Bill C-242

Reuniting Families Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents)

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow a parent or grandparent who applies for a temporary resident visa as a visitor to purchase private health insurance outside Canada and to stay in Canada for a period of five years.
It also requires the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to prepare and table a report in respect of a reduction to the minimum income requirement that the child or grandchild must meet in order for the visiting parent or grandparent to be able to enter and remain in Canada for an extended period.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Ramos, Bill C-242 apparently aims to address the issue of the financial stability of people benefiting from these measures.

Do you think the bill has effective and reasonable provisions for that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Good morning, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from health authorities, as well as the directive from the Board of Internal Economy of Thursday, November 25, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain a two-metre physical distancing and must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times. Members must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer in the room and are asked to refrain from coming to the room if they are symptomatic.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute and your camera must be on.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 4, 2022, we will resume consideration of Bill C-242, an Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, regarding temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents. Today, we will be hearing from witnesses in this first panel on Bill C-242.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to welcome our witnesses for today's meeting. We are joined by Howard Ramos, professor and chair of the department of sociology from Western University; and Arthur Sweetman, professor, McMaster University.

Each witness will have five minutes for their opening remarks, and then we will go into rounds of questioning.

Professor Ramos, you may begin. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes, but Bill C‑242 provides for changes.

Couldn't the department provide some direction to make this happen more quickly? Since we already have a consensus and agreement among all parties, it would go much faster.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once again, I'd like to thank the witnesses. This will be the last time I address them today.

I understand that Bill C‑242 has consensus across all parties. It contains no major pitfalls that would cause any party to oppose it.

So, I'm wondering, in your opinion, is there a way to speed things up so that what the bill proposes can be implemented as quickly as possible? Is there a way?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Actually, I'd like to go back to what you just said.

The question isn't whether or not people will obtain permanent residency. For a widow, widower or vulnerable individual, dual intent makes it downright harder to get the super visa. The issue isn't whether or not they will leave. Dual intent disproportionately affects these individuals, according to the lawyer who testified before the committee in 2016.

Would Bill C‑242 make us do things differently or lead officers to turn away fewer widowed or vulnerable individuals?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all of our friends from the department who are here today.

I'd like to ask a few specific questions, but I will let the witnesses decide who can respond most appropriately.

In 2016, a lawyer pointed out to the committee that it was difficult for widows to obtain a super visa because the visa officer is less likely to be satisfied that the parents and grandparents will leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay. The lawyer recommended removing the requirement to leave.

Considering that Bill C‑242 extends the authorized stay to five years, what effect would this have on widowed or other vulnerable individuals applying for a super visa?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

During his appearance at this committee on May 17, the sponsor of Bill C-242 stated that he had very little faith that the government would bring about the changes proposed in the bill, if these were not done through legislation. It's my hope that your appearance here today can help us to convince the sponsor that his concerns are unfounded. In your view, do the changes proposed in the bill align with any of the government's objectives?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I understand from your previous answers and your opening remarks that placing the super visa under the authority of IRPA would make it much more difficult to change in the future.

Bill C-242 calls for the minister to table a report about reducing the minimum income requirement of the child or grandchild in Canada. If that report shows that reducing this income requirement would be appropriate, what would have to happen to make that change happen in IRPA versus if the change only needed to be made by ministerial instruction?

Can you give some examples of instances when changes to the super visa or other temporary resident streams could done expeditiously through ministerial instructions? Secondly, are there any other temporary residence programs that are entrenched in IRPA?

Thank you.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the officials for being here.

Through you, Madam Chair, I would like to better understand the bill's proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The program in question, the super visa, is currently under the authority of ministerial instructions. To be quite honest, I'm not entirely sure that everyone has a full understanding of what ministerial instructions are and how they differ from legislation. If we set the changes in Bill C-242 in legislation, what would that mean the next time the program needs to be adjusted to reflect the needs of clients?

Anyone can jump in to answer.

[Michèle Kingsley, Director General, Immigration, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to join the committee, and would like to take a moment to acknowledge that the land from which I'm joining you today is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.

As director general of the Immigration Branch within the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, I am happy to speak today about the super visa and the proposed amendments presented by Bill C‑242.

I am joined by my colleagues James Seyler from the Operations Sector as well as Caroline Forbes and Ben Mitchell from Departmental Legal Services.

Canada's immigration system recognizes the importance of family reunification and the social, cultural and economic benefits of reuniting parents and grandparents with their loved ones in Canada.

The super visa was established in 2011, and since its introduction it has been a popular and facilitative multi-entry visa that successfully reunites families in Canada.

The super visa is valid for up to 10 years, and it allows parents and grandparents to stay in Canada for up to two years each time they enter the country. They can also extend their stay from within Canada for up to two more years with no limit on the number of requests for extensions within the country.

There are also no limits on the number of individuals who can apply for the super visa, and IRCC approves approximately 17,000 of them each year.

Because of longer stays, applicants must meet additional criteria, including a one-time standard medical exam at the time of application, private health insurance from a Canadian company, and financial support from a host who must meet a minimum income cut-off. These safeguards are in place to protect clients and our health system.

Madam Chair, I would like to now address the proposed changes to the super visa brought forward by Bill C-242.

With regard to authorities, Bill C-242 proposes that certain conditions of the super visa be established in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Currently, the act serves as a framework legislation, and authorizes the making of regulations and ministerial instructions to deliver programs and services. Program criteria for the super visa are established in ministerial instructions and not the act. This approach allows for program changes to be pursued quickly to respond to emerging needs of clients.

The proposed changes by Bill C-242 would mean that future adjustments could only be done through legislative procedures that can require years to complete.

Bill C-242 also proposes to establish the length of stay in the act, increasing it from two years to five years per entry. As I mentioned, under the current super visa, clients can request extensions while here, meaning that they already have the possibility to stay for five years or even longer without needing to leave Canada.

Another important feature of the bill would allow private insurance from international providers to be designated by the minister. Under the current super visa, insurance from a Canadian company is required, because we know these providers. They are regulated in Canada, and they are reliable.

IRCC does not currently have expertise in the international health insurance market, and allowing foreign providers, as proposed by the bill, would require consultations with health sector experts as well as with provinces and territories to determine which criteria should be included in such a designation scheme. Simply put, there are many unknown impacts of broadening health insurance to foreign providers, which require further examination.

Bill C‑242 also proposes that a report be tabled to review the financial criteria for the super visa. Current income requirements are based on low–income cut–off, defined by Statistics Canada, and are intended to ensure that visiting parents and grandparents are supported by their host while in Canada.

The government agrees with the requirement to table a report on the impacts of lowering these thresholds.

I would like to thank the honourable member for Dufferin—Caledon and all committee members for bringing forward Bill C-242. The super visa is an important pathway to reunite parents and grandparents with their loved ones in Canada.

We continue to review existing criteria, and we welcome opportunities to strengthen our supports for family reunification.

I'm happy to take your questions now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting back to order.

I would like to welcome the officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration who are appearing before the committee today as we consider Bill Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).

I would like to welcome Michèle Kingsley, director general, immigration; James Seyler, director, immigration program guidance; and Ben Mitchell, counsel.

Welcome, and thanks for appearing before the committee.

You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks. You may begin, and then we will go to our round of questioning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Salman.

The time is up for Ms. Kwan.

With this, our first panel comes to an end. On behalf of all the members, I really want to thank all of the witnesses for your important input as we consider private member's Bill C-242.

I will now suspend the meeting for two minutes, so that sound checks can be done for the second panel.

Madam Clerk, please do the sound checks for the next panel.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As this is the last time I will have the floor today, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us this morning.

Ms. Amad, I believe you are the only person to whom I haven't given the floor. So I'm giving you carte blanche for the minute and a half I have left, if you have anything to tell us about Bill C‑242, the reason we're all here today.

[Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst, Lexbase]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a good bill. The five-year duration is excellent. The insurance aspect is a red flag. We may want to scrutinize Canada's international obligations to ensure the free flow of goods and services, so we may not be able to limit or restrict the selection of an insurance product to only a Canadian product. This is a heads-up for that.

There are unintended consequences that will flow from Bill C-242. In theory, it's a nice portrait. However, the practical reality is that after a five-year period, we're going to see extraordinary numbers of parents and grandparents stressed and anguished at the thought of forcibly being returned to the homeland after half a decade with their family in Canada. That's cruel. Unless there is a kind of consumer protection waiver signed at the front end, this is a titanic and compassionate humanitarian disaster in the making. Here is the cure.

Canada, annually, has a target or a quota, if you will, of parents and grandparents who will be allowed to remain or to enter Canada's permanent residence. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem we have now, which will be sorely exacerbated if we bring in a five-year super visa framework, is that every year people submit their expressions of interest to sponsor a parent or a grandparent. What used to happen every year was a lottery was held and the inventory was emptied.

We can't proceed along this path anymore. What should occur is that when there is an inventory of expressions of interest—right now, there are close to 100,000—and we know that we're only going to select a range, let's say 30,000 to 35,000 individuals, you should not be emptying that inventory annually. Instead, when you are in the inventory, the floodgates should close, no new expressions or interests will be allowed to be uploaded into the system, and then you diminish the inventory every year by the number of parents and grandparents you wish to select every year.

What's the difference for Canada? Zero. It's the same number of parents and grandparents. What's the difference for IRCC? Zero. They're going to process the same number, operationally. The difference is in the humans in the inventory. It is no longer a question of “if” I can sponsor my family member; it is a question of “when”.

If you're going to pop a five-year matrix, and you know that people are going to be stressing about being forcibly removed from Canada, you keep them in this inventory. The floodgates open. They enter if they wish to seek permanent residence, and not all do. They know that over the three- or five-year period, there's a high likelihood of being processed for permanent residence, and then you open the floodgates again and take the next batch.

I'll leave that for now.

In terms of the eligibility on minimum income, here is something creative. We don't need to.... We can lower it—there are no problems with that—but what we should be doing is giving a $5,000 credit on that minimum income threshold for every child 12 and under in that family, because we need to reward the homemaker, the person raising the children.

We need to understand the economic value of having a parent or grandparent take care of a young child, because it may free up the biological mom or biological dad to go into the workplace where they will be paying taxes to contribute to our economy.

Those are my five minutes, Chair—

[Vance P. E. Langford, Director, Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association]

Madam Chair, honourable committee members, fellow witnesses, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

Thank you for the invitation to participate in this study of Bill C-242.

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association was founded under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act on January 1, 2021, with the purpose of promoting the rule of law, access to justice and the development of Canadian immigration law and policy through legal research, education and related activities. CILA currently has over 400 members, including lawyers, students, academics and non-governmental organizations across Canada. A top priority for CILA is addressing the exclusion of legal counsel in Canada's immigration system. More information can be found at cila.co.

Regarding the amendments proposed by Bill C-242, there are diverse views among CILA members. We absolutely support programs that will streamline procedures and facilitate family reunification while maintaining the integrity of our immigration system and social systems, including health care. We strongly oppose abuse by agents and members of the public that would take advantage of our fair and generous immigration system.

Regarding the authorization of foreign health insurance, CILA acknowledges that additional competition in the insurance industry may benefit Canadian citizens, permanent residents and their parents and grandparents who apply for super visas. I did a bit of research and found that there are at least 30 companies in Canada selling private health insurance for super visas, so it may be that competition is alive and well. Nevertheless, costs are very high, ranging from about $1,800 to over $5,000 per year for a 70-year-old with no pre-existing medical conditions.

There is significant risk associated with authorizing foreign insurance companies. To maintain program integrity, we would not object to a limited number of foreign insurance brokers and underwriters being subject to equivalent standards to brokers and underwriters in Canada. We also recommend that any authorization of foreign health insurance involve robust information programs to make it clear that only authorized insurance brokers and underwriters are eligible, to avoid the victimization of Canadians and their parents and grandparents.

Regarding the proposed extension of the period to enter and remain in Canada under a super visa from two to five years, CILA is not convinced that the increase is necessary or advisable. I read the transcripts from the May 17 meeting of this committee. It appears there was a misunderstanding where it was stated that, “The original super visa allows the family to stay for two years over 10 years.” As well, if extended to five years, “They could come for five months a year [over] 10 years.” In fact, the super visa authorizes entry for up to two years at a time, not two years over 10 years. It authorizes multiple entries during its 10-year validity. A person could actually be in Canada for nine years or more as long as they left every two years. Further, a super visa holder can apply to extend their temporary resident status from within Canada and, if approved, remain for longer than two years at a time.

CILA foresees that if super visa holders are allowed to remain in Canada for up to five years at a time during its 10-year validity, they will have little incentive to maintain ties to their country of origin and residence there. On the contrary; more super visa holders may apply for permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, flooding what is already a limited category. H and C is an exceptional measure. It is not simply another means of applying for permanent residence in Canada.

There has been, and likely will continue to be, more demand than supply for parent and grandparent immigrant visas, but it may not be prudent economically to expand this category. Therefore, the importance of the super visa to facilitate family reunification, albeit on a temporary basis, is critical, especially if Canada is going to continue to attract strong economic immigrants. Potential immigrants need to know that super visas facilitate parents and grandparents visiting and the process is not too onerous.

In summary, CILA recommends maintenance of the super visa, valid for up to 10 years, with admission for up to two years at a time, and the implementation of a stable, transparent, user-friendly parents and grandparents sponsorship program.

Regarding the proposal to require the minister to prepare a report on reducing the minimum income requirement, CILA fully supports this element of Bill C-242 in further research and reporting. If the research indicates that reducing the income requirement enables Canadian citizens and permanent residents to leverage the benefits of parents and grandparents to work more hours, access education and increase household income, then we would support a reasonable reduction in the minimum income requirement.

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association thanks the committee for consulting with us. I am available to answer your questions.