Drug Testing for Permanent Residency?

bphilis

Hi Guys,

I'm an Irishman working in Canada for the last 3 years. Late last year I applied for the Permanent Residency. I have been told by people that have got their Permanent Residency here that they have had to do a medical. I'm wondering if they do drug testing as I smoke a little weed from time to time. I already know that you have to provide a urine sample, but is this checking for TB/Syphyllis!?

If anyone has any information on this it would be greatly appreciated.

GrumPy

bphilis wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I'm an Irishman working in Canada for the last 3 years. Late last year I applied for the Permanent Residency. I have been told by people that have got their Permanent Residency here that they have had to do a medical. I'm wondering if they do drug testing as I smoke a little weed from time to time. I already know that you have to provide a urine sample, but is this checking for TB/Syphyllis!?

If anyone has any information on this it would be greatly appreciated.

Easy: Don't smoke weed a couple of days/weeks before your medical. :pac:

mazi

bphilis wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I'm an Irishman working in Canada for the last 3 years. Late last year I applied for the Permanent Residency. I have been told by people that have got their Permanent Residency here that they have had to do a medical. I'm wondering if they do drug testing as I smoke a little weed from time to time. I already know that you have to provide a urine sample, but is this checking for TB/Syphyllis!?

If anyone has any information on this it would be greatly appreciated.

You will be fine. I went for my medical 1.5 years ago and it's just the standard blood, chest x-ray etc. If they had to refuse people for only doing that there would be no immigrants in the country! They basically want to know you are not riddled with diseases that you will be a strain on their health system which is a fair point. Some to your hearts content and good luck with the application.

bphilis

Thank you so much Mazi! I waited a long time for a reply but it definitely puts my mind at ease! All the best to you and thanks again!

Long Gone

GrumPy wrote: »

Easy: Don't smoke weed a couple of days/weeks before your medical. :pac:

Untrue - If they do a hair follicle test they can detect cannabis use going back months. Employers can also ask for a drugs test pre-employment and at any time during employment. For any responsible employment that's exactly what they do - and rightly so.

Canada already has enough druggies - It doesn't need any more.

ician

Long Gone wrote: »

Untrue - If they do a hair follicle test they can detect cannabis use going back months. Employers can also ask for a drugs test pre-employment and at any time during employment. For any responsible employment that's exactly what they do - and rightly so.

Canada already has enough druggies - It doesn't need any more.

oh get lost, alcohol is a drug which kills millions of people a year, there isn't one single case of someone dying of marijuana, ever. And no I did the medical for the PR and they don't test for it, you sign a form which tells you what they are testing for.

Long Gone

ician wrote: »

there isn't one single case of someone dying of marijuana, ever.

Hyperbole much ? - Anyone with common sense alone will know that your statement above is nonsense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1445718/Cannabis-use-causes-hundreds-of-deaths-a-year-coroner-warns.html

ician wrote: »

And no I did the medical for the PR and they don't test for it, you sign a form which tells you what they are testing for.

The medical forms clearly ask about use of illegal drugs. Anyone who is shown to have falsified information on their application is liable to being banned from Canada - Fact.

ciaran67

Long Gone wrote: »

Hyperbole much ? - Anyone with common sense alone will know that your statement above is nonsense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1445718/Cannabis-use-causes-hundreds-of-deaths-a-year-coroner-warns.html




The medical forms clearly ask about use of illegal drugs. Anyone who is shown to have falsified information on their application is liable to being banned from Canada - Fact.

What an apt moniker.

Long Gone

ciaran67 wrote: »

What an apt moniker.

What an informative and incisive post ! Boards.ie is the better for your intellect..............:rolleyes:

el diablo

ciaran67 wrote: »

What an apt moniker.

Agreed. The vast majority of Long Gone's posts are complete nonsense. If he keeps it up I'll be forced to put him on my "ignore" list.

ician

Long Gone wrote: »

Hyperbole much ? - Anyone with common sense alone will know that your statement above is nonsense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1445718/Cannabis-use-causes-hundreds-of-deaths-a-year-coroner-warns.html




The medical forms clearly ask about use of illegal drugs. Anyone who is shown to have falsified information on their application is liable to being banned from Canada - Fact.

I never said I falsified anything? I have never done a single drug in my entire life. But I have an allergy to bull****, and misinformed people repeating nonsense. I also said that the form you fill at the doctors tells you exactly what they are testing for, when I did this in 2009 they were not testing for weed.

Also according to a 1988 rulling from US Drug Enforcement Agency administrative law judge Francis Young:

"At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette.... A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about 15 minutes to induce a lethal response."
Source: http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php

bphilis

Long Gone wrote: »

Untrue - If they do a hair follicle test they can detect cannabis use going back months. Employers can also ask for a drugs test pre-employment and at any time during employment. For any responsible employment that's exactly what they do - and rightly so.

Canada already has enough druggies - It doesn't need any more.

For any "reasonable" employment?? I've been here over 3 years now working full time and I've never been asked to do a drug test. I guess im not in reasonable employment in your eyes. Get off your high horse!
Plus somebody who enjoys marijuana ocasionally isn't a druggie, as you so politely put it.
Go back to reading your Daily Mail, you rude, opinionated so and so.

Long Gone

bphilis wrote: »

For any "reasonable" employment?? I've been here over 3 years now working full time and I've never been asked to do a drug test. I guess im not in reasonable employment in your eyes. Get off your high horse!
Plus somebody who enjoys marijuana ocasionally isn't a druggie, as you so politely put it.
Go back to reading your Daily Mail, you rude, opinionated so and so.

Read my post again – S l o w l y this time. I said responsible job, not reasonable job. By the accepted norms of use of the English language it is perfectly correct to describe someone who uses illegal drugs as a druggie.

simongurnick

Long Gone wrote: »

Untrue - If they do a hair follicle test they can detect cannabis use going back months. Employers can also ask for a drugs test pre-employment and at any time during employment. For any responsible employment that's exactly what they do - and rightly so.

Canada already has enough druggies - It doesn't need any more.

I've never heard of an employer asking for a drugs test, and if one did, I think I'd prefer not to work for them.

Long Gone

simongurnick wrote: »

I've never heard of an employer asking for a drugs test, and if one did, I think I'd prefer not to work for them.

You might never have heard of it, but employers requiring a drugs test both pre-employment at at random intervals during employment is very common these days, particularly in the more responsible professions. I'm sure such employers would be devastated to hear that you'd prefer not to work for them.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

simongurnick

Long Gone wrote: »

You might never have heard of it, but employers requiring a drugs test both pre-employment at at random intervals during employment is very common these days, particularly in the more responsible professions. I'm sure such employers would be devastated to hear that you'd prefer not to work for them.

I work for one of the main banks here and they never do it. As I said, personally I have not heard of it.
And I couldn't care what such employers think, but nowadays they need to consider it. Personal rights are very important to people nowadays and drug testing for employment is an invasion of privacy, shows a lack of trust and is a poor way to start a professional relationship.

This is the Ontario Human Rights Commissions viewpoint:


Introduction The Code states that it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. The provisions of the Code are aimed at creating a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and feels able to contribute to the community. The OHRC recognizes that it is a legitimate goal for employers to have a safe workplace. One method sometimes used by employers to achieve that goal is drug and alcohol testing. However, such testing is controversial and, especially in the area of drug testing, of limited effectiveness as an indicator of impairment. It is not used to a significant degree anywhere in the world except in the United States (the “U.S.”).[1] It is the OHRC’s view that such testing is prima facie discriminatory and can only be used in limited circumstances. The primary reason for conducting such testing should be to measure impairment.[2] Even testing that measures impairment can be justified only if it is demonstrably connected to the performance of the job; for example, if an employee occupies a safety-sensitive position, or after significant accidents or "near-misses," or if there is reasonable cause to believe that a person is abusing alcohol or drugs and only then as part of a larger assessment of drug and alcohol abuse. It is the OHRC’s view that by focusing on testing that actually measures impairment, especially in jobs that are safety sensitive, an appropriate balance can be struck between human rights and safety requirements, both for employees and for the public. - See more at: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-drug-and-alcohol-testing#sthash.i5fngIQV.dpuf

Long Gone

simongurnick wrote: »

I work for one of the main banks here and they never do it. As I said, personally I have not heard of it.
And I couldn't care what such employers think, but nowadays they need to consider it. Personal rights are very important to people nowadays and drug testing for employment is an invasion of privacy, shows a lack of trust and is a poor way to start a professional relationship.

This is the Ontario Human Rights Commissions viewpoint:


Introduction The Code states that it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. The provisions of the Code are aimed at creating a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and feels able to contribute to the community. The OHRC recognizes that it is a legitimate goal for employers to have a safe workplace. One method sometimes used by employers to achieve that goal is drug and alcohol testing. However, such testing is controversial and, especially in the area of drug testing, of limited effectiveness as an indicator of impairment. It is not used to a significant degree anywhere in the world except in the United States (the “U.S.”).[1] It is the OHRC’s view that such testing is prima facie discriminatory and can only be used in limited circumstances. The primary reason for conducting such testing should be to measure impairment.[2] Even testing that measures impairment can be justified only if it is demonstrably connected to the performance of the job; for example, if an employee occupies a safety-sensitive position, or after significant accidents or "near-misses," or if there is reasonable cause to believe that a person is abusing alcohol or drugs and only then as part of a larger assessment of drug and alcohol abuse. It is the OHRC’s view that by focusing on testing that actually measures impairment, especially in jobs that are safety sensitive, an appropriate balance can be struck between human rights and safety requirements, both for employees and for the public. - See more at: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-drug-and-alcohol-testing#sthash.i5fngIQV.dpuf

You personally might never have heard of it, but the fact is that, as I have already stated, it is now very commonplace (as your own post above confirms) for many responsible and safety-sensitive positions.

It is not unreasonable for employers to expect their employees to abstain from taking illegal drugs. To object to testing to ensure that employees in responsible and safety-sensitive professions are drug free on the basis of either personal or human rights is completely facile.

Despite the fact that you personally have never heard of it D & A (Drug & Alcohol) testing in Canada is now so widespread in the responsible and safety-sensitive professions that a whole D & A testing industry has sprung up around it.

One of the biggest service providers in Canada is Surehire.

http://www.surehire.ca/

simongurnick

Long Gone wrote: »

You personally might never have heard of it, but the fact is that, as I have already stated, it is now very commonplace (as your own post above confirms) for many responsible and safety-sensitive positions.

It is not unreasonable for employers to expect their employees to abstain from taking illegal drugs. To object to testing to ensure that employees in responsible and safety-sensitive professions are drug free on the basis of either personal or human rights is completely facile.

Despite the fact that you personally have never heard of it D & A (Drug & Alcohol) testing in Canada is now so widespread in the responsible and safety-sensitive professions that a whole D & A testing industry has sprung up around it.

One of the biggest service providers in Canada is Surehire.

http://www.surehire.ca/

My post and the views of the Ontaro Human Rights Commission would say the opposite, as well as the link to a lawyers website which states pre employment testing and random testing are rarely permitted...but go ahead and believe what you like.

http://www.rbs.ca/newsroom-publications-Employee-Drug-Alcohol-Testing-Canada.html

Long Gone

simongurnick wrote: »

My post and the views of the Ontaro Human Rights Commission would say the opposite, as well as the link to a lawyers website which states pre employment testing and random testing are rarely permitted...but go ahead and believe what you like.

http://www.rbs.ca/newsroom-publications-Employee-Drug-Alcohol-Testing-Canada.html

In a word BS -You have nominated yourself as an authority on a subject that you very obviously know absolutely nothing about. :rolleyes:

Whether you like it or not the reality in Canada is that pre employment testing and random testing are already extremely commonplace in the responsible, safety sensitive professions.

It is not a case of what I believe, it is a case of what I know is the case working in my profession here in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

I have already posted a link to Surehire which you conveniently ignore - I can assure you that they are not going out of business any time soon....

Many employers in the responsible, safety sensitive professions in Canada require drugs testing pre employment and at random, and agreeing to undergo such testing is a condition of employment. Your post and the views of the so-called Ontaro (sic) Human Rights Commission (which they themselves say are an oversimplification) do absolutely nothing to change that FACT. There may well be particular and specific issues in Ontario (not exactly the most progressive state as regards employment..), but the exception does not prove the rule.

simongurnick

Long Gone wrote: »

In a word BS -You have nominated yourself as an authority on a subject that you very obviously know absolutely nothing about. :rolleyes:

Whether you like it or not the reality in Canada is that pre employment testing and random testing are already extremely commonplace in the responsible, safety sensitive professions.

It is not a case of what I believe, it is a case of what I know is the case working in my profession here in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

I have already posted a link to Surehire which you conveniently ignore - I can assure you that they are not going out of business any time soon....

Many employers in the responsible, safety sensitive professions in Canada require drugs testing pre employment and at random, and agreeing to undergo such testing is a condition of employment. Your post and the views of the so-called Ontaro (sic) Human Rights Commission (which they themselves say are an oversimplification) do absolutely nothing to change that FACT. There may well be particular and specific issues in Ontario (not exactly the most progressive state as regards employment..), but the exception does not prove the rule.

The link I posted cites the Canadian Courts, if you cared to look. They do cite Alberta as a potential exception, but not the rest of the entire country.

Either way, I'm sure if I said black you would say white, so I'll leave you with a wee joke:

What does winning an argument on the internet and winning in the Special Olympics have in common?
In the end, both people are still retards.

Long Gone

simongurnick wrote: »

What does winning an argument on the internet and winning in the Special Olympics have in common?
In the end, both people are still retards.

Your so-called "joke" tells me and anyone else reading this thread all we need to know about your character.....

Your bank must be so proud to have you as an employee...... Enough said.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.