Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2022

[Michèle Kingsley]

I'm sorry, Chair, was there a specific question that I could answer?

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

I guess it's, what is the impact on the government's rationale for saying that this should be in ministerial instructions when the government hasn't actually brought in ministerial instructions that respond to the concerns raised?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Genuis; your time is up. You'll get an opportunity in the second round.

We will now proceed to Mr. Ali.

Mr. Ali, you will have six minutes. You can begin.

[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]

As I was saying in my opening remarks, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is a framework legislation. Any changes to the act would mean that any future programmatic changes would have to be done via legislation again, which can take months or years. Keeping these provisions in the ministerial instructions gives flexibility to any minister to be able to introduce changes.

I might turn to Mr. Mitchell to elaborate on the benefits of legislation versus ministerial instructions.

[Ben Mitchell, Counsel, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

IRPA contains various provisions that allow the minister to issue special instructions to immigration officers that enable the government to best attain its immigration goals.

Ministerial instructions can touch on a diverse range of issues, from temporary residence processing or, in our case here, the super visas, whereas, as my colleague Ms. Kingsley previously mentioned, changes to the actual act itself will require legislative changes that take much longer to do.

[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.

[Michèle Kingsley]

I don't have any examples of when ministerial instructions brought in changes to a temporary resident pathway. I would turn to counsel to confirm that, but, to my knowledge, there are no temporary resident pathways contained in the act itself.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Do you want to add something, Mr. Mitchell?

[Ben Mitchell]

Yes, I'll confirm that that is correct. The framework for temporary residents is set out through the regulations, and ministerial instructions can be used to complement those with selection criteria and conditions.

[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?

[Michèle Kingsley]

Thank you, Chair.

I think that the objectives of the bill to recognize the social, economic and cultural contributions of parents and grandparents to not only their families but to our society are completely aligned with government objectives. The current super visa provides for an initial entry of two years, but it also provides for unlimited renewals from within Canada for period of two years at a time. I believe that's completely aligned with the objective of the bill for longer stays as well.

I believe that the objectives of the bill for family reunification, recognizing the benefits, and for longer stays are already provided through the current super visa, and the government welcomes furthering those objectives. Really, the issue is to be consistent with the framework legislation that we have and to keep it as ministerial instructions, rather than including it in the legislation, which would result in future changes being extremely cumbersome and difficult to pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kingsley. The time is up for Mr. Ali.

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, for six minutes.

You can begin.

[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?

[Michèle Kingsley]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.

The dual intent principle applies here, just like it does in all of our programs. The requirement to leave the country when temporary resident status expires exists, and it can coexist with the dual intent principle. It's simply a way of recognizing that in some cases permanent residency will not follow or will not follow immediately. In a managed immigration system, we need some assurance that people will return home once their residency status expires. I don't believe that what's at issue right now is really going to change that analysis.

I can ask Mr. Seyler if he wants to add anything.

[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?

[Michèle Kingsley]

I don't see how any kind of vulnerability or being widowed, among other things, would make it less likely that an individual would be granted a super visa. The requirements remain the same. Therefore, I don't see how vulnerability would make it harder to get the super visa. To be able to comment on this, I would have to read, review and assess the attorney in question's report.

I don't know if my colleague Mr. Seyler wishes to add anything.

[James Seyler, Director, Immigration Program Guidance, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Madam Kingsley.

Thank you to the Chair for the question.

I would agree with what my colleague from the department just said. The additional period of time prescribed in the bill of up to five years could make it more difficult for officials to find that the person is a temporary resident with the intent of leaving Canada. Often, the longer someone stays in Canada, the weaker their connection to a point outside of Canada can become. Therefore, with a shorter project of entry as is currently the case, it may be easier for anyone, including those in a vulnerable situation, to obtain the super visa.

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

Thank you for these responses.

Perhaps we can get the testimony of this attorney who appeared before the committee in 2016 sent to you. If not, you could simply ask the Library of Parliament staff provide it to you. I'm sure they will be happy to send it to you.

Some Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada critics say it's too demanding, because it assumes that a family's income will not vary from year to year and never fall below the income threshold during recessions. However, we're about to go through serious economic upheaval. We saw some upheaval during the COVID‑19 pandemic. In terms of the post-pandemic period, the forecast varies depending on which economist you talk to.

How do the new reporting requirements in sections 4 and 5 of Bill C‑242 address this issue?

[Michèle Kingsley]

Thank you.

That's a good question. Tabling a report in the House on the low-income cut-off will help us examine these issues, which were raised by previous witnesses, and determine whether there are circumstances where temporary changes to the financial criteria should be considered. The government is quite open to looking at these kinds of changes and sharing its findings with the House in the report that the minister will be required to table under this bill, should it pass.

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

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, do I have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, but your time is up.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan. You have six minutes. Please begin.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the officials here.

On this question around the appeal process, we discussed it briefly during the last panel. It was stated that people can always go to a judicial review, the Federal Court and so on and so forth, which is an onerous and expensive process.

Based on the information you have, could you advise the committee how often that appeal process is exercised by people who have been rejected by the parents and grandparents sponsorship program?