Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 17th, 2022

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

I don't think so, because all the bill does is basically give some guardrails—I don't know what the best description is—on some ministerial instructions specifically with respect to the super visa. There are guardrails here. If you're going to give an instruction on this, it also has to pass between these two guardrails.

Ministerial instructions can be done very quickly. I was just concerned that they wouldn't actually happen, so I thought the legislative way was the way to actually do it.

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

To finalize, I'm going to ask this very quickly. Did you consider amending the immigration and refugee protection regulations rather than the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so it would be more in line with other temporary residence programs?

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

I'm not an expert in drafting legislation. I worked very hard with the Library of Parliament to come up with the bill the way it is, and this is how it was recommended to me to do it. I'm trusting their expertise that this is the best way to go about it. I know we're going to have some lawyers come to testify at committee—I have some coming—and I'm sure they'll provide some more expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Next we will go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two and a half minutes.

[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?

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

I think that's something we should probably discuss at committee, whether this would give someone an opportunity to make a different application. But I also think that you can't draft for every possible alternative that happens with respect to people. Whether that's going to be a risk, I don't know. Maybe the committee is going to come back after looking at this and say it should be four years or it should be three years. My goal was to extend it, and I'm certainly open to discussions on what that actual extension should be.

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

As part of our study on international students, we discussed the issue of dual intent.

An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer might refuse to grant a super visa to an individual on the grounds that, in their opinion, the individual will not return to their country once their stay in Canada is over. At the same time, that person can apply for permanent residence here.

Again, is that not a dual intent situation? Wouldn't that be risky?

Because of the visa's length of stay, the risk is even greater that these individuals' applications will be rejected because an officer might believe that they will not return to their country afterwards.

Given that, perhaps another guideline is in order.

What do you think?

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

That's always a risk. Someone who comes now on a temporary resident visa or a visitor visa can make an H and C application. Officers make the assessment whether they think the person is not going to return to their home country. These risks are always there whenever you're granting temporary resident status in Canada. I don't think this would lead to a massive amount of rejections by extending the time. Again, if we hear at committee that it should be four years, I'm open to that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have two and a half minutes. You can please proceed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Alternatively, witnesses could say that it should be six years. In any event, I'll leave that be.

I think you raised a significant point, and that is the contributions of parents and grandparents. So often those contributions are not accounted for and they're not even evaluated. It is always viewed as though somehow they are just going to be a drain on our society.

I would like to hear from your perspective how IRCC can better evaluate those contributions and ensure that they are considered in the parents/grandparents immigration stream.

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

I think they have to. One of the recommendations from that report—and I read it in great detail—is recommendation 35, which says, “That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada gather data on the economic contribution to the family unit of the sponsored parents and/or grandparents who take care of children.” I don't know if that was done. It was a recommendation. I do think that it should be done.

The economic contribution of parents and grandparents to this country is enormous and we should 100% be looking at that. That's not to mention, as I keep going on about, that the cultural and social aspect is equally, critically important. When our parents would come to stay with me, my brother and I would often joke that when parents visit they should stay about the amount of time that it takes for fish to start not smelling good in your refrigerator.

But that's not the experience with so many communities in this country. They want their parents and grandparents here. They have multi-generational homes that add so much to the fabric of that family and the fabric of our country. That should be just as important as the economic aspect, because we want healthy families and healthy communities.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

To my knowledge, on that recommendation, I've never seen any data that's been gathered and shared back with the committee, or anywhere else for that matter. I do think it is absolutely critical.

I can tell you, for one, that when I was pregnant with my daughter, I was so lucky because my mom had just retired, and she was able to help me. It was the only way I could have done my job as a member of the Legislative Assembly at that time as a first-time mother. I can see the relationship they have built. It is beautiful to see. My mom is 83 years old now, and she's closest to my daughter out of all the grandchildren because of that time they spent together. My daughter even speaks Cantonese, although not as well as I would like, but still. It's because of the contributions that my mom made in caring for her.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The time is up, Ms. Kwan.

We will now proceed to Mr. Hallan.

Mr. Hallan, you will have four minutes.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan]

No, it's Mr. Redekopp.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Redekopp, you will have four minutes. Please begin.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Seeback, for this awesome legislation.

I want to pick up on what Ms. Kwan was speaking about as well. I've witnessed in my riding families that I've gotten to know, and as you pointed out, newcomer families often struggle with learning the language and learning the culture. I've seen them burdened with all of these tasks—raising a family, becoming acclimatized and all that. Then I've noticed when their parents have come. You can see how the family dynamic changes. All of a sudden, things perk up. There's more time. They can get out and do things. I want to agree with this. It would be a very interesting thing to study at the committee.

In terms of your legislation, I assume that you consulted with different people. For example, one of the questions I would ask is why you picked two to five years. Maybe part of the answer is about the question of consultations. Could you explain a little more about some of the people and different areas that you consulted as you were developing this legislation?

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

I think Mr. Dhaliwal and my colleague Mr. Hallan will appreciate this. I represented a riding in Brampton that had a very large Punjabi community, and in my current riding, Dufferin—Caledon, there is also a very large Punjabi community. Even for parents who are here with PR, who go through the parent and grandparent family reunification class, once they're here and everything's established, they often only come for four or five months. They don't want to be here in the winter, and they have a much larger social network back in Punjab, for example, so they leave.

In talking to those families, I looked at it like this: They could come for five months a year for 10 years. That means they're never going to miss anything. For anything important that happens in that family, they're going to be there. If there are multiple children, they're going to be there. If there's a death in the family, they're going to be there. It gives that extra amount of time to make sure that you're not missing a wedding, that you're not missing a funeral and that you're not missing the birth of a child. In my mind, that's how I did it: come for May, June, July, August and September, and avoid the Canadian winter, as we would all like to. That's really how it came to me.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

That sounds pretty reasonable.

On the insurance concerns, I know there have been a few concerns listed and even talked about here today, and you've spoken about this already, but maybe once again explain why we shouldn't be worried about people being ripped off, for example, by an insurance company and how you're confident that this will work.

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

I can see the responses in question period after I answer these questions: “Well, the member for Dufferin—Caledon says he has faith in the government.” To all my colleagues asking questions and getting that answer, I apologize.

Look, I just think the government can do it. They have the capacity to set the framework for what an insurance company has to have, to go through it and to do that vetting process. Insurance companies may decide they want to apply to be licensed or somehow regulated to provide this service in Canada because there's an economic argument for it. I think it's possible. I don't think it's all that difficult, and I think the government, if they want to, can actually get this done and get it done reasonably quickly.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have one last question. What's your elevator pitch? You're sitting with an immigrant family. Why should they support this bill?

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

This is going to allow them to spend so much more time with their family. They would not have to worry about getting a visa rejected for a wedding or for anything else. This bill means that the family will be together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now end our panel with Mr. El-Khoury.

Mr. El-Khoury, you have four minutes. You can proceed.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Seeback, and thank you for your bill.

Are you aware that medical services and responsibility for their delivery rests on provincial governments, not the federal government?

Have you consulted provincial and territorial governments? If so, what were their views on this matter?

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

No, I have not consulted provincial governments.

I do understand that health care is a provincial responsibility. The federal government has set the requirements for insurance companies here in Canada for people to be able to access health care in the provinces. If they can set the requirements for insurance companies here in Canada for a family to come and protect provincial health insurance plans with insurance, I think they can do the same thing here. I don't think it infringes on provincial jurisdiction or anything like that, because the government is already doing it. They're telling Sun Life of Canada what they have to have in place for someone to purchase private health insurance, and I think they can do that with countries around the world and not cause problems for the provinces.

The provinces may have something to say when the government is putting this together, and if they do, that would be welcome, but I don't think it's an insurmountable issue.