Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2022

[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.

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

Madam Chair, I don't have a problem with the proposed timeline on clause-by-clause, but in terms of the second panel you're proposing for next Tuesday, I want to underline that we need to address and resolve the issue of the committee's privilege. I believe there's some follow-up correspondence that one member is waiting on for more information. Other than for the private member's bill, I don't know that it makes sense to schedule additional panels for other studies until we decide the steps we want to take as a committee.

We may need to have further discussion in that second hour on the privilege issue instead, assuming that we have the correspondence that members were looking for. I think by then we will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Yes, I have written a letter to the clerk based on the clarifications that one of the members was looking for. As of yet, we have not received any response. I will work with Madam Clerk to see when we can get the response from the law clerk. Once we have that, we can look into scheduling something accordingly.

One more thing, before we go further, is with regard to budget approvals I need. I would like to request budget approval for three studies. The first is on the subject matter of part 5, division 23 of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, for an amount of $850.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

I propose we approve it.

(Motion agreed to)

[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.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

I propose this goes ahead.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

With regard to application backlogs and processing times, the total budget, which will include our visit, if it is approved—I'm sorry, the site visit is separate. The application backlogs and processing times budget is $22,850.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

It's a good idea. We should approve it.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Regarding our site visits in the fall on our study of application backlogs and processing times, I want to let you know that at its last meeting, the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets of the Liaison Committee examined the different travel proposals it recently received. It agreed to and adopted the following motion:

That the Subcommittee invite the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to prepare a detailed budget not exceeding $175,000, in relation to its travel proposal for its study of Application Backlogs and Processing Times, and submit it to the Subcommittee by June 3, 2022.

The subcommittee also adopted a motion that all travel budget requests presented to the subcommittee include a maximum of seven members participating, along with the necessary staff.

Does the committee agree that the detailed budget for site visits to Abu Dhabi and Dakar of $170,697.47 for seven members of Parliament and required staff be approved? Is everybody in agreement?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

It seems right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I see no objections.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

(Motion agreed to)

[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.

[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]

Ms. Amad, your five minutes are up. You will get a further opportunity when we go to our round of questioning.

[Dima Amad]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now proceed to Mr. Langford, director of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association.

Mr. Langford, the floor is yours. Please begin.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Langford, for your testimony.

We will now proceed to Mr. Kurland, lawyer and policy analyst.

Mr. Kurland, the floor is yours. You can begin.

[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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Kurland.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

We will now proceed to our round of questioning. We will begin our first round with Mr. Redekopp.

Mr. Redekopp, you will have six minutes. You can please begin.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses. You've all provided some very interesting testimony.

I want to circle back to Ms. Salman. You didn't have a chance to finish, and Ms. Amad had mentioned some possible recommendations.

Could you very quickly list those recommendations?

[Rasha Salman, Programs Development Lead, Arab Community Centre of Toronto]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp and Madam Chair, and thank you, Dima.

We distilled our observations on the bill and for it not to need to replace the path for permanent residence for parents and grandparents. We basically focus on the fact that multi-generational families are a cultural aspect of many immigrant families, and there's a need to expand our definition of “family” to consider newcomer family structures. We also focus on the economic and non-economic contributions of parents and grandparents, which is consistent with research as well, basically allowing the chance for productive aging. It has been mentioned how, when parents and grandparents live with the family, they free up time and resources for the parents to go out and seek more employment and education.

We have also highlighted that many immigrants consider it their cultural duty to take care of their parents financially, even if they live in separate countries. Many immigrants are actually sending money abroad. Instead of taking trips to countries of origin or buying health insurance abroad, immigrants can spend these resources in the Canadian economy if their parents live with them.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm going to interrupt you there, because I only have a very limited time. I do want to talk about insurance, and I know that in our first meeting there was a lot of discussion about this. The Liberals on the committee, especially, were pretty concerned about the insurance.

One of the considerations that was made clear was that the minister will have the ability to decide which companies are able to provide that insurance.

There kept being questions about this and if it would work and everything else. I would like your response on the following, because when I travel abroad to the U.S. or wherever, I get insurance in Canada for my trip to that country, so I'm essentially getting insurance here for a trip somewhere else. Why can't we allow the same for someone coming to Canada? I guess I'd like a little more information from each of you.

Maybe we'll start with Mr. Kurland.

[Richard Kurland]

Yes. I think we can adopt a proven enforcement device that's used for designated educational learning institutions. We create an authorized list, a prescribed list, if you will, that specifically names an authorized insurance product or company. That way we can monitor and control, for enforcement purposes, who's selling insurance products to whom, and we guard against the unscrupulous overseas companies. We have no defence against them, so controlling it from Ottawa, if you will, with a prescribed list of authorized insurance venders is better.