], is a person whose health condition might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services… Your family member has the following medical condition or diagnosis: Health Condition (s): Special needs child with deafness…

“Specifically, this health condition might reasonably be expected to require services, the costs of which would likely exceed the average Canadian per capita costs over the next 5 years. He is therefore inadmissible under Section 38. 1. (c) of the Immigration and refugee Protection Act….”

The letter invited additional information which may mitigate the findings of the bureaucrat who filled in this form letter. It also pointed out that the family would bear financial responsibility for the costs of additional assessments which may, or more likely may not, make a difference.

All in all, the whole tone of the letter struck me as being rather soulless – and, had space here allowed it, I would have penned a response to the individual who wrote this piece of work, using the same tone and my own subsections and clauses pursuant to this, that and the other thing – all adding up to how I feel about discrimination based on disability – and the attitude it engenders within the world community.

It is, in my view, to our credit that Canada did not take an active hand in creating the catastrophic disabilities which now pervade Iraq and other points globally. But our shining record becomes a little more tarnished each time we do not extend our resources to embrace those who have been so victimized, and/or those who wish to unite their assets with our own domestically.

History and demographics demonstrate that immigrants and people with disabilities are often hard working, deeply appreciative and active contributors. Why would we limit the opportunities others have to participate – based on the relatively small amount of investment it might require to solicit the incredible contribution they may well bring to our domestic fabric?

As our society makes strides toward including all of its citizens, with and without disabilities, this spirit of inclusiveness must extend to all of the world’s citizens. I think all individuals, no matter what their country or ability, deserve better than that.

Perhaps this is something to consider as our country heads into its next leadership campaign.