Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
VICTORIA — A popular University of Victoria psychology instructor and his family have been denied permanent residency in Canada because his four-year-old son has autism.
While Jeffrey Niehaus is preparing to move his wife, Jane, and two kids back to his native U.S., he’s sounding the alarm about problems with the Canadian immigration system, which turned down the family’s application for permanent residency on the basis that autism treatment would be too costly.
“We understand some safeguards have to be put in place,” Niehaus said Wednesday.
“I think that [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] were unable or unwilling to balance … the contributions we could make as taxpayers and the amount it would cost [to treat the child].”
Allowing the family to stay would have been a mutually beneficial arrangement, Niehaus said.
“The contributions we could have made would have been significant and the math didn’t work out the way CIC projected. I kind of wish … there could have been some other mechanism in there to take more things into account.”
This is probably a new directive. I know somebody in a very similar situation that 7-8 years ago got permanent residence and then citizenship without any problems.
It has been ever thus. I was involved in such decisions back as far as the late 1970's. It is all about predictability of future costs and with autism that can be extremely difficult and given the scarce resources available for Canadian resident children, that has to be taken into account as well.
This is probably a new directive. I know somebody in a very similar situation that 7-8 years ago got permanent residence and then citizenship without any problems.
It is not new - it goes back to April 1978 when the 1952 Immigration Act was replaced and the "excessive demand" formulation was introduced.
Each case is assessed individually. The decision used to involve consultations with the provincial authorities but that is no longer done (with the exception of Quebec) as of about 2005.
It is not new - it goes back to April 1978 when the 1952 Immigration Act was replaced and the "excessive demand" formulation was introduced.
Each case is assessed individually. The decision used to involve consultations with the provincial authorities but that is no longer done (with the exception of Quebec) as of about 2005.
It also probably has to do with the individual immigration officer examining the dossier and his interpretation of "excessive demand". Are there any clear guidelines of what "excessive demand" means?
When I applied about 10 years ago, two grad students colleagues of mine applied as well. Their dossiers were pretty much identical: age, country of origin, education, working experience. In the end one got the PR one didn't. The reason was that for one teaching assistantship was considered as working experience, for the other wasn't. Same rules, different interpretation.....I was also unlucky the first time around, for the same reason, so I had to reapply.
It also probably has to do with the individual immigration officer examining the dossier and his interpretation of "excessive demand". Are there any clear guidelines of what "excessive demand" means?
When I applied about 10 years ago, two grad students colleagues of mine applied as well. Their dossiers were pretty much identical: age, country of origin, education, working experience. In the end one got the PR one didn't. The reason was that for one teaching assistantship was considered as working experience, for the other wasn't. Same rules, different interpretation.....I was also unlucky the first time around, for the same reason, so I had to reapply.
This is something quite different. It has to do with statutory inadmissibility on medical grounds. See the links I noted above. The decision is made with input from specially designated officers trained in such matters.
Here is the definition:
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations 1(1)
“Excessive demand” means
(a) a demand on health services or social services for which the anticipated costs would likely exceed average Canadian per capita health services and social services costs over a period of five consecutive years immediately following the medical examination, unless there is evidence that significant costs are likely to be incurred beyond that period, in which case the period is no more than 10 consecutive years; or
(b) a demand on health services or social services that would add to existing waiting lists and would increase the rate of mortality and morbidity in Canada as a result of the denial of or delay in the provision of those services to Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
“health services” means any health services for which the majority of the funds are contributed by governments, including the services of family physicians, medical specialists, nurses, chiropractors and physiotherapists, laboratory services and the supply of pharmaceutical or hospital care.
“social services” means any social service, such as home care, specialized residence and residential services, special education services, social and vocational rehabilitation services, personal support services and the provision of devices related to those services,
(a) that is intended to assist a person in functioning physically, emotionally, socially, psychologically or vocationally; and
(b) for which the majority of the funding, including funding that provides direct or indirect financial support to an assisted person, is contributed by governments, either directly or through publicly-funded agencies.
The courts have interpreted these provisions and provided further guidance. The Supreme Court of Canada decisions in two 2005 cases (Hilewitz v. M.C.I. and de Jong v.M.C.I. ) set out what is to be considered in respect of business applicants. In 2007 the Federal Court of Appeal extended the reasoning in the 2005 cases to skilled workers in M.C.I. v. Colaco.
After an extensive review of the legislative history, the SCC concluded that there was a legislative intention to shift away from an approach based on categorical exclusion, to one calling for more individualized assessments; thereby rejecting medical admissibility decisions based on condition alone (the “cookie-cutter” approach). In assessing whether an applicant’s health might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services, medical officers must determine both the nature, severity and duration of an applicant’s disability or impairment and the applicant’s likely requirement for, and entitlement to, publicly funded health or social services. They must subsequently evaluate the demand for those services. (This remains the requirement for all classes of potential immigrants, but for a few exceptions, such as refugees, protected persons and some family members.)
Canada can design its immigration policy in a way that reduces exposure to undue burdens caused by potential immigrants. Since the notion of “excess demands” was first introduced in the Immigration Act, 1976, it has not been possible to base findings of medical inadmissibility on the mere existence of a medical condition. As per the Supreme Court in Hilewitz, assessing the potential requirement for services, based on the classification of the impairment, results ina generic rather than an individual assessment of the application. The relevant provisions of both the former Immigration Act and IRPA require that an individualized assessment be performed.
The majority of judges found that Hilewitz and de Jong’s ability and willingness to attenuate the burden on the public purse that would otherwise be created by their children were relevant factors in determining whether those children would reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on Canada’s social services. In those cases the principal applicants were wealthy business immigrants and had substantial assets (in the millions of dollars) which is usually not the case in respect of skilled worker applicants as here.
The threshold as to whether or not an individual’s medical condition “would” or “might reasonably” be expected to result in excessive demand is reasonable probability and not remote possibility.
So we lost an ambitious, affluent, and educated net-contributor to society.
Awesome.
The balance is what demand the foreign child would be reasonably be expected to make on social services and in the case of autism BC already is unable to adequately service its own residents and has cut back funding recently. These resources are scarce.
As it currently stands autism funding to families for children and youth from six to 18 years old is $6,000 a year and B.C. schools receive $16,000 for each child in school with autism.
Canadian government to re-evaluate the purchase of F-35 jets after the auditor general's report criticizing it will be made public. Some interesting tidbits...
Quote:
The Harper government will commit to re-evaluating the F-35 fighter jet program Tuesday, in response to a scathing Auditor-General’s report that is expected to charge Department of National Defence officials with misleading Parliament.
Quote:
However, it is the commitment to explore alternatives to the F-35 that will garner most attention, since the opposition parties have long called for an open competition to replace the aging CF18 fleet.
The Conservative government’s support for the F35 program has been absolute until last month, when Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said Ottawa reserves the right to bail on the program. Since then, ministers have admitted privately that the government may have to take another look at Boeing’s Super Hornet jet.
Quote:
The Auditor-General’s department has refused to comment on the report ahead of time but people familiar with its contents say it is highly critical of the procurement process.
The Tories' ardent support for the F35's was always insane. If now we could only get them to overturn their own omnibus crime bill (save for the harsher sentences for youths) we would be on track again.
Everyone's been calling the government on the F-35 stuff for over a year. Watch today, as the AG points out with real data, what everyone has been saying for ages. The government will pivot, accept what the AG says, and ignore their own 16 month obfuscation on the issue.
It's important to remember that one of the reasons why the government was brought down a year ago, was because the opposition accused the Tories of misleading Parliament on the cost of these jets. At the time, the Tories simply accused the opposition's contempt of Parliament claims as being nothing but party politics.
[QUOTE=Transplanted Caper;47208927]Things that should happen, but won't:
Heads rolling in DoD
MacKay being fired
Quote:
The $16-billion plan to purchase a fleet of Lockheed-Martin F-35 jets could cost $25-billion over the project’s lifespan, yet it was done in unco-ordinated fashion among federal departments, with key data hidden from decision-makers and parliamentarians.
Wow. How on earth can they justify keeping those clowns at DoD and MacKay in charge??
It's important to remember that one of the reasons why the government was brought down a year ago, was because the opposition accused the Tories of misleading Parliament on the cost of these jets. At the time, the Tories simply accused the opposition's contempt of Parliament claims as being nothing but party politics.
I remember being absolutely baffled at how little of an impact that contempt of Parliament resulted in.
I remember being absolutely baffled at how little of an impact that contempt of Parliament resulted in.
Truly sickening display of apathy.
People should have been more moved about it on their own, but the Liberals campaigning on a hodge-podge of random stuff, with very little of substance on Parliamentary or democratic reform.
Wow. How on earth can they justify keeping those clowns at DoD and MacKay in charge??
I'm really curious as to where the wall went up in regards to available information.
Did the information flow to the Armed Forces Council? Did it flow from the AFC to the Cheif of the Defense Staff office? Did the information flow from there to the DoD ministers office? Did the information flow from the ministers office to the PMO?
I guess, the question is when they say information was kept from Parliamentarians, do they mean it was only kept from opposition parliamentarians, or was it kept -in general- from parliamentarians.
I'm really curious as to where the wall went up in regards to available information.
Did the information flow to the Armed Forces Council? Did it flow from the AFC to the Cheif of the Defense Staff office? Did the information flow from there to the DoD ministers office? Did the information flow from the ministers office to the PMO?
I guess, the question is when they say information was kept from Parliamentarians, do they mean it was only kept from opposition parliamentarians, or was it kept -in general- from parliamentarians.
I'm wondering about that as well. Goodale just said the government can't pin this on bureaucrats, but it seems to me, that while the government certainly holds ultimate responsibility, that a fair number of heads should be rolling at DoD.
Last edited by Transplanted Caper: 04-03-2012 at 03:14 PM.
I'm wondering about that as well. Goodale just said the government can pin this on bureaucrats, but it seems to me, that while the government certainly holds ultimate responsibility, that a fair number of heads should be rolling at DoD.
I'm quite interested in hearing where the lines of communication were closed. McKay doesn't strike me as a guy willing to go out on a limb for some equipment the generals really want if it could damage his reputation (and I don't mean that in the sense that McKay would be too moral and upstanding, but that he would be too self-motivated).
