Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Lalonde, who are you directing your question to?

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

I wanted to give the opportunity to Madame Amad from the Arab Community Centre to finish sharing with us, if I may, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Madam Salman, you can begin.

[Rasha Salman]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to comment on two of the questions that were just addressed concerning the income and the length of stay extending from two to five years. We do support lowering the income threshold and the extension from two years to five. Two years is a short period, as Ms. Amad mentioned. It may be too onerous for reapplication, but five years is a reasonable period for a reassessment. Maybe even the immigrant's socio-economic situation has changed. Maybe they have a higher income now, or if it's a lower income, and things need to be reassessed. We do believe that the five-year improvement is a useful change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Sorry for interrupting, Ms. Salman, but the time is up for Ms. Lalonde.

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

You can please begin.

[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.

[Dima Amad]

Thank you.

The only thing I can say is that when we're thinking of families, we're thinking about real lives and about the right of families to be reunited. We shouldn't put a cost and benefit to the taxpayers above having the families' rights to be reunited.

At the same time, the problem with having them come on temporary visitor visas is that a lot of people get declined, because the parents have to prove that they have the income and will return.

The super visa came, as we mentioned before, as a welcome measure for the families to be reunited. It's too bad that we didn't get to talking about the benefits of having grandparents and parents together, but I think all of us come from families, and we do realize the value of having parents and grandparents around in terms of the language, in terms of passing on the heritage, in terms of the wisdom, and in terms of just having that connection. For us, it's a matter of making it easier for our communities to be able to reunite with their families.

Whatever bill comes in that would make make it easier for families, less costly, and from a human perspective gives an opportunity for families to be reunited, we obviously welcome—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Sorry for interrupting you, Ms Amad, but the time is up for Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now end our panel with Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you have two minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to note that in the previous Parliament in 2015, this issue was actually studied by committee, and the witnesses indicated all of the concerns that people have raised here, including the income threshold being too onerous for parent and grandparent reunification. At that time, recommendations were made, by the way, to the government, which, of course, sat on the books, and six years later nothing has happened.

I am concerned about the idea that somehow this should be dealt with through ministerial instruction, as if that would actually do the trick, because we know that so far it hasn't.

To that end, my question is for Ms. Amad. Is it important then for us to clearly lay out what measures should be put in place to reduce the onerous requirements for parent and grandparent sponsorship? I ask because if we don't, and we rely on the government to act on its own, at least in my tenure, in the last 6 years, nothing will happen.

[Dima Amad]

I'm not really sure how to respond to that, because I'm not an economist or a politician. We definitely need to have flexibility. We need to look at the human aspect of it, and make sure that people are able to be bring their families, their parents, and grandparents here. I'm sorry that I'm not able to comment more. I don't know what measures could be taken in this regard, but I agree, it is prohibitive.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Go ahead, Ms. Salman.

[Rasha Salman]

Just to add to what Ms. Amad mentioned, I believe that community development or the community support sector can make meaningful contributions in offering strategies and working with the government, not leaving the government on its own to work on this, but perhaps instead by the sector's suggesting improvements.

[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.

[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.

[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]

Thank you, Madam Kingsley.

We will now proceed to our rounds of questioning. As a reminder to all the members and the witnesses, all of the questions should be directed through the chair. Thank you.

We will begin our first round with Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Genuis, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, and if they are still listening, to the witnesses from the first panel as well.

I wonder if all of the witnesses could comment on the issue of the income cut-off a little bit more. This issue is addressed in the bill. In particular, I guess, the presumption of even having an income cut-off is that those who are coming are drawing on the resources of those who are providing for them, when, in fact, as we've heard at this committee, in many cases there is—if it's not too crass to say—an economic benefit to the family that's associated with the presence of parents and grandparents in terms of various kinds of support.

In that light, does it make sense to have an income cut-off at all?

[Michèle Kingsley]

Chair, we take a step back and consider Statistics Canada's definition of the low-income cut-off, I think that's a good place to start.

The low-income cut-off is the threshold below which a family will devote a much larger share of its income in comparison to the average family to basic necessities, such as food and shelter and clothing. That is why it was established as the threshold for the super visa because it takes into account the basic necessities that extra family members would bring. It is meant to balance the fact that it is a longer-stay visa and to make sure that clients are appropriately supported while they're here.

That said, the government agrees that this is something that should be continually revised. We'll be examining it, and the minister will be tabling a report—if this bill is adopted—on the low-income cut-off and whether other considerations, including those that have been raised by other witnesses, should be considered.

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

Thank you.

I won't press the point with you, but for the committee's reflection, that still seems to come from a perspective of assuming that there is a cost to the family instead of an economic benefit. It may be that for families who are struggling economically, one of their big challenges might be child care, and having a supportive grandparent present will allow them to improve their economic situation.

I want to drill down further on the issue of ministerial instructions. Some members of the government on this committee have said that action could be taken by ministerial instruction on some of these issues.

The nature of a bill, especially a private member's bill, is that it takes a long time for it to wind through the process. We're trying to deal with this bill as quickly as possible, but assuming everything goes well, it will go through report stage, third reading and likely committee study at the Senate as well.

The government could move forward to demonstrate its commitment on some of these issues on ministerial instructions right now, could it not, even while the bill is proceeding? It doesn't make much sense to me that they would argue that we don't need these provisions because we can do it by ministerial instructions, when they have actually failed to act when it comes to ministerial instructions.

Could you maybe just clarify the timelines that would be involved in ministerial instructions, if the government were to try to move on some of these issues right now?

[Michèle Kingsley]

That's correct. Legislation can take months and years to pass. Whereas, ministerial instructions, depending on the complexity of the issue involved, can be drafted in weeks to months, with a level of flexibility that is really desirable in these types of situations. I would say that in the context of the super visa, new ministerial instructions could be drafted and signed in weeks.

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

Okay.

To your knowledge, is the government in the process of doing that at the moment, preparing revisions or instructions that address the issues in this bill?

[Michèle Kingsley]

I think the government is watching closely what's happening with this bill and is open to making changes to enhance the super visa as well as other lines of business.

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

Right.

My point, though, is that it seems that the argument being used by some is, “Well, we shouldn't have certain provisions that are in this bill because the government could act by ministerial instructions.”

My point is that the government could have acted by ministerial instructions by now and they haven't, and if they want to act by ministerial instructions, one way they could strengthen their case is by moving forward with those actions right away. You're confirming that the government could do so. They could do so in a matter of weeks. However, they have chosen not to.

From my perspective, that strengthens the rationale for legislative measures, because it shows that the government has been unwilling to make some of these changes. That's where you need legislation. It's often when you see the government unwilling to move on something that legislation becomes important, because it requires government action.

I have 20 seconds left. I don't know if you want to comment on that, as opposed to me just sharing an opinion. Do you want to comment on any of that?