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.

Reuniting Families Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑242 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), be read the third time and passed.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑242 makes minor, very specific changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The bill seeks to make it easier for a child or grandchild with temporary resident status or citizenship to bring in sponsored parents and grandparents. It amends certain specific super visa eligibility criteria.

The super visa was introduced in 2011 under the Conservatives. It is a visa that allows multiple entries and is valid for a maximum of 10 years. It allows parents and grandparents to enter Quebec and Canada and visit their family under a temporary visa for two years without having to renew their status. A regular visa for multiple entries is also valid for a maximum of 10 years, but it allows a maximum stay of six months each time.

I do not have precise statistics on the number of super visas issued per year, but we know that there are fewer than 20,000 issued nationwide every year. This represents a fairly marginal proportion of 1% to 2% of the 1.7 million temporary resident visas issued annually from 2017 to 2019.

The super visa has allowed thousands of parents and grandparents from abroad to come to Canada for extended periods, which benefits the families not only socially, but also economically. For example, by being in Quebec, those parents and grandparents can help care for young children, allowing working-age immigrants and citizens to fully participate in the labour force and the economy.

Having them here saves parents from paying for child care. Studies show that immigrant parents are less likely than non-immigrant parents to pay for child care in order to go to work. Sometimes, these families simply cannot afford child care.

It is well known that immigrant women are particularly likely to be underemployed for their level of education. Faced with a choice between accepting low-paying work for which they are overqualified and staying home with the children, many immigrant mothers choose to stay home and save on child care costs.

It is worth noting that the difference in the use of child care services between immigrant and non-immigrant families is not statistically significant in Quebec, which has had a universal public child care system since 1997.

As one study found, it is women who usually assume the additional responsibilities of child care. Bill C-242 is therefore more likely to have a positive impact on the social and professional lives of immigrant women.

Since they have temporary status, these super visa immigrants cost the government little or nothing. One of the eligibility criteria for the super visa is that the person sponsoring their parents or grandparents must provide a letter that includes a promise of financial support.

A child or grandchild who invites their parent or grandparents to come to Canada must prove that their household meets the minimum necessary income. Applicants for the super visa must have medical insurance from a Canadian insurance company and must provide proof that the medical insurance has been paid.

The obligation to provide proof of medical insurance reduces the likelihood of any potential demands on the health care system or social services funded by Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. The insurance also protects the parents and grandparents, who will not be taking any risks and will not have to pay the total cost of medical care out of pocket.

As with any temporary immigration document, applicants must prove that they will voluntarily leave Canada at the end of their visit. Contrary to what we may infer from all the financial restrictions that the government has put on this super visa, having a parent or grandparent come here does not pose an additional financial burden. It is just the opposite. Having a family member provide child care allows parents to spend more time working, freeing them up to take additional shifts, for instance.

Studies also show that parents and grandparents who are invited under the super visa program or sponsored under the parents and grandparents program help their immigrant children remain in or join the labour market. Having a grandparent at home can also enable parents to accept jobs with irregular hours that fall outside child care hours.

Bill C-242 seeks to facilitate the arrival of these parents or grandparents by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in four concrete ways. First, it allows applicants for a temporary resident super visa to purchase private health insurance from an insurance company outside Canada. Based on the law of supply and demand, it is possible that, over the long term, Canadian insurance companies may lower their own insurance premiums and contributions for temporary immigrants.

Second, it extends the maximum stay in Canada to five years instead of two, without requiring the document to be renewed.

Third, the bill also requires the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to prepare and table a report assessing the implications of a reduction to the minimum income requirement, again to facilitate the arrival of parents or grandparents by reducing the financial restrictions associated with applying.

Fourth, the super visa currently allows eligible Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their parents and grandparents so that they in turn can obtain permanent residence. Basically, this program operates like a lottery.

By extending the validity of the temporary resident visa from two years to five, Bill C‑242 gives these families three extra years to improve their chances of obtaining permanent residence for their parents or grandparents.

Bill C‑242 is particularly relevant in light of the labour shortage happening in Quebec and everywhere else. That labour shortage is exacerbated by a shortage of child care spaces.

The Fédération des intervenantes en petite enfance du Québec, a Quebec organization representing child care providers, says that there is a need for 75,000 regulated, subsidized spaces.

This shortage has considerable economic impacts: Seventy per cent of SMEs say they are having human resource management issues directly related to a lack of child care spaces.

Bill C‑242 does not deal so much with the issue of the quantity of immigration as the quality and fairness of the immigration process. It is consistent with the concept of looking after new immigrants rather than feeding a machine designed to receive large numbers of immigrants with no regard for their integration into the host society.

As we know, the process of adapting and transitioning into a new society is often tumultuous and rife with challenges, particularly in terms of the language and culture of the host country, difficulty finding a job, a lack of social support and all the material sacrifices caused by arriving in a new country.

Bill C‑242 could therefore make things easier and allow new immigrants to have more time, for example, to properly integrate into the host society, learn the French language, look for work and improve their living conditions.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑242.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House in support of Bill C-242, which seeks to improve the super visa for parents or grandparents visiting their families in Canada for extended periods of time.

I want to thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for introducing this bill. I also want to thank all the committee members, who have been working to improve family reunification, for their co-operation.

Family reunification has always been a top priority for the government. That is why our government has always supported the principles of Bill C-242, reuniting parents and grandparents with their adult children and grandchildren in Canada.

Canada has one of the most generous family reunification programs in the world. We bring families, spouses and common-law partners, children and parents together through permanent and temporary programs.

One such mechanism is the super visa, which is a multiple-entry temporary resident visa that allows parents and grandparents to visit a child or grandchild in Canada for extended periods of time. Bill C-242 is focused on changing the super visa. The super visa has been a particularly popular way for the government to help reunite families. Since it was first established in 2011, nearly 150,000 super visas have been issued, with approximately 17,000 visas granted annually.

We are talking about approximately 150,000 parents and grandparents who were able to spend time with their children and grandchildren during extended visits to Canada. These parents and grandparents play an important role in the family and help guide the next generation. Having parents and grandparents around can make life easier in situations where both parents work.

What makes the super visa unique is the length of stay and the ability to leave and to return to Canada. For a standard visitor's visa or temporary resident visa, the length of stay is limited to up to six months. Because the super visa allows for longer stays and the ability to return without reapplying for another temporary visa, it is highly valuable to bringing families together.

Our government has made many changes to improve the super visa. First, by increasing the length of stay per entry from one year to two years in 2018, and most recently, in June of this year, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced the visa would be enhanced to allow for stays up to five years at a time. The super visa also holds the possibility of multiple extensions. Now a parent or grandparent can stay up to seven consecutive years.

A long-term, flexible visa means that applicants and their families might be subject to additional criteria before their applications are approved. This includes undergoing an immigration medical exam, purchasing private medical insurance and ensuring that the applicant will receive minimum financial support from their Canadian or permanent resident child or grandchild.

Super visas are authorized through ministerial instructions, in accordance with the powers granted to the minister by Parliament under the law. Ministerial instructions are a more flexible instrument that can usually be implemented more rapidly when governments need to make changes quickly to respond to our clients' needs.

I note that some members of the committee raised concerns that by enshrining a new super visa condition into the legislation, it might be less adaptable to changing circumstances. While there are advantages to maintaining the program in ministerial instructions, Bill C-242 would advance every party's desire to keep families together and allow parents and grandparents to support their loves ones in Canada.

Our government firmly supports the five-year length of stay per entry for super visa holders, and that is why we announced changes to the super visa in June of this year to increase the length of stay to five years per entry, with a possibility of extending the stay for two years.

Bill C-242 would also legislate that applicants can purchase health insurance from insurance companies outside of Canada. Currently, only Canadian insurance companies can offer coverage for those parents or grandparents coming to Canada.

As previously mentioned, the minister announced enhancements to the super visa in June of 2022, and as part of those changes, the minister is now able to designate foreign medical insurance providers to provide insurance coverage for super visa applications. I am glad the language of the bill supports a robust and thorough system to approve international insurance companies.

Finally, we firmly support the minister examining the program criteria for the current super visa and tabling a report in Parliament outlining how to improve the program. This responds to some of the concerns raised in committee about the income requirement for the super visa, which would ensure that parents and grandparents are supported while they are in Canada. I believe that all members in the House want to examine options for improving any and all programs so that as many families as possible can access them.

Similarly, we appreciate the recent amendment to Bill C-242 to authorize the minister to conduct an examination of special circumstances that may have arisen during the processing of temporary resident visa applications, and report back to Parliament. We are supportive of this study and look forward to its findings.

I appreciate the work done by the committee and the House seeking to improve our immigration system and reunite more families in Canada. I thank those who contributed to and are working on improving this program and other immigration programs. I am pleased about the prospect of future collaborations and a law that brings all parties in the House together to work on behalf of all Canadians and in their best interests.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill will have a positive and meaningful impact on family reunification for many immigrants, particularly immigrant women.

Bill C-242 would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, specifically the eligibility criteria for parents and grandparents who wish to apply for the temporary resident super visa. To better understand this, let us take a quick look back.

The super visa was introduced in 2011. It allowed many parents and grandparents from around the world to temporarily enter Canada for two years at a time over a 10-year period. This visa allows multiple entries for extended periods. This has benefited families and communities across the country, both socially and economically. More than a third of the super visas were granted to families from India, followed by families from China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Bangladesh.

One year after the launch of the super visa program, approximately 13,000 visas had been issued, with an acceptance rate of 87%. Without exact statistics about the number of super visas issued per year, we know that it is 20,000 or less across Quebec and the country, representing a relatively small proportion of between 1% and 2% of temporary residence visas issued every year.

We can easily understand that being able to stay longer with an adult child would allow a parent or grandparent to provide support in all kinds of family situations. Very often, the individual will take care of grandchildren, enabling adult immigrants to actively contribute to the economy.

How does the super visa for parents and grandparents differ from a regular multiple-entry visa? Currently, most visitors can only stay in Canada up to six months after their initial entry. The super visa allows eligible parents and grandparents to visit their family in Canada for up to two years without having to renew their status.

Bill C-242 introduces minor and very specific amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to facilitate the arrival of parents and grandparents sponsored by a child or grandchild who is a temporary resident or Canadian citizen. This bill will extend the validity of the temporary resident visa from two to five years. This will give these families three more years to improve their chances of obtaining permanent residence. That is something.

One of the greatest benefits of facilitating the arrival of parents or grandparents from abroad is to make it possible for them to free the parents from the responsibility of caring for young children and helping them save money on child care costs.

I would ask members to note the following prediction: By 2036, between 38% and 50% of children under the age of 6 will be children of immigrants. Therefore, it will be especially important to provide the parents of these children with an alternative for their child’s care.

I would also point out to my colleagues that some cultures value the importance of exposing children to their mother tongue and their culture at a very young age. Those values can have an impact on the families’ preferences when it comes to choosing a child care option.

We know that the lack of established social networks, the lack of ties to the host community and language barriers significantly hinder access to child care. These factors disproportionately affect new immigrants. The situation is even worse for immigrant women. They often face a difficult choice: to work, at times for low pay because they often have few skills or their skills are unfortunately not recognized, or to stay home with the children to save on child care costs.

A resident in my constituency, Laurentides—Labelle, who is originally from India called us for help bringing over his father-in-law. That resident is a new father and it would be entirely natural for the grandfather to be able to stay in the beautiful area of Saint-Agathe-des-Monts to support his daughter and son-in-law for at least five years.

In general, immigrant families are more likely to turn to free child care options that allow both parents to work. For all these reasons, we must consider Bill C-242, which will facilitate family reunification for an extended period of time. It will enable immigrant families to turn to free child care options and make it possible for mothers to choose to contribute to the economy and improve their living conditions. Everyone wins.

For all these reasons, and to support these immigrant families, the Bloc Québécois will vote for this bill.

I would add that there are many new immigrant families who are having a hard time adjusting. We see it, and we support them every day in all our regions. They reach out to us for support in their integration journey. We must support them and support the amendments in Bill C-242.

I would like to talk about the four changes to the eligibility criteria for the parents' and grandparents' super visa. The first, as I said at the outset, is the extended stay in Canada for up to five years. Second, the visa facilitates access to permanent residence. Parents and grandparents will have three years to obtain permanent residence for themselves. Third, the visa expands the pool of insurance companies. Currently, only Canadian companies can be used. Immigrants will be able to buy coverage at a better price. Fourth, the minister will have to table a report about reducing the income requirement to make it easier for parents and grandparents to come.

In closing, we must remember that a newcomer's journey demands a fighting spirit, especially in the early years. They face many obstacles. I salute everyone in Laurentides—Labelle who is facing those obstacles right now. Of course we do what we can to support them.

Many of those who reach out to us need help finding work, learning our language or accessing various services. I believe that Bill C‑242 will facilitate their social and economic integration. It is important to support them.

The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), be read the third time and passed.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you back in the chair and to see all of my colleagues in this wonderful place. It is, of course, an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Fredericton and to join our voice in this debate this evening.

I would like just to begin with my wish for this fall session on behalf of our colleagues here in this place. I hope for a session of collaboration, of collegiality and, dare I say, of kindness and compassion. I know that is what Canadians want to see from us on all issues, even difficult ones. Even on issues where we may disagree, there is a place for us to show our respect for one another. Really, Canadians want us to work together. I hope to see rhetoric toned down. I hope to see a little less polarization, understanding that our behaviours in this place are reflected in our communities.

This evening we are discussing Bill C-242, which is the reuniting families act. In Fredericton, inquiries regarding immigration, refugee status and visas are the highest number that we have as far as constituency files go. I would like to thank my incredible staff for the work that they do on behalf of our residents as well. It is difficult work and we hear a lot about the need for family reunification. None of us can imagine the difficulty of being separated from our loved ones for long periods of time, but it certainly continues to happen, and I am happy to see that there are measures being taken to address these long absences.

The super visa is extremely popular. Our government recognizes that having parents and grandparents being able to visit Canada for longer periods of time will bring substantial benefits for families living in Canada and, by extension, the Canadian economy as well.

After extensive consultation with caucus, stakeholders and experts, it was determined that the fundamental program changes sought in this bill would be in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian permanent residents. For this reason, in June the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship used his authority under ministerial instructions to make changes to the length of stay for a super visa holder and he committed to designate certain international medical insurance companies as authorized to provide coverage to super visa applicants. These changes will strengthen family reunification in Canada, which is, of course, a priority for our government.

What this shows is a demonstration of working together with opposition members on some of the issues that they also see in their constituencies. It also shows a willingness to listen to what Canadians and other members in the House are telling us, and the commitment to work together to solve these problems. It may not be exactly what we saw in the private member's bill. It shows kind of a tweaking of the message there, but our minister has been doing an excellent job of really responding to the high needs that we see in each constituency.

Again, it is an honour to rise. I did not realize I would be participating in tonight's debate, so I am happy to have my voice on the record. It is a complicated issue, but we have found the best pieces to work together on. I am sure there are still places we can improve, but the goal is to focus on family reunification and ensuring that those long absences do not add to the stress that those families are feeling and do not add to the mental health issues that we are seeing with those who are separated from loved ones for long periods of time. It is something that we are going to continue to work on, listening to Canadians and hoping to deliver.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon for the time he has dedicated to this legislation.

As we know, our government has made a strong commitment to bring newcomers with their family members from overseas. Maintaining the bonds of family is not only essential to our immigration system. It is paramount to the well-being of Canadian society in general and, perhaps, most importantly, family reunification is a fundamental Canadian value.

For me, I was also raised by my grandparents. I would not be who I am without them as I stand here today.

Canada has one of the most generous family reunification programs in the world. We strive to keep families connected wherever possible.

With families by their sides, newcomers can better integrate into Canadian society and contribute to the success of communities from coast to coast to coast. The last two years have been tough for everyone. After the uncertainty and isolation of the pandemic, people are especially keen to reconnect with their loved ones. The love and support of parents and grandparents in particular are factors in the success of newcomers and those who are well-established here as permanent residents or Canadian citizens. This is why Canada has a special class of visa available for parents and grandparents who wish to visit their family for longer periods of time. The parent and grandparent super visa is a multiple-entry visa, valid for entry for up to 10 years.

In June of this year, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced that the visa would be enhanced to allow for stays of up to five years at a time. That is an increase from two years. The super visa also holds the possibility of multiple extensions so that now a parent or grandparent can stay up to seven consecutive years. A long-term, flexible visa means that applicants and their families might be subject to additional criteria before their applications are approved. This includes undergoing an immigration medical exam, purchasing private medical insurance and making sure that the applicant will receive minimum financial support from their Canadian or permanent resident child or grandchild.

As previously mentioned, the minister announced enhancements to the super visa in June of 2022 and, as part of those changes, the minister is now able to designate foreign medical insurance providers to provide insurance coverage for super visa applications.

It is important to ensure that these visitors, who are more at risk of changing health circumstances, are protected with reliable and secure emergency medical coverage while visiting Canada for a long period of time so that they are not denied medical treatment or asked to pay hospital bills right out of pocket. The minister made this change to provide more flexibility to super visa holders while also ensuring that these parents and grandparents have adequate coverage while in Canada. I am confident that any foreign insurance companies designated by the minister will undergo a robust verification process to ensure that super visa holders are adequately protected.

Bill C-242 also requires the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to table a report on reducing the income requirement that the child or grandchild must meet for the parent or grandparent to qualify for a super visa. As we affirmed during debate in the last stage of the bill, the government supports these changes. As I have already said, the necessary steps to implement them were taken in June 2022 through ministerial instruction, which came into force in July.

Along with many other members here, I would be glad to see a report tabled in Parliament on the income requirements for the super visa. The minimum necessary income requirement is in place to ensure that the host child or grandchild is able to provide for the basic requirements of their visiting parent or grandparent while they are in Canada. That said, we must always be willing to look for opportunities that may lead to greater program flexibility and, ultimately, more families being able to reunite with one another.

What needs to be clarified is the fact that Bill C-242 proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, effectively enshrining these changes to the super visa in law. We continue to believe that entrenching changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would hamper the ability to be responsive to potentially different needs of parents and grandparents in the future. Any future enhancement to the super visa could potentially take years to go through a legislative process.

The changes that were made in June exemplify how effective and rapid this instrument is when an improvement is needed. Setting things in stone in IRPA would completely negate this expediency. Ministerial instructions allow the government to respond rapidly to the needs of clients as opposed to a slow-moving legislative procedure.

In closing, the government strongly recognizes family reunification as an integral part of our immigration system. Helping families reunite with loved ones is a priority for our government. Canadians have asked for this, and we have responded. Thanks to the changes brought into force last June, parents and grandparents may now stay in Canada for many, many years without having to leave the country. With approximately 17,000 super visas issued every year, the super visa is an accessible option for the parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to reunite in Canada. I remain confident that the super visa in its current form maximizes benefits to families.

For this reason, while the Government of Canada supports many of the principles outlined in private member's bill, Bill C-242, we recommend that the authorities remain under ministerial instruction and not in legislation. This would preserve our ability to best serve our current clients and those who are to come in the future.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of my colleague's bill. First and foremost, I want to congratulate my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for bringing forward such a compassionate, sympathetic and common-sense bill that will help many new immigrants to this country and help our economy at the same time.

Before I get into the speech, I would also like to thank my NDP and Bloc colleagues for supporting the bill, making all kinds of great recommendations all the way along, and helping to get it through our immigration committee, without the support of the Liberals of course. I find it quite funny that the government loved the bill so much that it ended up taking it from my colleague and claiming it as its own.

I find it even more interesting and ironic that at second reading of the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration said in this place, “The government does not support the member's proposal to allow...applicants to purchase private health insurance from foreign companies.” It is interesting enough that when the Liberals were taking the bill from my colleague, they also took that part of it, one of the most common-sense parts of the bill, which would help low-income families and those who need the help the most. However, they did not support that part. They still do not support that part.

I find it quite ironic and interesting that the woke government, which claims to be there for Canadians and have their backs, is not there. It is not there for low-income families, especially newcomers, who need the support from their parents and grandparents. We know how important it is to have grandparents and parents here. We saw that throughout the entire pandemic. People needed help. People were struggling with mental health and all sorts of problems.

In my office I see all sorts of troubles caused by the Liberal-made backlog in immigration. As my Bloc colleague said, 80% to 90% of the cases that come through our offices are immigration cases. The immigration system today is broken under the Liberal government. In my opinion, this common-sense bill, Bill C-242, would help to reduce that backlog. These are the common-sense solutions our party is putting forward because the government is not addressing the Liberal-made backlogs it has created itself.

I will keep it short because we have debated enough. All of my colleagues have put great points forward. I urge the government to support this bill. Let us get the help right away that people need now. Let us put it into legislation and let us get the job done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise and speak to Bill C-242.

The heart of the issue of Bill C-242 is reuniting families. It is about ensuring that parents and grandparents can come to Canada to be with their loved ones. We know the value of that and cherish it as individuals. Like other people with children, I value the moments that my daughter and son spend with their grandmother and grandfather. Of course, my parents are immigrants here, so they get to enjoy that, but so many newcomers, so many immigrants who come to this country, are not in that fortunate situation. They did not bring their parents and grandparents here to Canada, and they cannot enjoy those moments. What Bill C-242 is trying to do is facilitate a process for those families to be reunited through the super visa process.

The super visa process is already in place, and the bill before us seeks to enhance it by addressing the high cost of the issue with respect to insurance coverage particularly, and then extending the period to which parents and grandparents can come to Canada under a super visa.

Interestingly, and because of petty politics, in my view, after the bill was tabled, we saw the government, through committee, literally in the ninth hour, bring forward ministerial instructions to try to kill the bill, which is exactly what happened. Despite government members saying that they have advocated for this for a very long time, the reality is that they did not act on it. I remember, because back in 2015 as a new member of Parliament, this was one of the issues that we studied. We studied parents and grandparents reunification, and there was a whole host of recommendations that were tabled, but then it just sat on a shelf and nothing happened. I express my congratulations to the member for actually pushing the government in this regard and getting this done.

With that being said, I do think there are flaws within the bill. Of course, my first choice would be for the government to lift the cap on parents and grandparents reunification so that all those family members could seek permanent residence status here in Canada in an expeditious way. Now, that did not happen.

However, the issue I have with Bill C-242 is that I was hoping, through the bill, to have an amendment so there would be an appeal process for rejections of super visas, which the member did support, but it did not get government support. It did not go through, which is very unfortunate, because as members can imagine, a person whose application has been turned down would actually have to go through judicial review, which is a very onerous and expensive process that should not, in my view, be required. There should be a simple appeal process for the review officers, the government and the minister to take into consideration the extenuating circumstances of why an application is being rejected and then make compassionate decisions.

I cited an example of one family whose application was rejected because they missed the income requirement in the final stages. Their child came early and they had to go on maternity leave. As a result, their income dipped every so slightly for a short period of time. After the child the was born, their income went back up, but then it was already too late, because they had already failed the program and they were rejected in the application. To me, that is a shame.

The government would say that they can reapply, which is true, but why make a family reapply? It is costly for the family. It delays the process, and equally important, it actually jams up IRCC and its staff, because they have to reprocess the same application yet again. Why go through that process when we could save the administrative cost on the government side?

That amendment, unfortunately, did not go through, but Bill C-242 would require the minister to report on it and review the issue around the review process, as well as report back on the income cut-off. I do think that reunification should not be based on one's ability to pay. Family reunification should be valued for what it is. Therefore, we should actually have a fulsome review of the costs that the government is imposing with respect to that and really examine whether or not we should be imposing it.

One thing that people often misconceive is the reality that when parents and grandparents come to Canada through family reunification, they contribute to our economy. They support the family, as both parents can get out into the workforce, as an example, and they can help with child care. They help with the growth of the children by teaching them their cultural and family history, language and so on. All of that contributes to building a multicultural Canada, one we are very proud of.

When we put up these barriers that block family reunification and only talk about their income, for example, saying that if their incomes dip ever so slightly, they are somehow disqualified, we are sending the clear message that family reunification needs to be bought. Just imagine that for one minute. If any one of us sitting in this chamber was told that we have to buy the ability to see our parents or grandparents, what would we say to that? I do not think that is who we are as a country and as a nation. I do not think that is who we are as people. Humanitarian actions acting on the basis of humanity mean that we cherish and value what we have and that we want to expand that to other people as well.

When it comes to family, I wish all families would be able to reunite. I wish that people would have the opportunity to be with their loved ones, create memories and then preserve those memories. The only way they can do that is for people to be able to reunite with each other.

I hope the government and the minister will take this to heart and examine the parents and grandparents sponsorship program and lift the cap to honour reunification in that way. In the interim, they should enhance the super visa program with an appeal process to ensure that there is an appeal process in place, and should lower the cost requirements. When we do that, we are respecting the families, and I think that is ultimately what we all want to see.

I will close by congratulating the member for bringing this bill forward. It is better to have legislation than ministerial instructions. It is petty for the government to play petty politics and bring in ministerial instructions at the last moment to usurp this bill. In the life of politics, at the end of the day what we all want to do, no matter which side we are on or which bench we are on, is make sure that policies are brought in to support and benefit the community.

There is no doubt in the minds of the New Democrats that ensuring family reunification for parents and grandparents is a laudable goal. It is a goal we support. We want to see this measure come to fruition, at least in the interim as a super visa. Let us reduce the cost of it for families and say that reuniting with loved ones should not be something we need to buy, but something we all honour and respect.

The New Democrats are happy to support this bill, and I look forward to seeing its full passage through the Senate.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see you again after such a lovely summer. I hope you were able to meet with your constituents and all the people participating in this debate in the House this evening.

I do not know if the member for Saint-Jean is listening this evening, but I must commend her for the thorough job she has done. She gave a remarkable speech during the previous reading of this bill, which has greatly inspired my speech today.

I also want to acknowledge the patience of the member for Dufferin—Caledon, who has been waiting many months for his bill to move forward.

First, I will quickly explain what a super visa is. I believe that everyone who rises to speak to this debate will do so. It is a visa, a travel document, for parents and grandparents. Someone who gets this visa is not allowed to work here, but they are allowed enter multiple times and stay for a maximum of two years at a time. There are certain requirements, and I will talk about the two most important ones. First, the person needs to have medical insurance coverage from a Canadian company. Second, the child or grandchild bringing in the parent or grandparent must provide proof of their ability to support them financially. There is a minimum income threshold that has to be proven by the child or grandchild in order for the parent or grandparent to receive the visa.

Spoiler alert: Let me just say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.

For many families wishing to bring in parents and grandparents, the logistics, the paperwork and the wait times are an immeasurable administrative burden. Often, these families want to sponsor their parents or grandparents to come here permanently.

The super visa being considered provides the opportunity to have one's parents here in Canada while the sponsorship and permanent residence application is being processed. It is also another option for those not picked in the lottery.

That system is very restrictive. Few people manage to get a sponsorship application for parents or grandparents. I would like to add one thing: Right now, every time we check, the government has a backlog for almost all immigration programs. As all members of Parliament know, in our constituency offices across Canada and Quebec, about 80% to 85% of our most complicated cases are immigration cases. It needs to be said. This should not be allowed to continue across multiple programs. It would be a good idea to fast-track and streamline the process for those who in all likelihood would receive a favourable decision anyway. It seems to me that it might not be a bad thing.

The bill also makes some overall minor but specific changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We know this will apply to a relatively small number of the temporary residence visas granted every year. We also know that, because they have temporary status, these immigrants will not end up costing the federal or provincial governments anything. Lastly, we know that the few thousand people who are granted the existing super visa are generally people of significant financial means. The applicants have proof of funds, and the parents and grandparents have prepaid health insurance. In essence, they have to be financially secure. They pose no risk to anybody.

What exactly is a super visa? What will this bill change?

Bill C-242 makes four practical changes. First, visitors may purchase private health insurance from an insurance company located outside Canada. The current eligibility criteria require applicants to purchase insurance from a Canadian company.

Yesterday, I was talking about supply and demand, and it is the same idea. This could expand the pool of insurance companies, which will probably reduce insurance costs for super visa applicants.

As my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, mentioned, all it takes is a quick search to see that this kind of insurance coverage is extremely expensive. For a young person in their forties with no known health issues, the premium can cost between $1,000 and $1,500. For people slightly older or with known health problems, insurance coverage can cost up to $6,000 or $7,000 a year. For two parents or grandparents, the cost must come to about $10,000 annually on top of all of the costs associated with the immigration process. Wes, these people do have resources, as I said, but that is no reason to stop them from shopping around for insurance.

The bill requires that the foreign insurance company be approved by the minister, ensuring that the company is legitimate and that its coverage is compatible with our health care systems. By opening up the market to competition, we take away Canadian companies' monopoly over this type of insurance coverage. I am not an economist, but this seems to me like a rather basic way to reduce the cost of coverage.

It will also allow some foreign nationals to combine this insurance coverage with a policy they already have for their home or vehicle.

I imagine that this could help them save money that they can use to get settled here, purchase goods and services, and contribute to our economy.

The second thing is that Bill C‑242 extends the period of time a person can stay in Canada without having to renew the document from two to five years. This measure would help eliminate some existing irritants.

The super visa is a multiple-entry visa that is valid for a maximum of 10 years. The number of round trips that parents and grandparents have to make between Canada and their country of origin increases airfare costs. This measure alone would significantly reduce those costs. As well, renewing the permit every two years currently requires a medical exam for the insurance premium. It is obvious that, over a total span of 10 years, the grandparents' health could change, which could result in higher premiums and, more importantly, add some unpredictability to their stay in the country.

Going back to what I was saying, it is clear to me that as long as these people do not pose a financial risk to taxpayers, we should try to make life easier for them and their children and grandchildren who are hosting them and taking responsibility for them.

As I said earlier, children who are either permanent residents or citizens must meet a minimum financial threshold. Bill C‑242 does not relax or eliminate the requirement for proof of financial means to support their parents or grandparents. Instead, it would have the minister study whether the minimum income requirement should be maintained. As I learned from my colleague from Saint-Jean, many people are suggesting it should be eliminated altogether.

If, within the next two years, the minister wants to maintain the minimum income requirement as is, they will have to explain why. Ministerial instructions changed everything though, so parliamentarians have not taken much of an interest in this bill.

The bill calls for a review of whether a particular measure is appropriate, which is reasonable. The committee covered this, and it went very well. The committee members were in agreement. Simply put, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. It is all good. We have nothing bad to say about it.

There were ministerial instructions, but I think that this will make the measure permanent and ensure that it goes further in time. The member for Dufferin—Caledon did outstanding work on this. He has the support of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. I think that this bill will move forward one way or another, even if one party on the other side of the House opposes it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for his speech. I also thank him for his hard work on this bill. He has been working on it for a long time, and he can be proud of what he has accomplished.

Let me play devil's advocate so he can say a few more words. Some people are watching this debate because they plan to criticize Bill C‑242. They wonder why we should bother proceeding with the bill if there are ministerial instructions that are essentially the same as what is in Bill C‑242.

Would my colleague please comment on that?

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth and 10th reports of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in relation to Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regarding temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

As my colleague was stating, I think there was a lot of goodwill all throughout this process that took place to try to bring forward the consideration. It's very interesting for me the spirit of collaboration we've started. When I think about C-242—and I think my colleagues on both sides realize the importance of this—I have to say that I did congratulate Mr. Seeback myself, because I was very happy to see the goodwill we had in this committee, Madam Chair.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

The way it would be is that we would be striking “that the committee report to the House” and adding, “that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has considered Bill C-242, an Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visa for parents and grandparents), and wishes to make the following recommendation to the government and wishes to express its support for the creation of the review mechanism recommended in the following amendment proposed to Bill C-242”.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to bring an amendment to my colleague's motion.

It would read that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has considered C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wonder if I can move this motion, which is related to the work that we have just completed and, particularly, to the amendment that I tried to move forward that did not pass. I would like to move that the committee report to the House its support for the creation of the review mechanism recommended in the following amendment proposed to C-242: that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be amended by adding a provision for “special circumstances to be taken into account in the processing of temporary resident visa applications” and “a review process for decisions made in relation to temporary resident visa applications”.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, Madam Chair. I move that Bill C-242, in clause 5, be amended (a) by replacing line 19 on page 2 with the following:

tion does not provide for a reduction to the minimum income re‐

Also, it moves that clause 5 be amended (b) by replacing line 24 on page 2 with the following:

or grandchild or the circumstances or review process referred to in subsection 4(1), the Minister must table in each

This is a consequential amendment to the previous amendment that was passed, effectively asking that the minister respond to Parliament, including the issues around an appeal process and under special circumstances.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate Ms. Kwan's decision in moving this amendment. Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable in supporting it. While the government welcomes the opportunity to review the existing super visa program criteria and prepare C-242 a report to Parliament on the current income requirements, including special circumstances examining a review process for TRVs, these are beyond the scope of Bill .

If the committee wishes for the government to implement these changes to temporary resident visas more broadly, there should be a more comprehensive analysis of the issue before making legislative changes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I would, Madam Chair.

I would move that Bill C-242 in clause 4 be amended (a) by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:

tion must prepare a report in respect of a reduction to the mini-

Also, it would amend clause 4 (b) by replacing line 7 on page 2 with the following:

visit that child or grandchild, including in respect of any special circumstances to be taken into account in the process of temporary resident visa applications and a review process for the decisions made in relation to those applications.

Madam Chair, this is related to the report back to Parliament from the minister. Given that I wasn't able to get the appeal process and special circumstances to be amended in the act itself, as it was deemed out of scope, at the very minimum I'm hoping that members will support having the minister respond to this concept in the report back to Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I would like to give my ruling on the amendment.

Bill C-242 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. The amendment seeks to add the possibility for the minister to give other instructions respecting applications for a temporary resident visa that are not contemplated by Bill C-242.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, adding the possibility for the minister to give new instructions not envisioned in Bill C-242 is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment is inadmissible.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair, I would like to bring an amendment to Bill C-242 in clause 2, lines eight to 15. I have the amendment here in both official languages to be shared with the members of the committee, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I will have to give a ruling on this amendment. The amendment that Ms. Kwan just moved seeks to amend subsection 14(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which deals with regulations related to requirements and selection. The amendment also seeks to introduce a review process that is not contemplated by Bill C-242.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 771:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 14 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is not being amended by Bill C-242, and also because the introduction of a review process is a new concept, this amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

This ruling is non-debatable.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

All right.

I move to amend Bill C-242 by adding, before line 5 on page 1, the following new clause:

1.1 Subsection 14(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(c.1) special circumstances to be taken into account in the processing of temporary resident visa applications;

(c.2) a review process for decisions made in relation to temporary resident visa applications;

Madam Chair, the reason I'd like to move this amendment is so that there could be an appeal process in place for rejections. As we know, oftentimes people are not able to have their application reviewed after it's been rejected. The process that's available to them is extremely onerous, and in many cases effectively not available.

We know that there are extenuating circumstances that happen in people's lives. I cited during committee, with witnesses, examples such as applicants whose applications are rejected because their financial situation changes at the last minute and for the short term, but their entire application is ultimately rejected as a result.

I'm moving for an appeal system to be established and for special circumstances to be allowed to be taken into consideration. The amendment does not spell out what that appeal process would look like. It would be left to the government to make that determination and set up that structure. However, the call for an appeal process to be established is what this is about, and for special circumstances to be taken into consideration.

I hope members will consider this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

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

Welcome to meeting 28 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 of the Board of Internal Economy on Thursday, November 25, 2021, to remain healthy and safe all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain two metres of 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, including when seated and that you maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer in the room. You must refrain from coming to the room if you are symptomatic.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your microphone 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.

First, I would like to welcome the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Kyle Seeback.

I don't see him here.

Okay, that's not a problem. We are joined by officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: Michèle Kingsley, director general, immigration; Alexis Graham, director, social and discretionary policy and programs; James Seyler, director, immigration program guidance; and Ben Mitchell, counsel.

We are also joined by the legislative clerks today to provide us advice.

Thanks for joining us.

We are ready to start clause-by-clause consideration. I want to inform the members of some instructions that we need to follow as we go through the clause-by-clause consideration. This is the first one we are having in this session.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member who is proposing the amendment and who may explain that amendment. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk of the committee. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

I will try to go slowly so that I allow all the members to follow the proceedings properly. If there are any questions, please raise your hand and get my attention. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top-right corner to indicate which party submitted the amendment. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment at a time may be considered. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Are there any questions? Is everyone clear? Does anyone need clarification before we begin the process?

Okay.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 4, 2022, we will begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

We will begin with amendment NDP-1, numbered 11777709, which proposes new clause 1.1. This is on page 1 of the package.

Would the member like to move this?

Yes, Ms. Kwan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Just for the information of all the members, Thursday's meeting is scheduled to be clause-by-clause on Bill C-242. Then, the week after—the week of June 13, 16 and 18—we will be going through the consideration of the draft report, so it will be up to the members how long they take.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. Time is up.

With that, our panel comes to an end. On behalf of all the members of the committee, I want to take this opportunity to thank both witnesses for appearing before this committee and providing important testimony towards Bill C-242.

This panel comes to an end. We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow the witnesses for the second panel to come in.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's interesting that my friend Sukh Dhaliwal talked about child care. We know that Canada and Quebec are currently experiencing a labour shortage, especially in child care.

Mr. Ramos, do you think Bill C-242 is something of a solution to the lack of child care spaces? Could we see it like that? Couldn't it be a bit of a precarious solution?

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

Thank you for that answer.

I will turn to you again, Mr. Ramos. Some people are claiming that the IRCC is too demanding, as it expects a family's income not to fluctuate from one year to another and never to drop below the required minimum during recession periods. That may be problematic for some families.

How do you think the requirements for producing reports created by clauses 4 and 5 of Bill C-242 resolve this issue?

[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.

[Dima Amad, Executive Director, Arab Community Centre of Toronto]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, good morning, and thank you for inviting the Arab Community Centre of Toronto as a witness this morning in regard to the reuniting families act.

My name is Dima Amad. I am the executive director. Joining me today is Ms. Rasha Salman, our program development lead. We will both speak to the ACCT's position on the bill being discussed today.

We first wish to express our thanks and appreciation to the federal government on its fervent commitment to the humanitarian values of Canada by consistently opening up opportunities for refugees and immigrants to to relocate to Canada, particularly its recent commitment to welcome at least 40,000 Afghan refugees and unlimited Ukrainian refugees through various programs and partnerships. The prioritization of human life over financial interests has always been a characteristic of different Canadian governments, and we hope it will continue to be so for a long time.

We have seen and experienced first-hand the challenges these populations face by having to leave their homes and seek refuge and a better life somewhere else. Some of these are life-threatening challenges, and world solidarity is much needed today. Indeed, with 26.4 million refugees worldwide, demand on immigration and refugee programs is only bound to increase, and we all must do our best to help.

As an organization whose raison d'être is to help refugees and immigrants, we deeply appreciate the government's understanding of this complex world emergency, and we thank you for your continuous support of our mission and programs. We also highly value the opportunity to contribute to policy discussions such as today's and strive to be a faithful messenger of the concerns and needs of a large and important chunk of the Canadian population.

This brings me to our discussion today. I am going to start by going straight to the point.

The ACCT supports the bill proposed by MP Seeback and considers it a great improvement to the original super visa program. I will get to our assessment of the bill in what follows. I will also detail some observations we have and recommendations that we hope will feature in the coming discussions of this bill.

When the super visa was introduced in 2011, it came as a welcome measure to reduce backlogs in immigration applications and to facilitate family reunification. The flexibility of the super visa and the shorter processing times were indeed great solutions for people wishing to reunite with their families for short periods of time. However, it is understandable that improvements to the visa are due.

From experience and literature, the ACCT has learned of many concerns over the limitations of the original super visa. Some research suggested that, due to its temporary nature, the super visa actually did not support family reunification and prevented families from making meaningful long-term plans.

The costs of travel and insurance and minimum income requirements were thought to be prohibitive for many people. We have heard concerns that forcing parents to buy insurance for the whole year when they were staying for a few months made it impossible for many to apply for the super visa.

Sometimes families or single parents needed help with child-rearing, which back home was a job for the grandmother, and couldn't afford day care costs. One cited a monthly bill of $1,800.

At other times, immigrants expressed concern for parents or even siblings left alone during war or conflict when remaining members of the family have passed away or have fled to safer havens. Many of those immigrants or refugees prefer to reunite permanently with their parents in Canada, but in the absence of a sponsorship opportunity, many resort to the super visa.

Furthermore, some research in the past few years showed that super visa approvals were heavily skewed in favour of European or U.S. parents or grandparents as opposed to racialized populations. Scholars argued that there was a much lower approval rate from the global south, such as Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, than from the U.S. and Europe, which meant that super visa reinforced racial stratification.

Finally, people on super visas cannot work. This means that while Canada might have visitors staying for up to two years—and now five—these residents, who may well be as young as 45 or 50, cannot contribute to the economy.

Having said that, I will say that the new bill comes with much-needed improvements: extending the number of years of stay from two to five; allowing insurance to be purchased from providers outside Canada; and addressing the minimum income threshold. These are excellent improvements, and we believe they will greatly facilitate the lives and integration journey of many new immigrants. However, we believe that these measures should not be a substitute to the paths for permanent relocation of parents and grandparents.

I'll now give the floor to my colleague Rasha to expand on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Is it agreed that the chair submit the budget to the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets of the Liaison Committee by June 3, 2022? Is everyone in agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 4, 2022, we will now resume consideration of Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).

Today we will be hearing from a number of witnesses. For the first panel, I would like to welcome Dima Amad, executive director, and Rasha Salman, program development lead, from the Arab Community Centre of Toronto; Vance Langford, director, Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association; and Richard Kurland, lawyer and policy analyst, representing Lexbase.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. All of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. Then we will go into our round of questioning.

We will start with Madam Amad, executive director of the Arab Community Centre of Toronto.

You have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please begin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

With regard to Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), the budget is in the amount of $7,575.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

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

Welcome to meeting number 26 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 of the Board of Internal Economy on Thursday, November 25, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain 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. You must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer in the room. Please refrain from coming to the room if you are symptomatic.

I would remind you 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.

Before we begin, I would like to indicate a few things for the upcoming meetings. Our Thursday meeting has been cancelled, as another committee required our spot. This means that Tuesday, June 7 will be the last panel on Bill C-242, followed by a panel on application backlogs and processing times.

Does the committee agree to clause-by-clause being scheduled for Thursday, June 9 for private member's Bill C-242? Is everyone in agreement?

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Seeback, the length of stay now granted by the super visa allows people to apply for permanent residence under better conditions. However, Bill C‑242 implies a need to ensure that the family member will voluntarily leave Canada once their visit is over.

Isn't that contradictory?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague Mr. Seeback for his initiative and I commend him for it. I'm very pleased that he is with us today.

I'm going to go back to the question Ms. Kayabaga asked about the process for setting up a framework for foreign insurers.

As I understand it, Bill C‑242 puts everything in the minister's hands in terms of setting up a framework for private insurers.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 24 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 of the Board of Internal Economy on Thursday, November 25, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain two-metre physical distancing and must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is also highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. Those attending must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer in the room. Please refrain from coming to the room if you are symptomatic.

I remind you 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, the committee will consider Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with regard to temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents.

I would like to welcome Mr. Kyle Seeback, the sponsor of this private member's bill, who will begin with five minutes of opening remarks, followed by rounds of questioning.

Welcome, Mr. Seeback, it's great to have you presenting Bill C-242. I've been part of this committee since 2015, and this is the first time we've had a private member's bill come before the committee.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes, and then members would love to ask you some questions.

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

As far as Bill C‑242 is concerned, I think that three meetings is a lot. It would mean that we would spend six hours on this bill.

Ms. Kwan said that Mr. Seeback was prepared to give the officials an hour. I would suggest that we invite two panels for up to one hour each. I can tell you right away that the Bloc Québécois will not be calling any witnesses, so there will be a gap. If you want to fill it, great, but if you don't want to, even better, because we'll save time.

In the context of this study, I think it would be perfect to invite two panels for an hour each. That would give us perhaps an extra hour in which we could, behind closed doors, write the report or discuss the drafting guidelines, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

With that, this panel comes to an end.

I need five minutes from the members after the minister leaves to have some direction on the calendar for next week, but I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all the members of this committee, to thank the minister and his officials for appearing before the committee and for all of the work you're doing. It's a very difficult file, and with everything that's going on around the world, your job becomes even more challenging, so a big thank you to you, minister, and to all of the officials who are working long hours to make sure that we can clear those backlogs created during COVID.

Thank you, Minister.

We will allow the minister to leave and then we'll have a quick five minutes with the members.

I need some direction in regard to the calendar for next week.

For Tuesday, we must complete the consideration of the recruitment report. If we can schedule Mr. Seeback to appear on Bill C-242 for the first half, then we can move into the report consideration so that we can finalize that report and table it. Also, then, I need some time on Tuesday, once we complete the draft report, to go through committee business to discuss the letter that was requested by the members at the last meeting in regard to the legal opinion from the law clerk. That, the members should have by Monday, if everything goes well and translation can happen, so we can discuss that on Tuesday.

In regard to Bill C-242, we need some deadlines in regard to the amendments. Mr. Seeback can appear on Tuesday for one hour, and then we can have the second hour for consideration of the draft report. Then we will be able to go into the meetings for C-242: four panels with the witnesses and one panel with the officials. That will be three meetings in total, including Mr. Seeback, and then we have one for clause-by-clause. For the clause-by-clause, we need a deadline for the amendments.

Does the committee agree that the deadline for the amendments be set for May 26 at noon? It will be a break week. The clerk will give a deadline to all of the members to submit their amendments by May 26, before we go clause-by-clause.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

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

Madam Chair, Mr. Seeback said I was going to call in a witness, but I don't know yet whether I'm going to call one for the study of Bill C‑242.

I want the clerk to know that I haven't made a decision yet.

Reuniting Families Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As this is the first recorded division to be taken on an item of Private Members' Business in Parliament, I would like to take this opportunity to explain the procedure.

The recorded division will start with the sponsor of the item, regardless of whether the member is participating in person or by video conference. We will then proceed row by row, without making any distinction of party, with members in favour of the motion, beginning at the back row of the side of the House on which the sponsor sits. I will call each row until we reach the front row of the seats.

After we have gone through all the rows on this side, the hon. members on the other side of the House will have their turn to vote, starting again with the last row.

Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order. Members who are not present in the House will cast their votes using the electronic voting system, as was the case for other votes recently.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-242 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite delighted to rise today to speak to this very important issue of Bill C-242: the reuniting families act. This bill proposes to amend 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. I am hoping that we can bring this bill into committee to study this very good idea more, and really understand the implications of this idea and how it would impact constituents in my riding and across Canada.

One of the main issues that I face in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, with over 50% of the population being first-generation immigrants, and a population of professionals and double-income households, is the issue of child care and raising kids within Mississauga—Erin Mills and the impact of grandparents. I immigrated to Canada when I was 12 years old, and one of the most beneficial things I was able to experience in my childhood was spending my summers with my grandparents from both my mom's side and my dad's side. I learned a lot from them. I learned the value of family from them. This is what I hear a lot from my constituents who are first-generation immigrants and who want their kids, born in Canada, to have that same experience.

The importance of having family here in Canada is paramount not just in building strong communities and strong families, but also in terms of our economic prosperity. As I mentioned, we have double-income households in my riding. One of the main issues that my constituents face is child care. I do not just mean having somebody to look over kids throughout the day, but having quality child care with family values and that all-encompassing upbringing that our kids deserve. Grandparents really fulfill that role.

Over the past seven years that I have been serving as the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills, this has been one of the top issues that my constituents have raised. They apply for the super visa, as we call it, so that their parents can come and go as they please to make sure that they are well connected with their grandkids and with their kids, who are living meaningful lives here in Canada. Often, especially over the past two years, I have seen that there is a huge delay in how these super visas are being processed, wherever in the world they are being processed, and there is an impact on families. I have a constituent who recently went through a major surgery and she wanted her mom be here with her, but her visa had expired. She had applied for another super visa and waited and waited. The surgery came and the surgery went, and she still did not have a decision on her super visa.

That issue of private health insurance is a really big one. When and if we move this private member's bill into committee to study this issue further, I think we could really help constituents such as mine to be able to support their families here in Canada and be able to get the support they need, not only in terms of how they are operating but also how they are raising their kids, how they are doing their jobs and how they are taking care of their health and their well-being and also the health and well-being of their parents, who are trying to come to visit Canada on occasion.

It is really important to have the blessings, in my opinion, of our parents as we continue to grow, to evolve and to set down roots as first-generation immigrants here in Canada. Exploring how this bill can impact how we do that is important. I am hoping that we can explore this issue further in committee.

I am hoping that we can explore the issue of how private health insurance, especially international private health insurance, would impact the whole regime, the whole scheme of super visas here in Canada.

I am hoping we can explore how and what the impact of extending the time of the expiry of a super visa would have on constituents like mine in Mississauga—Erin Mills. I am also really hoping that we can explore and understand how delays happen and what the economic impacts and social impacts of those delays are on families in ridings like mine in Mississauga—Erin Mills. I am hoping we can explore how we can really expand, for example, the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, to make sure that Canadian families have the support that they need, not just in fulfilling the well-being of a family in a riding like mine but also understanding how important the social aspect of it really is.

I am a big believer in family. I know and understand and have benefited from having grandparents around as I grew up. I know my nephew and my niece benefit from having my parents around in how they are raised, and I can tell members that they are a lot sharper for it.

I am hoping that we can continue to improve our immigration system here in Canada to ensure the well-being of families in ridings like mine of Mississauga—Erin Mills, that we are raising our kids right, that we are providing that support that young families need in order to thrive and to survive as they go about their double-income households trying to manage life events such as unfortunate health instances. we need to try to ensure that we are finding that balance between the economy and society and making sure that our families are being raised right.

I am really hoping that the committee really digs deep into how we can really improve not only the temporary resident visa process but also the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, and I am hoping that the committee will hear from experts on the direct and indirect impact and how we can continue to improve that process.

Over the past number of years, we have been really digging deep into this question about parents and grandparents and the role that they play in Canadian families. Over the past year, we have had 10,000 people come and visit Canada through the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, despite COVID. The demand has never been higher. In my riding, it is a conversation that I have almost on a daily basis, regarding young families who want their parents to come and have that positive impact on the families they are raising here in Canada.

I think there is so much we can do with this. I think that there is so much that we can expand on, that we can tweak and fix, to ensure that families here in Canada are being well-protected and are being raised effectively while we fix the parents and grandparents sponsorship program and also the super visa program, which Bill C-242 would ensures.

I am really looking forward to continuing to watch this study of Bill C-242 and seeing how it will impact Canadian families, especially those in Mississauga—Erin Mills and first generation Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if she is listening, but I must commend the member for Saint-Jean for the thorough job she has done. She gave a remarkable speech during the previous reading of this bill, which has greatly inspired my speech today. She was again inspiring today when she asked her question to the House and especially when she moved the motion about a woman's right to have free reign over her own body. Unfortunately, this motion was defeated, because some dinosaurs, primarily on the Conservative benches, voted against it. I think it is a disgrace, in the history of this country, to have voted against that motion. I hope that those who did will look at how they voted today. It proved to me that I am not truly Canadian. Today, in Quebec's National Assembly, a similar motion passed unanimously. Once again, that proved to me that Quebec is my country.

I will come back to the bill. I also want to commend the member for Dufferin—Caledon for his patience, as he has been waiting a number of months for his bill to move forward. To start, I will quickly explain what a super visa is, for those who are listening today. Basically, it is a visa, a travel document, designed for parents and grandparents. It does not permit the holder to work during their stay. It allows multiple entries of a period of up to two years. There are certain requirements, but the two most important ones are that the applicant must have medical insurance from a Canadian company and must prove that the child or grandchild who will be hosting them here has the financial capacity to support them. This means that there is a minimum income threshold that must be proven by the child or grandchild in order for the parent or grandparent to be issued the visa.

It will shock no one to hear that I am in favour of this bill.

For many families that want to bring their parents and grandparents to Canada, the logistics, paperwork and delays are an onerous and immense administrative burden. What these families often want is to sponsor their parents or grandparents and bring them here permanently. The super visa being considered provides the opportunity to have one's parents here while the sponsorship and permanent residence application is being processed. It is also another option for those not picked in the lottery.

That system is very restrictive. Few people manage to get a sponsorship application for parents or grandparents. I would like to add one thing: Right now, every time we check, the government has a backlog for almost all immigration programs.

It would be a good idea to fast-track and simplify the process for those who in all likelihood would receive a favourable decision. I think that would be all right.

The bill would also make some minor but specific changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We know this will apply to a relatively small number of the temporary residence visas granted every year. We also know that, because they have temporary status, these immigrants will not end up costing the federal or provincial governments anything. Lastly, we know that the few thousand people granted the existing super visa are generally people of significant financial means. Applicants have proof of funds, and parents and grandparents have prepaid health insurance. In essence, they have to be financially secure. They pose no risk to anybody.

What exactly is a super visa? What will this bill change? Bill C‑242 makes four changes. First, visitors must purchase private health insurance outside Canada. Current eligibility criteria require applicants to purchase insurance from a Canadian company. Yesterday, I was talking about supply and demand in a previous speech, and it is the same idea. This could expand the pool of insurance companies, which will probably reduce insurance costs for super visa applicants.

As my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, mentioned, all it takes is a quick search to see that this kind of insurance coverage is extremely expensive. For a young person in their forties with no known health issues, it can cost between $1,000 and $1,500. For people slightly older or with any health problems, insurance coverage can cost up to $6,000 or even $7,000 a year. For parents or grandparents, it can cost about $10,000 annually. This does not include all the costs associated with the immigration process.

As I said, yes, these people do have resources, but that is no reason to stop them from shopping around for insurance. Just because they have resources does not mean that they should not be able to shop around.

The bill requires that foreign insurance companies be accredited by the minister, which ensures that the company is legitimate and that its coverage is compatible with our health care systems.

By opening up the market to competition, we take away Canadian companies' monopoly on this type of insurance coverage. I am not an economist, but I have friends who are, and they confirm that I am right to believe this is a basic way to reduce the cost of coverage.

It will also allow some foreign nationals to combine this insurance coverage with a policy they already have for their home or vehicle. People might be able to save money, which, I imagine, could be used to settle here, buy goods and contribute to the economy.

What is more, Bill C‑242 extends the period of time a person can stay in Canada without having to renew the document from two years to five years. This would help minimize several current irritants. The super visa is a multiple-entry visa, and it is valid for a maximum of 10 years.

The number of round trips that parents and grandparents have to make between Canada and their country of origin increases airfare costs. This measure alone would be significantly reduce those costs.

As well, renewing the permit every two years very often requires a medical exam for the insurance premium. It is obvious that, over a total span of 10 years, the grandparents’ health could change, which could result in higher premiums and, more importantly, add some unpredictability to their stay in the country.

Going back to what I was saying, it is clear to me that as long as these people do not pose a financial risk to taxpayers, we should try to make life easier for them and their children who are hosting and taking care of them.

I mentioned earlier that these children, who are permanent residents or outright citizens, must have a minimum of financial means. Bill C-242 does not propose to reduce or abolish the requirement to prove that someone has the financial means to look after their parents or grandparents.

Instead, the bill proposes that the minister review the need to maintain the income requirement or threshold. Thanks to my colleague from Saint-Jean, I have learned that many people are talking about repealing it altogether. If the minister decides in the next two years to maintain this low income cut-off at its current level, he will have to explain why he wishes to keep it in place.

This bill is therefore not very compelling for parliamentarians. It seeks a review of the relevance of a legislative measure, something that I think is ultimately reasonable and commonly done.

When it comes to spousal sponsorships, Quebec does not even assess the spouses' financial capacity, and it nevertheless works very well.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has already looked into something similar and made a recommendation regarding the sponsorship of parents and grandparents.

The study on this aspect could help determine whether this threshold is appropriate in different places across Canada. The cost of living is not the same everywhere, as we know. Could there be different sponsors depending on where the individuals will be living? I think this would be a positive thing.

It would also acknowledge the fact that many families see a positive financial impact when parents and grandparents come to stay with them, since it allows them to rejoin the job market.

I could go on at length, but as parliamentarians we have a duty to set partisanship aside and address our constituents' problems.

I want to reiterate that what happened today in the House of Commons with respect to the motion the member for Saint‑Jean tried to move is unacceptable and shameful for this Parliament. It just reinforced my belief that Canada is not my country. My country is Quebec.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon for his work on this legislation.

The government is firmly committed to reuniting families and their loved ones abroad. Family members are an important part of our immigration system.

Canada has one of the most generous and comprehensive family reunification programs in the world. Through this program, we help to keep families together and contribute to the integration of immigrants, who are an important part of the success of our communities across our country. Parents and grandparents want to visit their adult children and grandchildren. Likewise, Canadian citizens and permanent residents benefit from the support of their parents and grandparents.

Parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who wish to visit their family for a longer period can apply for a parent and grandparent super visa. This process is authorized through ministerial instructions.

The super visa is a multiple-entry visa that is valid for up to 10 years and allows for stays of up to two years at a time. Super visa holders may also request an extension of their stay for up to an additional two years while in Canada, and there are no limits on the number of extensions they can request.

Since the super visa allows for longer stays than a regular temporary resident visa, applicants must meet additional medical and financial criteria. These criteria include a medical exam, private medical insurance from a Canadian company and financial support from a child/grandchild host, who must meet an income cut-off minimum based on their family size.

These important safeguards are in place to ensure that this potentially vulnerable population has financial support and protection in the event of a medical emergency while in Canada.

They also ensure that there is no undue burden on the Canadian taxpayer through unpaid medical bills. This is particularly important, as demonstrated by our experience during the pandemic, when many health care systems across the country are strained. This private member's bill, Bill C-242, proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow a parent or grandparent to stay in Canada for five years under the super visa and to purchase private health care insurance from outside Canada. It also requires the minister to table a report on reducing the income requirements that the child or grandchild must meet for the parent or grandparent to qualify for a super visa.

While the government supports many principles of Bill C-242, we have concerns that it would reduce our ability to ensure that parents and grandparents are arriving with adequate supports during their stay. We also continue to look out for the best interests of Canadian taxpayers.

First, the act is not the appropriate instrument to make program changes to super visa conditions. Parliament intended for the act to serve as framework legislation, which authorizes the making of regulations and ministerial instructions. As I stated, the super visa is authorized through these ministerial instructions. As such, we propose amendments to Bill C-242 to maintain the authority for super visa conditions under ministerial instructions. This would allow the government to respond quickly to the emerging needs of clients, rather than necessitating a lengthy legislative process.

The government supports the member's proposal to increase the length of stay per entry. However, we propose to extend this from the current two years to three. Once again, this would be changed through ministerial instructions. Since super visa holders already have the opportunity to extend their stay in Canada for up to two years, this means parents and grandparents could then stay in Canada for up to five years without needing to leave the country.

The government believes that increasing the length of stay any further would negate the spirit of the super visa, which is to support temporary residence in Canada. Increasing the length of stay beyond three years without needing to request an extension could lead to visitors establishing more permanent connections to Canada, and this would undermine the purpose of having a legal framework to address temporary residents.

The government does not support the member's proposal to allow super visa applicants to purchase private health insurance from foreign companies.

Private health insurance is required through a Canadian company, and this is to ensure super visa holders, who are a potentially vulnerable population, have sufficient and reliable medical insurance in case of a health emergency while in Canada. This is an important component of the super visa. The government believes that allowing super visa holders to purchase insurance from companies outside Canada could introduce various risks. Applicants might purchase coverage from unregulated or fraudulent providers, for example, and this could have devastating consequences to parents and grandparents, as well as for our health care system.

We have actually seen what can happen when parents and grandparents arrive on regular visas that do not require emergency medical insurance. We know of several cases when parents were visiting on a regular visitor visa and experienced a medical emergency, such as a stroke, during their stay. They did not have health insurance and incurred medical bills worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. These stories underscore the importance of ensuring that super visa holders are protected with appropriate health insurance during their visit.

I would like to also note that allowing super visa holders to obtain coverage from international health insurance providers, as proposed in the hon. member's bill, could pose significant complexities for the government to verify the coverage. To ensure the validity of foreign health care providers for coverage and billing purposes, IRCC would have to establish a complex and costly designation framework to establish pre-approved insurance options from abroad. With respect to Bill C-242's final proposal, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship commits to tabling a report to Parliament to review the current financial requirements for children or grandchildren.

While the Government supports a review of this requirement, I wish to underscore that we believe a financial requirement remains a necessary and important component of the super visa. While family reunification is an important part of our immigration system, it should not place undue financial burdens on Canadian taxpayers, and visitors should be adequately supported during their stay.

I will state once again that the super visa's minimum necessary income requirement is in place to ensure the host child or grandchild can provide for the basic requirements of their visiting family members while they are in Canada. This is also key to maintaining public support for the super visa, which facilitates longer stays of parents and grandparents.

The government is committed to family reunification. We must maintain an immigration system that meets the needs of Canadians if we want to take full advantage of this system.

The government believes the current conditions of the super visa adequately balance the interests of families that wish to reunite with their loved ones, as well as those of all Canadians, as it protects their hard-earned taxpayer services.

The super visa enables us to reunite families quickly and for longer periods. At the same time, the government is able to adequately manage the operations of this program under its current framework. For over a decade, the super visa has remained a popular and accessible option for Canadian citizens and permanent residents to reunite with their parents and grandparents, with approximately 17,000 super visas issued each year.

I believe it is a highly successful program by any measure. That being said, the government always remains open to finding ways to improve our programs and policies.

Although the government supports the spirit and intent of Bill C‑242, it will only support this bill with the proposed amendments. The goal is to ensure the integrity and long-term viability of the highly successful super visa program.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the member for Dufferin—Caledon, a member of the Conservative caucus, for putting forward this bill. It is a bill that very much reflects Conservative Party values and emphasizes the importance of open and fair immigration. It is also a bill that is very pro-family. It recognizes the value of strong families and of families being able to spend time with each other, and the need to have creative measures that allow for families to spend time together.

What we really need to reflect on in terms of reforms to our immigration system is the value of family and extended family and how we can promote family connectedness so that people do not have to suffer through these processes and spending long periods of time away from close family members in the context of waiting for applications to be processed or in the case of other situations. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to that a bit today.

Specifically, the bill put forward, Bill C-242, by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as follows:

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 would also require the Minister of Immigration to prepare a report on possibly reducing the minimum income requirement for a child or grandchild. This recognizes the value of what is often called a “super visa”, supporting family members so they can be together and support each other.

A bit of context is important here. Very often, families are looking at sponsoring members of their immediate or extended family to come to Canada for permanent immigration. That is a valuable channel, but there are limits to it. There is an additional option, one that maybe reflects the desire of some family members who would like to come and stay for a long time in Canada but do not plan on permanently immigrating here. I believe it was a Conservative government that developed the idea of having a super visa program as an additional channel for people. The super visa is for people who are not immigrating permanently to Canada but would simply like to come here, be with family members, like children and grandchildren, and spend extended periods of time with them.

As a condition, those who come are expected to purchase private health care and are therefore not relying on the public system. This is very reasonable. We should not stick ourselves in this binary of saying that either people do not come or they come and immediately have all the social services associated with someone who has a permanent presence in Canada. Instead, we can create mechanisms that allow people to come and spend significant amounts of time in Canada with family members, while paying privately for insurance. At the same time, we should look to make these channels more accessible and more reasonable so that more people can take advantage of these opportunities to be together as a family.

The super visa program is a very good program and a very popular program, and for those who are able to fit into this stream, it really achieves the best of all possible worlds. It is beneficial to Canadian society to have these folks come and be with family members and provide various kinds of support to their families. Also, again, it recognizes the fact that there are some limits in the permanent immigration stream regarding parents and grandparents. It strengthens this particular stream and allows those who may not wish to be here permanently to nonetheless come and be present in and supportive of their families.

Needless to say, the value of extended families is well known, I think, to all Canadians. For many cultural communities, there is a particular recognition of and appreciation for the role being played by extended family members. As I give this speech now, I have five children at home, and I am very glad that my mother-in-law is able to visit and play such a key supportive role in our family. That enables me to travel and enables my wife to do all the things she does. For newcomers to Canada who do not have the benefit of grandparents being here in Canada, that can create some really significant challenges.

Having that super visa channel available and extending it to five years, making it more accessible and making it easier for people to make those health care insurance purchases by giving them a broader range of options of who they can purchase from, makes that transition so much easier for people who are living and working here in Canada. This is really designed to ease that process. Again, it reflects a Conservative understanding of the value of family connections, both within the idea of a nuclear or immediate family, but also within the extended family and the supports that are provided there.

This is an excellent bill, but there are many more things that the government needs to do, and that Conservatives are calling on the government to do, to address the unnecessary pressures on families that are associated with our immigration system right now.

One of the main complaints we are hearing in our offices is the strain that is created for families by backlogs. The fact is that across a broad range of immigration categories, there are huge delays, and this forces families to be apart from each other for much longer than they should be. The idea that people have to wait years, for instance, to have a spouse come to Canada, or that they have to wait years for other members of their families or for caregivers to come to Canada who meet all the requirements and are very much needed, is an issue that we need to really get to the bottom of.

This affects the issue of refugee sponsorship as well. The delay, I think, is three years for private refugee sponsorship, so Canadian community groups, church groups and others who are waiting to sponsor vulnerable refugees have to wait for a three-year period. It may be that those refugees are in a vulnerable situation: they may be in need of ongoing financial support where they are or their security may be in question, yet they are sitting and waiting while the Canadian sponsors are sitting and waiting for that long processing delay. Those lengthy delays are simply unacceptable, and they require urgent action by the government and by all of us.

In our last concern of the election platform, I was very proud of some of the concrete proposals that Conservatives put forward in terms of expediting, processing and addressing the long backlogs. Of course, the adjudication process is critically important, but it needs to be timely. It is always tragic when families are forced to be apart for years for no reason other than bureaucratic delay, so we need to do much better. The government needs to do much better in terms of ensuring a lean, effective and results-driven immigration system. We all see these frustrations in our offices right now, and this is why we have really been pushing forward on the issue of backlogs across the range of categories.

As well, my colleague for Dufferin—Caledon gave notice of motion at the immigration committee today on a motion to call for addressing the backlogs in citizenship applications, which is a different issue from immigration applications. There are various elections coming up in different parts of the country. Here in Ontario, there is going to be a provincial election relatively soon, and people who would otherwise be eligible for their citizenship and would participate in that election are waiting in longer and longer queues to get their citizenship applications processed. It is not just on the front of families being together, but it is on other fronts, such as people being able to exercise their democratic rights and other things where the issue of delays, inefficiencies and backlogs within the immigration system has concrete negative effects for families. We put forward some concrete proposals in our last election platform around addressing this. I think it is very important.

I will conclude by congratulating the member for Dufferin—Caledon and recognizing the work that he is doing in trying to strengthen and make more accessible the super visa program. This very much aligns with our vision of a family-friendly immigration policy: one that recognizes the value of strong families and of families being able to be together.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-242. I would like to thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for bringing it forward as a crucial step in reuniting new Canadians and refugees with their families.

Separation of families, parents and children, or grandparents and children is often a by-product of Canada's deeply broken immigration system. It is something we are all very much aware of. In the past few years, with the COVID pandemic and many humanitarian crises around the world, we have witnessed disturbing trends with regard to the functioning of our much-needed immigration system, whether it is the thousands of refugee applications pending as people face imminent danger in their home countries, or the backlogs or strict restrictions for temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents that prevent the reunification of families.

I am deeply disheartened by the effects that these delays and restrictions have had on real people: families and individuals who are simply seeking peace. I know first-hand the devastating effects of not being able to be with loved ones. Canada has a history of separating families, and particularly indigenous families. Let us not repeat and continue this legacy.

Families should not have to go through long and very difficult ordeals just to be together. Families are an important and critical aspect of how we understand our quality of life, and when we do not have our children, our parents or our grandparents with us, especially after a very difficult life, where does the healing begin?

New Democrats strongly support making family reunification processes easier so that people can reunite with their loved ones. It is critical. I am positive that the measures contained within this bill would help to fill some of the gaps, such as the increase in the length of time, for example, that a temporary resident can stay in Canada while visiting their child or grandchild. It would raise the cap from two years to five years. The reduction of the minimum income requirement is also a helpful course of action. These are real, tangible solutions.

However, I recognize that this bill is simply a short-term solution to a deeply seated problem in our immigration system. For years, Liberal and Conservative governments have made grave errors in the way temporary foreign visas and the parent-grandparent sponsorship program applications are processed. During the Harper government, for example, in 2011, records that were found through access to information requests demonstrated that over 150,000 applications were ultimately denied, and these were all contained within a backlog.

The government at the time then doubled down and created a restriction for further applications to limit the wait. It refused to learn from previous mistakes and made matters worse. The two-year moratorium on applications created a massive backlog that families are still reeling from today.

Then, the Liberal government promised voters a reformed, streamlined immigration process to fix decades or years of pain. It went on to introduce an arbitrary lottery system that made the parent-grandparent sponsorship program the only immigration stream in Canada based on a lucky draw. This meant that a random selection system determined the fate of thousands of families while throwing out many of the applications because they did not pre-screen for eligibility.

Clearly, this system failed horribly. It was replaced by a first-come, first-served basis. This process took eight minutes to fill to capacity, disadvantaging many others who were unable to attain an online connection because they did not have the technology, such as a cellphone or computer, in their place of origin to file online.

What happened to the many applications that were unable to get in by the first-come, first-served basis? They waited. The families waited. In fact, at the time of this program and the first-come, first-served debacle, 70 families filed a lawsuit because they were unable to get the application in time. The government quietly settled that. The government proposed a visa application process that continues to remain inaccessible and to cause deep hardship to deserving families. It is an unfortunate reality continuing to be faced by thousands in our country.

In my constituency of Edmonton Griesbach, we are home to many new Canadians, refugees and immigrants who have waited a long time to come to safety, to seek refuge and peace, and to seek a new way and a new life. They finally have a chance to breathe, to catch up with loved ones and make up the lost time due to crisis and international conflict. It is something that will take many supports and much family to heal.

I know personally of a constituent in my community who has been in Canada for over 10 years. This whole time, his family has been stuck in South Sudan. When the situation got too difficult in South Sudan, their family had to flee to Egypt, where they continued to wait for their family to be able to sponsor them to bring them here. He was separated from his wife and children.

He applied and fortunately the application for his wife went well. The application for the three children, however, did not. As South Sudanese people are not issued a birth certificate at birth, he had to obtain them through a separate process all together. The visa officer, however, did not consider their certificates to be valid and the children's eligibility was not approved. They were asked for DNA testing. The embassy refused to help with this.

Finally, the mother, in order to satisfy the permanent resident request, did have to come to Canada, but that meant leaving three of her children behind. Those three children are ages four, eight and 12. They are now expected to find some way to figure out DNA testing all by themselves, while also simultaneously not having a birth certificate that is recognized. How is a four year old supposed to do that? It is devastating and heartbreaking.

Another constituent of mine is a Syrian refugee. His wife and one of his kids are in Canada. However, his 12-year-old daughter is stuck in Saudi Arabia by herself. One son is stuck in Turkey. Both kids have deep mental health breakdowns and hardships every single day. There is nothing wrong with their applications, but the processing time is literally killing them. This time away from family and away from loved ones can leave scars that last a lifetime.

Again, I would like to further recommend that the government address the long-standing failures of IRCC as a department and reallocate funds for other streams in order to reduce the backlog. I want to conclude by thanking my hon. colleague for tabling this critical, shortstop measure, which would reunite families and save lives. I look forward to hearing my colleagues' speeches.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to comment on the bill introduced by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, Bill C‑242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regarding temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents.

This bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by making a number of specific changes. I know these changes may seem quite minor in theory, but despite its modest appearance, the bill will bring about major changes for many families in Quebec and Canada.

Before I begin, I would like to put things in context. In my riding, Trois-Rivières, an organization called La Maison des Grands-Parents celebrated its 20th anniversary yesterday. The connection to Bill C‑242 is that, for the past 20 years, La Maison des Grands-Parents has been a place for civic engagement, a place where senior volunteers strive to make life better for the children and families they work with. By sharing their knowledge, these volunteers cultivate a meaningful intergenerational connection and contribute to the well-being of their community. I would actually like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the volunteers as well as board chair Éliane Touchette.

Having said that, I want to say that it is impossible to be unmoved by the member for Dufferin—Caledon's bill. This bill makes very significant changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Bill C‑242 will make it easier for parents and grandparents to immigrate if they are sponsored by a child or grandchild who is a permanent resident or citizen of Canada. Since they have temporary status, these immigrants do not cost the government anything. Furthermore, although I do not have precise statistics on the number of super visas issued per year, we know that there are fewer than 20,000 nationwide. This represents a fairly marginal proportion of 1% to 2%. For the years 2017, 2018, and 2019, about 1.6 million, 1.9 million, and 1.7 million temporary resident visas were issued annually.

Moreover, the few thousand people who currently qualify for a super visa are generally people of considerable means. Both the children in Canada and the parents who come over are financially secure.

However, what can the less well off do?

First off, allow me to clarify a few things. It is not possible to exist in society without creating ties or links. The word “link” comes from the Latin word ligare, meaning to encircle or surround. Links imply proximity, meaning nearness. Back when the word “religion” was invented, it was a combination of “re-” and “ligare”, or re-link. It always comes back to proximity.

There is also the word “reliance”, which we hear a lot about these days. It refers to creating links between people or systems. “Reliance” is a psychosocial need to break out of isolation. No one wants to be alone in the world. We all need family in order to know who we are.

When we talk about parents and grandparents, we are talking about blood ties, filial relationships, an emotional and moral connection that is impossible to deny. Victor Hugo once said, “There is no grandfather who does not adore his grandson”.

Obviously, a bill is not a simple thing. The Department of Immigration sometimes provides a practical illustration of boundless Kafkaesque absurdity. There needs to be a framework to ensure that the purpose of the bill is achieved and that the people it is meant to serve can benefit from it.

Beyond giving families the chance to obtain permanent residency, there are many socio‑economic benefits to the bill. Having grandparents around will allow parents to dispense with child care for a few moments or even free parents from having to pay for child care. In that sense, the arrival of family members allows working-age immigrants to fully participate in the workforce and in the Quebec and Canadian economy.

It is estimated that between 38% and 50% of children under six will have an immigrant background by 2036, so the availability of child care options for the parents of these children will be all the more important. A number of studies are highlighting the socio‑economic difficulties often associated with this new start for families. It seems pretty clear to me that bringing parents and grandparents over will make life easier for many of our fellow citizens who have immigrated here.

This will give the entire reunited family more quality time together.

However, it concerns me when I read that immigrant parents are currently less likely to use child care services less than non-immigrant parents.

Bill C-242 aims to address this by providing alternatives to paid child care, which will be beneficial for immigrant families.

Quebec has a public child care system that is a source of pride. It is an accessible service that was established in 1997, and it remains just as relevant and useful today as it ever was. This service enables women in particular to enter or return to the labour market.

We need as many workers as we can get. No one should be left behind. Neither Quebec nor Canada can afford to lose talent. We know that many immigrant parents do not use child care services because they are too expensive. Although the changes brought about by Bill C‑242 will affect only a small portion of the immigrants entering Quebec and Canada each year, if this bill can help create alternatives to paid child care for immigrant families, it will be worth it.

I want to ask the following question in a broader sense. What is keeping us from moving forward? What is keeping us from doing for immigrant families what the Maison des Grands‑Parents does for the people of Trois‑Rivières? Nothing, absolutely nothing is keeping us from doing better.

To be human is to share the world with others. No one wants to be alone. We all want to find our family, those with whom we share a common origin. We must break the isolation. Let us rebuild the link that has been broken by circumstances.

I confirm that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑242 introduced by the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

The House resumed from March 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Reuniting Families Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-242. The process of introducing private members' legislation in the House is very important. It is an opportunity for individual members to bring forward ideas and concepts that they feel are important to put before the 338 members of Parliament, and I applaud the member for bringing forward something he is quite passionate about.

I will say right off the bat that I take great exception to some of what I heard, especially in the last speech by the Conservative member. I recognize that the member who introduced this bill was around during the Stephen Harper government and is fully aware of what was going on at the time. I respect the fact that he tried to stray from referring too much to those days, but the member for Calgary Forest Lawn made a number of outrageous claims, in my opinion, one of which was about a Liberal-made backlog. This is coming from the Conservative Party that previously said the family reunification application system was a six-year wait. Why was that? It was—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-242. I want to thank my hon. colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for bringing forward this bill and addressing a very important issue for many families and ethnic communities all across Canada.

This is a very practical and compassionate bill that many have talked about and many people have emailed and called about. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for bringing this bill forward.

The previous Conservative government brought in the super visa to offer parents and grandparents the opportunity to visit their family on an extended basis. It was a way for families to reunite faster than going through the bureaucratic process of family sponsorship. This is a challenge that many Canadians with family abroad unfortunately face today. As the Liberal-made backlog continues to grow, family sponsorship is less of an option.

Family is very important to all of us. I especially feel that in my own community. That is why I am happy to see that these proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to expand access to super visas for families looking to finally come to Canada and see their loved ones.

Family reunification is a concern I hear a lot about in my office, but unfortunately, as the Liberal-made backlog continues to grow, family sponsorship is taking forever. As a result, many grandparents and parents miss out on the milestone moments in their grandchildren's and children's lives. There are missed births, graduations, weddings, first steps. Many milestones get missed, all because of the Liberal-made backlog in immigration.

In my riding, many permanent residents and new Canadians have been waiting, even before the pandemic, to see their families come to Canada. Their family sponsorship cases are caught up in the backlog and they have not received any idea as to when their family members will finally get a decision for their applications.

Mental health is also hit by family separation. All of us experienced the pressure that COVID put on our mental well-being. So many families were stuck waiting for their parents and grandparents as IRCC made excuses about why they could not process those cases. As suicide and addiction rates continue to rise, the effects of family separation and backlogs need to be addressed.

Over the past couple of years, we have all felt the impact of the pandemic and being cut off from travel with our loved ones. As provinces begin to open up and international travel gets easier, reconnecting with family will be very important, especially for Canadians and permanent residents who have parents and grandparents abroad.

The super visa pathway is an opportunity to get past the Liberal-made backlog, help people get to a better place mentally and not miss the important moments in life. That is why the amount of time that a person's super visa is valid should be extended to five years.

Extending the length of time a family can spend together with a super visa has become important for another reason: affordability. This remains a problem for everyone in Canada. As inflation rises, it becomes more challenging to travel to Canada, to visit and to stay here.

My office hears about the cost of health insurance for people on temporary visas and super visas. As the law stands now, temporary residents can only purchase Canadian health insurance, and super visa applicants are required to have it before entering Canada. Unfortunately, this insurance is not always accessible or affordable for people who live abroad. In today's era of technology and high-speed communication, allowing for affordable foreign options for health insurance makes sense for parents and grandparents coming to visit their loved ones in Canada.

Another point I want to raise on the issue of affordability is that super visas are important for providing child care. We all know that grandparents and parents are the best babysitters, and no day care can beat that. Canadians and permanent residents who do not have family here can benefit from having their parents and grandparents close to them. Super visas are a great way to bring family from abroad to support working parents. Giving families that flexibility is also good for economic growth in Canada. It allows parents to work and contribute to the economy.

With this historic backlog at IRCC, one stream that has taken a hit is the caregiver program. Constituents and people across the country are contacting my office, upset with the lack of access to newcomers coming through the caregiver program and how long it takes for anyone to have their application processed. The backlog for this immigration stream, as of February 1, was 16,085 people. That is up from 12,539 people in December.

These are not just applications or numbers. These are families, families that are hurt by this backlog, that need to be reunited to help their mental health as well.

By extending the super visa to five years and making it more accessible, parents and grandparents abroad can come and help fill the demand for at-home child caregivers by supporting their own families.

Bill C-242 also asks the minister to study the minimum income levels currently required for applicants to come to Canada under the super visa. The reality is that we know parents and grandparents living with their family are not a burden on our economy or our country. They help grow it, as families spend more on groceries and family activities, and working parents can go to work knowing their kids are in good hands.

The minimum income levels are an issue today, as inflation and supply chain issues affect the cost of groceries and other essentials such as gas and electricity. While “Justinflation” is hitting people's pocketbooks hard, now is an excellent time to show compassion and review the minimum income requirement. It was often those workers here in Canada who were in health care, transportation and processing plants who were hit the hardest when it came to COVID. It would have been a great tool for them to have their parents or grandparents here to support them at home, mentally, with their kids or whenever they were going through a tough time. This new bill is very practical, and it would help Canadians in all facets.

The super visa can also be a pathway for those people fleeing the violence caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Looking at the special immigration measures the IRCC has for Ukraine, I see an approach that could leave many people in limbo. The unprovoked attack by Russia has left over a million Ukrainian people displaced. The United Nations estimates roughly 500,000 people have gone to neighbouring countries for safety. Canada cannot let the chaos and lack of communication that led to the failure of the Afghanistan evacuation be repeated in Ukraine.

As our European and NATO allies take in Ukrainians, many people want to come here. Our country has a strong and long-standing connection with the people of Ukraine. Over a million Canadians are of Ukrainian heritage and thousands still have family there. By making the super visa more accessible and affordable for parents and grandparents fleeing the violence, Canada could do its part to get friends and family out of harm's way.

This bill shows how needed reforms are for Canada's immigration system. In the 21st century, our system needs to be smart, compassionate and efficient. Newcomers and their families deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, not as a number that can be left in the backlog the Liberal government created. I hope that all of my colleagues here in the House can see the importance of making these changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This is an opportunity to provide a more accessible and affordable pathway for parents and grandparents looking to reunite with their loved ones here in Canada. Again, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the member for Dufferin—Caledon, for bringing this bill forward. I urge all members to support Bill C-242.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-242, because not only was I a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, as the member for Winnipeg North mentioned, but, as a lawyer in my previous practice, I worked with families who wanted to bring their parents and grandparents to Canada.

In working with these families, I saw to what extent the logistics, red tape and delays were an onerous administrative burden. What these families often wanted was to sponsor their parents or grandparents and bring them here permanently.

In that context, not only does the super visa provide the opportunity to have one's parents here while the sponsorship and permanent residence application is being processed, but it is another option for those not picked in the lottery. The lottery system is very restrictive, and few people manage to get chosen to submit a sponsorship application for parents and grandparents. The super visa is therefore a useful option.

Given the administrative burden of immigration procedures, I am very much in favour of the opportunity to make them less onerous. What is a super visa? What do we want to change?

The super visa is valid for 10 years. It does not permit the holder to work during their stay. It allows multiple entries over a period of up to two years. It requires the applicant to have medical insurance from a Canadian company that is valid for at least one year from the time of entry. Lastly, it requires the applicant to prove that the child or grandchild who will be hosting them here has the financial capacity to support them. This means that there is a minimum income threshold that must be proven by the child or grandchild in order for the parent or grandparent to be issued the visa.

The member for Dufferin—Caledon’s bill addresses the last three points that I mentioned. Before I get into the details of the bill, I want to say at the outset that my Bloc colleagues and I will be supporting the bill.

The bill has a relatively limited and minor impact on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It does not put a burden on the government, because we are talking about temporary status. There is no service or financial aspect to making this application for parents or grandparents. It accounts for a very small number of the temporary residence permits that are issued. Year in and year out, of the 1.6 million or 1.9 million applications, about 20,000 are for a super visa. This represents about 1% to 2% of applications. The impact on Canada is relatively small, but the positive effects on families are major. In light of this, it is important to support the bill.

One of the legislative amendments proposed in the bill would allow individuals to purchase health insurance from insurance companies outside Canada. The length of stay allowed would be increased from two years to five years. The bill also requires that the minister conduct a new review of the minimum income requirement to obtain a visa for a parent or grandparent.

Existing legislation requires that individuals have valid insurance coverage for at least one year from the date of entry. This insurance must cover at least $100,000 and be obtained from a Canadian provider. This is set out in the legislation. Some basic research shows that this type of insurance is very expensive. For someone relatively young, in their 40s, without any pre-existing health conditions, it would cost around $1,000 to $1,500. For someone who is a little older or who has some pre-existing health conditions, that kind of coverage can cost up to $6,000 to $7,000 a year. For a couple, that is $12,000 a year, on top of the other fees associated with immigration.

By opening things up to competition, we take away Canadian companies' monopoly on this type of insurance coverage. We also hope it will reduce the cost of coverage. It will also allow some foreign nationals to combine this insurance coverage with a policy they already have for their home or auto. People might be able to save money.

This bill also ensures that there will be no problem harmonizing insurance coverage and claims for hospitals, for example, because the insurance companies will have to be pre-approved by the minister. We can expect a study on the possibility of submitting claims to these approved insurance companies.

The second point the bill covers is extending the stay from two years to five years. This would limit the number of return trips parents and grandparents have to make between Canada and their home country for the duration of the super visa. Those plane tickets cost money. This measure alone will significantly reduce costs.

The two-year permit has to get renewed. The person has to have another medical exam to get the insurance premium. It is therefore possible that during the 10‑year period there is a change in health status, and consequently an increase in the premium, which potentially makes it harder for some parents and grandparents to get their coverage.

I did not mention that the visa also came with the requirement to submit to a medical exam. If it has to be renewed every two years, the person is a little more vulnerable. There is less predictability with respect to eligibility.

Finally, with respect to the low-income cut-off, the evidence of being on fairly solid financial ground to welcome one's parents or grandparents, the bill does not propose lowering or eliminating it. It proposes that the minister conduct a study on the need to keep the cut-off at the same level or just maintain it, full stop. That being said, many people are talking about repealing it outright. In the event that the minister, within a period of two years, wishes to keep the low-income cut-off where it is, he will have to explain why.

This is not a very compelling bill for parliamentarians in that regard. It seeks a review of the relevance of a legislative measure, something that it seems to me is always seen in a positive light.

I would like to mention that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration already looked into something similar and made a recommendation regarding the sponsorship of parents and grandparents. The committee stated, and I quote:

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada allow the income requirements for the parent and grandparent sponsorship program to be the minimum necessary income equal to the low-income cut-off established by Statistics Canada for the years impacted by the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, conducting a yearly review to determine whether to extend allowing the minimum necessary income to be equivalent to the low-income cut-off, all while respecting Quebec’s jurisdiction.

That raises another issue. In some cases, in a recession year, for example, people may find that they are no longer eligible for a visa simply for reasons that are beyond their control. It would be a good idea to look into that.

In passing, I want to mention that, when it comes to spousal sponsorships, Quebec does not even assess the spouses' financial capacity, and it works very well.

The study on this aspect could help determine whether this threshold is appropriate in different places across Canada. The cost of living is not the same everywhere, as we know. Could there be different sponsors depending on where the individuals will be living? That would be a positive and would also acknowledge the fact that many families see a positive financial impact when parents and grandparents come, since it allows them to rejoin the job market.

For all of these good reasons, we suggest that the bill be supported.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

moved that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about a bill that I think is going to make a dramatic difference in the lives of many Canadian families.

In 2011, our Conservative government brought in the super visa. The super visa is a 10-year, multiple-entry visa that allows families to reunite with parents and grandparents. They were allowed to stay for two years over 10, and there were certain conditions with respect to that visa. They had to undergo a medical exam and be admissible on medical grounds. They had to have provided satisfactory evidence of private medical insurance, and the host child or grandchild had to have certain financial means in order for the parent or grandparent to qualify to come to Canada and be eligible for the super visa.

This has been a fantastic tool for families to reunite in Canada over the past 11 years. It is one of the things I am very proud of, as I was part of the government that brought that in. What we have learned over the past 11 years, however, is that this is something that could be improved. In fact, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration studied this in 2016 and heard from stakeholders about the challenges that exist with the super visa.

My bill would do three things. Number one, it would extend the time that a parent or grandparent could stay in Canada from two to five years, which is going to be an incredible benefit to families. Imagine being able to have a parent or grandparent there for five months every year over 10 years, to spend time with a person and their children. This would make things so much better for Canadian families.

Number two, the issue of health insurance has been brought up. It is costly. The bill would address that. It would allow for the purchase of insurance from outside of Canada, as approved by the minister.

Number three, the bill would require the minister and the government to prepare a report on reducing the minimum income requirement that a child or grandchild of a foreign national must meet.

I am going to go into the importance of these improvements, and why the bill is going to mean so much for Canadian families. Health care and private health insurance can be enormously costly for families and can range up to $5,000 per year. In addition, families are looking at paying for the cost of a flight back and forth. This was clearly heard in the evidence that was brought before the committee.

What we have to point out is that someone has to be medically admissible before they are eligible for the super visa. That health check has to be provided as a precondition to the super visa being issued. We are not talking about people who have health care, health conditions and health concerns. By allowing insurance from other countries, this will lower the cost of insurance.

I believe this, because I believe that competition is a good thing. If one can purchase insurance from an American insurance company, a British insurance company or an Indian insurance company, and the list goes on and on, this will create competition for Canadian insurance companies and it is going to lower the cost to these families.

Some will say that maybe this could be an insurance company that would not pay. That is why I have included a safeguard in the bill. It is as approved by the minister, so insurance companies that say they want to be eligible to provide their products to this could make a submission to the minister. The minister has the capacity, the skill and the knowledge to ensure that this is an insurance company that would be able to pay for any health claims that are made while in Canada.

The bill would lower the cost of insurance for those trying to use the super visa, and we have a safeguard in place that would make sure that no health care system or health care provider in the country would be left with an unpaid claim.

The other issue is the income part of this: the low-income cut-off. This is a challenge, especially for new Canadian families, when they are struggling to actually build the lives that they wanted to build in this country.

They may be working in jobs that do not pay a lot. They work very hard, and with the income test as it is, many Canadian families are excluded from being able to apply because they are not going to meet that income test.

When I think about this, I think what the extra cost would be if my parents came to stay with me for five months. We can debate whether or not I would want my parents to come and stay with me for five months, but that is of course a different topic. Many people do want that, but there really is not a significant cost involved in that. It is not a cost that would require a family to somehow become financially insecure or financially unable to meet their obligations.

The income test itself does not make sense to me, which is why the bill would require the government to table, within one year, a plan to lower the low-income cut-off and the income required. There may be some criticism of that, saying we may therefore have problems. That is actually not what the committee study showed in 2016. What we saw in the evidence presented at committee was that having a parent or grandparent come and stay with family was actually a boon, in an economic sense. Those parents sometimes were able to provide extra child care, so the family could take an extra shift or maybe work some overtime, and their economic situation actually improved.

It is kind of the opposite of what we think, or the perception being put forward of the low-income cut-off: that somehow this is going to be detrimental to the family. When we look at how this will expand opportunities for families, we have to consider how important it is for families to be able to reunite with their parents and grandparents, so that children can spend time with their grandparents. There are important lessons we learn from our grandparents and having them as part of our families.

In many communities across Canada, there are multi-generational homes where having the parents and grandparents there is an important cultural aspect of life. Why are we limiting this on the assumption that somehow having our parents or grandparents come and stay with us for a few months is some kind of financial burden?

I talked to communities all across this country before I introduced the bill. This has been unanimously approved by them. They are excited about the prospect of having their loved ones be able to come to Canada for a longer period of time. They are excited that health insurance costs would be reduced to make it more affordable, and they are more than excited that by lowering the low-income cut-off, more families are going to be eligible for the super visa.

I am encouraging my colleagues from the government to support this bill. This will be good for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I look forward to questions from the members opposite, and I hope I will have their support to pass the bill.

Reuniting Families Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce the reuniting Canadian families act. In 2012, the Conservative government brought in a super visa, a 10-year multiple-entry visa, to allow parents and grandparents to reunite with their families here in Canada. From the ensuing 10 years, we know improvements are needed to it.

This bill would allow people to stay for five years over 10 years. It would allow the purchase of insurance from a foreign country to reduce the cost of buying health insurance, which is a prerequisite for a super visa. Finally, it would require the government to deliver a plan to reduce the low-income cut-off so that more families can qualify for the super visa.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)