Out-of-Control Federal Judge Rules Failed Refugees Entitled to Full Medical Benefits

Posted on by

Out-of-Control Federal Judge Rules Failed Refugees Entitled to Full Medical Benefits

A Federal judge had decreed that failed “refugee” claimants are once again to have more benefits  than poor Canadians and that taxpayers must continue to PAY for people who chose to drop in and make a “refugee” claim.

The Globe and Mail (July 4, 2014) reported: “The Conservative government’s latitude to choose its own policies was curtailed yet again on Friday when a judge called health-care cuts for failed refugee claimants, and those from countries deemed by Ottawa to be safe, a form of “cruel and unusual treatment” and ruled them unconstitutional.

The ruling by Justice Anne Mactavish of the Federal Court in Ottawa was the latest sign that the executive branch of government and the judiciary are in open conflict. …

So rare is the use of Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” – that neither the government nor the refugees’ representatives were able to identify a single successful claim outside of criminal cases. …

Justice Mactavish said the government’s two-year-old policy of denying health care to certain classes of failed refugee claimants amounted to cruel and unusual treatment because it intentionally targeted vulnerable children and adults. She said it put at risk “the very lives of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages our standards of decency.” She gave the government four months to restore the health-care funding. …

In this case, the government argued that it had the right to try to deter bogus claimants from coming to Canada, or overstaying, by denying them medical care, except where they had diseases that could spread to others. It said the cuts would save $80-million over four years, and those denied care could turn to charity, emergency rooms or private insurance.

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said the government will appeal the ruling. “Failed claimants and those from safe countries like the U.S. or Europe should not be entitled to better health care than Canadians receive.” (The government would need to seek a stay of Justice Mactavish’s order if it wishes to continue with the cuts while an appeal is being heard.)”

Don’t forget these are “failed” refugee claimants. Even under our permissive interpretation of “refugee”, these people have not passed muster. However, as long as they are here, they are entitled to more benefits (like full dental care) than poor Canadians whose families may have been here for 10 generations.

Justice Mactavish’s inane ruling continues the reasoning of the ludicrous 1985 “Singh” decision by the Supreme Court which held that anyone, anyone, who could put his tiny toe on Canadian soil had a RIGHT to make a refugee claim and be given a formal hearing. Furthermore, while here, the claimant had ALL the rights of a Canadian citizen, except the right to vote. That meant the foreign would-be “refugee” was entitled to legal aid, welfare, medical care, public housing and language and job training. And, of course, the taxpayers must PAY the freight for someone we had not invited and who had simply decided to drop by.

Through the requirement of visas for certain problem countries (Czechoslovakia and its Gypsies), the government has tried to stem the flow of bogus refugees, seeking merely an opportunity to collect welfare in Canada for years on end and get their bodies and teeth tuned up through our health care system.

The only real long-range solution is to use Sec. 33 of the Constitution, the “notwithstanding clause” and reverse the Singh Decision and Justice Mactavish’s ruling. A sane immigration policy would stipulate that the ONLY way to enter Canada as an immigrant or “refugee” would be to apply and be vetted abroad.

And tonight, I received this e-mail from John McCallum Liberal Party critic for immigration, clearly showing that the Liberals are eager to make Canadians continue to have to pay tens of millions of dollars to support bogus “refugee” claimants.

Paul –

Last Friday, the Federal Court ruled that the Harper government’s “cruel and unusual” cuts to refugee health care were unconstitutional. Sadly instead of respecting the Court’s decision, the Conservatives have chosen to appeal it.

Liberals have been calling on the Harper government to reverse these cuts since they were first announced.

Join us now: click here to sign our petition.

Canada is known around the world as a place of compassion and a safe haven for those fleeing the most terrible conditions imaginable. But the Conservative government has repeatedly put that reputation at risk with their changes to our refugee system.

Photo: Out-o-Control Federal Judge Rules Failed Refugees Entitled to Full Medical Benefits</p>
<p>A Federal judge had decreed that failed "refugee" claimants are once again to have more benefits  than poor Canadians and that taxpayers must continue to PAY for people who chose to drop in and make a "refugee" claim.</p>
<p>The Globe and Mail (July 4, 2014) reported: "The Conservative government’s latitude to choose its own policies was curtailed yet again on Friday when a judge called health-care cuts for failed refugee claimants, and those from countries deemed by Ottawa to be safe, a form of “cruel and unusual treatment” and ruled them unconstitutional.</p>
<p>The ruling by Justice Anne Mactavish of the Federal Court in Ottawa was the latest sign that the executive branch of government and the judiciary are in open conflict. ... </p>
<p>So rare is the use of Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” – that neither the government nor the refugees’ representatives were able to identify a single successful claim outside of criminal cases. ... </p>
<p>Justice Mactavish said the government’s two-year-old policy of denying health care to certain classes of failed refugee claimants amounted to cruel and unusual treatment because it intentionally targeted vulnerable children and adults. She said it put at risk “the very lives of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages our standards of decency.” She gave the government four months to restore the health-care funding. ...</p>
<p>In this case, the government argued that it had the right to try to deter bogus claimants from coming to Canada, or overstaying, by denying them medical care, except where they had diseases that could spread to others. It said the cuts would save $80-million over four years, and those denied care could turn to charity, emergency rooms or private insurance.</p>
<p>Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said the government will appeal the ruling. “Failed claimants and those from safe countries like the U.S. or Europe should not be entitled to better health care than Canadians receive.” (The government would need to seek a stay of Justice Mactavish’s order if it wishes to continue with the cuts while an appeal is being heard.)"</p>
<p>Don't forget these are "failed" refugee claimants. Even under our permissive interpretation of "refugee", these people have not passed muster. However, as long as they are here, they are entitled to more benefits (like full dental care) than poor Canadians whose families may have been here for 10 generations.</p>
<p>Justice Mactavish's inane ruling continues the reasoning of the ludicrous 1985 "Singh" decision by the Supreme Court which held that anyone, anyone, who could put his tiny toe on Canadian soil had a RIGHT to make a refugee claim and be given a formal hearing. Furthermore, while here, the claimant had ALL the rights of a Canadian citizen, except the right to vote. That meant the foreign would-be "refugee" was entitled to legal aid, welfare, medical care, public housing and language and job training. And, of course, the taxpayers must PAY the freight for someone we had not invited and who had simply decided to drop by.</p>
<p>Through the requirement of visas for certain problem countries (Czechoslovakia and its Gypsies), the government has tried to stem the flow of bogus refugees, seeking merely an opportunity to collect welfare in Canada for years on end and get their bodies and teeth tuned up through our health care system.</p>
<p>The only real long-range solution is to use Sec. 22 of the Constitution, the "notwithstanding clause" and reverse the Singh Decision and Justice Mactavish's ruling. A sane immigration policy would stipulate that the ONLY way to enter Canada as an immigrant or "refugee" would be to apply and be vetted abroad.</p>
<p>And tonight, I received this e-mail from John McCallum Liberal Party critic for immigration, clearly showing that the Liberals are eager to make Canadians continue to have to pay tens of millions of dollars to support bogus "refugee" claimants.</p>
<p>"Paul -- </p>
<p> Last Friday, the Federal Court ruled that the Harper government's "cruel and unusual" cuts to refugee health care were unconstitutional. Sadly instead of respecting the Court's decision, the Conservatives have chosen to appeal it. </p>
<p> Liberals have been calling on the Harper government to reverse these cuts since they were first announced.  </p>
<p>Join us now: click here to sign our petition. </p>
<p> Canada is known around the world as a place of compassion and a safe haven for those fleeing the most terrible conditions imaginable. But the Conservative government has repeatedly put that reputation at risk with their changes to our refugee system. </p>
<p>Paul Fromm</p>
<p>Director</p>
<p>CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: