Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 17th, 2022

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

I understand that very well and it's completely legitimate. However, this framework absolutely must be set up before the bill is passed. If we pass the bill before we have a framework for foreign insurers, it would be like putting the cart before the horse.

Would you agree that the framework needs to be set up before the bill is passed? If not, it will turn into the wild West outside this country as far as insurers are concerned.

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

The actual bill adds a section. It's proposed section 15.1, which says, “A health insurance policy purchased from an insurance company outside Canada that is approved by the Minister satisfies any requirement in an instruction”—we're talking about a ministerial instruction—“given under subsection 15(4)”.

If the government doesn't approve any, it doesn't approve any. That is legitimately what the government may choose to do. That is fine. The language in this bill doesn't allow someone to purchase insurance from, let's say, an insurance company in India and then claim the bill said that if they could buy insurance, they could come. It doesn't say that. It says that it has to be approved by the government.

The way I envision it is that the government would put a list of trusted insurance partners that you can buy insurance from, much like it has a list of doctors. The government, of course, will choose how it does this, and it will do the hard work to determine which ones should be on that list.

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

You set limits to ensure that it can't turn into the wild West outside Canada, because the bill requires that insurance companies be approved, and that's a good thing.

One part of the bill that stands out the most is it allows applicants to be insured by companies outside Canada. That will spark healthy competition between insurers. It will save people money. I think everyone agrees on that.

In reality, you're asking the government to immediately look into what foreign insurers could be approved before the bill gets passed.

In my opinion, that's one of the most important things in the bill.

Am I mistaken?

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

Ideally, I'd like the government to move very quickly to put together a list of insurance companies all across the world outside of Canada. It may choose not to do that, for a variety of reasons, and it may decide that we're not going to approve a single insurance company.

I'm prepared to accept that, in which case this section of the bill just sits there. It's not an enabling section that says you can go and buy insurance and take that to the government and ask if it is okay. It does not say that. It says that you can buy from an insurance company that is approved by the minister, so the government is going to have to set up a list of approved insurance companies you can purchase from.

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

Perfect.

I think the process is well defined, and I commend you for that. We hope the government will do its job, but I think they have shown that they're open to it.

In response to a question I believe Mr. Benzen asked, you said that some people felt the bill didn't go far enough. However, you didn't say why they felt that way.

Can you elaborate on that?

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

A lot of people think we should eliminate the low-income test altogether because it disenfranchises so many Canadians, especially newer Canadians who are working to establish themselves here in this country. As I said, that is the time when you really need your family even more. They are saying to me that I should have said the LICO test is out. That's what people have said, that it didn't go far enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes. You can begin, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the member, and congratulations on getting the bill passed at second reading and brought to committee.

I want to follow up on the question of affordability. You were just saying that community groups.... In fact, back in 2016 at the CIMM committee, we heard from witnesses about the family reunification issues, particularly for parents and grandparents. The issue of affordability was raised, as was the issue of medical coverage.

To the point around affordability and the wage requirement that is being put in, do you have any perspective on what that minimum threshold should be? As it stands right now, it's too high. It's impossible. I shouldn't say “impossible”, but it is very limiting. It is absolutely a major barrier for many families that hope to reunite with their loved ones.

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

I don't have an exact number that I would say, but I did read the committee report that was produced. On page 46 of that report, it actually talks about this. Several witnesses recommended that the MNI be repealed entirely. That testimony was here.

Look, if it's a 25% reduction, that's great. I think that would open this up to far more families. If it's a 30% reduction, that's even better. If it's 50%, I'm even happier. For me, the more we can reduce the minimum income requirement, the better.

I would go back to the reasons I mentioned before. Very new Canadians would benefit the most from being able to have a parent or a grandparent here while they're trying to establish themselves. Most new Canadians are not high-income earners. They're trying to establish their career or other things. Having a parent there or a grandparent would really help with that.

So, it's over to the Liberal government: Slash it down 50% or more.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

You're saying 50% or more. Would you agree that it should be eliminated altogether?

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

I do think it should be eliminated, yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Your bill only calls for a report from the minister on reducing the minimum requirements. It is not in the actual bill itself. Of course, there are various limitations with private members' bills, so I understand that.

How can we ensure that the minister follows through with an actual reduction?

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

The short answer is that we cannot. The minister is supposed to prepare a report on reducing the minimum income requirement. But there's also the option that the minister does not, and then just reports why they decided not to do it. That's in clause 5, which says, “If, within two years after this Act receives royal assent, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not reduce the minimum income requirement...the Minister must table in each House of Parliament a statement of the reasons for not doing so.”

This was a very challenging bill to draft, as I said, because so much of this relies on ministerial instruction. As well, the minimum income test is also for different types of applications. It was a complicated drafting process. In the end, this was the recommendation that I accepted from the drafters. We're asking the minister to do it, but if not, then explain why not. It's not perfect, but I'm hoping it will accomplish what we want.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you for that.

I just want to point out that arising from the 2016 study, one of the recommendations from the committee was that IRCC “explore alternative options for accepting a broader range of health insurance coverage options outside the Canadian market that meets Canadian standards for coverage; and consult with domestic health insurance providers to ensure fairness to families in Canada.” It's been six years, of course, since that report and since that recommendation was made, and nothing has happened. Here we are with this bill.

I'm glad to see this bill. I support this bill, because I do think we need to look for alternatives to make it more affordable. Hopefully, this will move this forward, instead of just asking the minister to consider it and then nothing happens.

I'd like to touch on this other issue. I spoke with a family that had their application rejected in the third year of their income proof because the family's income dipped due to unexpected circumstances. In this instance, the baby came early. As a result, the person who made the application for the family had to go on maternity leave. For one month she went on mat leave, and then right after she went back to work, making the same salary she was before. But because her income dipped for that one month, they were disqualified. They lost that application.

Does the member agree that there should be an appeal process for extenuating circumstances?

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

I would be 100% open to that. When there are exceptional circumstances, I think those should be looked at. I don't think the tests should be rigidly applied. I had people in a similar circumstance. They didn't quite make the income requirement in one of the years, and therefore they were disqualified.

So yes, I would be very open to an amendment that looks at how we can try to make that a little bit better. My goal is that vastly more families qualify for a super visa. That's the goal of this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

We will now proceed to Mr. Hallan.

Mr. Hallan, you have five minutes. Please begin.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to congratulate my colleague Mr. Seeback and thank him and the team he has behind him for all their hard work in putting this together. As he has stated, it wasn't an easy bill to draft. We are here now in committee talking about it, so congratulations.

Right now, we're seeing a huge affordability issue in this country. I want to ask my colleague Mr. Seeback to speak a bit more about how this helps to address that for those families that are trying to get help and bring their parents over.

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

I think that the minimum income test is old and it doesn't reflect the new reality of the world. I'm really hoping the government will significantly reduce the minimum income requirement to allow more parents and grandparents.

I think we're looking at around 20,000 super visas issued a year. What are the immigration levels, 450,000? That's a pretty small percentage. I'd like to increase that. I think this is really clear.

There is not a significant financial burden for having a parent or a grandparent come and stay in your house. The belief that it is a financial burden is false, quite frankly. We know that when bringing a parent in, they're going to stay in your home. What's your extra cost? Maybe it's some additional food, and I don't even think it's that much. What we also know is that this can contribute to the economic well-being of those families. This can provide some additional child care, for example. Maybe it allows them to pick up an extra shift on the weekend, because they have a parent who will now be at home and be able to take care of the children. Maybe they decide on weekends that they're going to try to further their education or get additional training and therefore improve the economics of the family.

I think that more families having access to this is not only good for the families.... I'm not even talking about the social aspects of having a parent or a grandparent around. For so many families in so many cultures in Canada, this is a critical thing. My family was a nuclear family, but there are many cultures in Canada that have multi-generational families. This would help to encourage that. There's the social and cultural aspect of it.

I don't think the economic aspect of it can be overestimated. It's good for the family, which is good for the country. That's why I'm doing this.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Seeback.

I'd agree with you. In many of our constituencies, we can say this is a big deal. This is something that we know would help strengthen, as you said, the family structure here in Canada.

We saw throughout the last two years that people needed support at home, whether it was for child care.... I had a couple of cases in my office where there was a child who had special needs and they needed a parent here. It was so important for them to have that, not just for the child care part, but for the mental health part.

Could you touch upon the mental health piece of this? How important is it? How could this bill also help their family structure here in Canada?

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

I think for anyone who's going through a hard time, the ability to have a parent or a grandparent come and stay with them is going to be 100% beneficial for someone who's struggling, whether they're struggling with some mental health issues or through the pandemic.

We really have to change our thinking on this. I'm going to keep going back to this. We have to change the thinking that having a parent or a grandparent come and stay with a family here is an economic burden to the family and to Canada. I fundamentally disagree with that. I have far too many friends whose families have accessed the super visa and they've told me how beneficial it is—I'll say it again—not just economically, but socially. Parents and grandparents pass on language, culture and traditions. All of these things are good for families.

We should all want to have far more families being able to bring their parents and grandparents here for the variety of benefits.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan]

I'd probably like to add that our parents also keep us in line.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Your time is up.

We will now proceed to Mrs. Lalonde for five minutes.

You can please proceed.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Equally, I want to echo my colleagues and congratulate you. This is a huge aspect of being a parliamentarian and seeing this come to committee. I say congratulations, and I really mean it.

On a more personal note, my husband is an immigrant, and welcomed in 1995 his grandparents. At the time, I was pregnant, and they came here for the first time to Canada. Then, upon their return, sadly the grandfather passed away, so I can share how important it is to see our parents and our grandparents as we make Canada our new home. I appreciate this.

I do have questions about the super visa. As you pointed out during your statement, it was established by ministerial instruction on December 1, 2011, by the minister of citizenship and immigration and the minister of public safety at the time. It was pursuant to the authority found in subsection 15(4) of the act.

I want to hear about why your bill requests that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be amended to include the super visa, rather than to leave it in through ministerial instruction.

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

I'm happy to answer that question. I think there's a really good sense of collegiality and unity right now around the table, so I'm just going to preface my remarks by saying, please don't be offended by what I'm going to say.

We've passed motions in this Parliament, for example the motion on the 988 suicide line. I think we're at close to 600 days, and it hasn't happened. I could have done a motion that was very aspirational, and hoped that the government would take action and that these things would be done. My fear is that it actually would not have been done, because we've seen that with a number of motions in Parliament. I'm not criticizing the government. I know some of these things can be quite complicated, and something like this would be quite complicated as well.

I think Canadian families need relief sooner rather than later. I used to be a lawyer. I don't practise anymore, and I've never drafted legislation. When I look at this bill, I think I did the best that I could working with the drafters. It gives us something now. It prescribes some rules around the minister giving instructions. That's how it's drafted. It's saying, “If the minister is going to give instructions on this, it has to have this.” As I see it, it's the best way to deal with the situation, rather than doing a motion and hoping something comes out of it.

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

On that front, I'm going to ask you this. I had the privilege, in a former life, of being a minister, and certainly ministerial instruction can be created in a matter of weeks, whereas legislative change often takes years to finalize. Are you concerned that enshrining new and untested conditions in the act could make it difficult to adapt the super visa in response to any potential unfavourable or unanticipated outcomes from the proposed changes?