Immigration rules about disabilities changing

OTTAWA • After four decades, the federal government is getting rid of rules that turned away would-be immigrants with intellectual or physical disabilities, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said Monday.

The government will no longer be allowed to reject permanent resident applications from those with serious health conditions or disabilities.

Most of those affected by the policy have been economic immigrants already working and creating jobs in Canada, but whose children or spouses may have a disability, Hussen said.

“The current provisions on medical inadmissibility are over 40 years old and are clearly not in line with Canadian values or our government’s vision of inclusion.”

He cited the case of a tenured professor at York University who was denied permanent residence because his son had Down syndrome, and another case of a family that came to Canada and started a business, but were rejected because of a child with epilepsy.

“These newcomers can contribute and are not a burden to Canada,” the minister said.

The changes will amend the definition of social services by removing references to special education, social and vocational rehabilitation services and personal support services.

Ottawa is also tripling the cost threshold at which an application for permanent residency can be denied on medical grounds.

That will allow immigrants with minor health conditions that have relatively low health and social services costs to be approved for permanent residency, such as those with hearing or visual impairments.

Of the 177,000 economic immigrants admitted to Canada every year, about 1,000 are affected by the medical inadmissibility policy.

There have been calls to repeal the policy entirely, including from the House of Commons citizenship and immigration committee, which studied the issue last year.

Liberal MP and committee chair Rob Oliphant said he had hoped government would announce a full repeal. But more work must be done to determine the full cost implications to the provinces, he said.

“We at committee could not get good cost data,” Oliphant said.

But Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel says she believes the costs could indeed be high. She was critical of government’s decision to move ahead with changes before any concrete data has been developed to determine the costs to the provinces and territories.

“My concern is that the federal government is downloading costs to the provinces without a real plan to deal with that,” she said.

Felipe Montoya, the university professor whose case was cited by Hussen, welcomed the changes, but added he feels they fall short of what many advocates and individuals have pushed for.

The changes are expected to come into effect June 1.