Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 7th, 2022

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

That's true. They can take as long as they want. It's not clear under USMCA and other trade agreements what happens once you pass this legislation that allows international competition. Then, if the minister says that the only people we're going to continue to allow—because I'm presuming you're not going to shut down the program while we wait for the minister—are Canadian firms, you might find yourself facing several complaints from, for example, American and Mexican insurers very quickly if the minister delays.

Again, I'm not a trade expert. I'm not a trade lawyer. I think you would need to talk to a trade lawyer about this, but you might find yourself running afoul of USMCA if the minister took too long to produce a list once the legislation had passed.

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

I'll share my time with Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Mr. Ramos, I was really intrigued through this broader discussion of the economic benefits of non-economic immigration categories. It's sort of odd, in some ways, the way we think about immigration, which is that we have the economic stream for economic benefit and then we have the family stream and we have the refugee stream. Each of them have clear, specific benefits, but I don't know that we've discussed enough or acknowledged the fact that one category can also achieve objectives in another category. You can have a refugee who comes for economic reasons but is also seeking refuge, and how those things go together.

I wonder if you would build on your comments about the economic benefits of parents and grandparents. Are there specific determinants that lead to some individuals providing more economic benefit than others? Could we be thinking bigger about hybrid categories that draw on benefits in multiple streams instead of just thinking you're either in one stream or another?

[Dr. Howard Ramos]

I definitely think that it's important to think of people as complete people rather than labels and the pathway by which they got to Canada. The more we begin to do that, the better policy we will have.

Certainly I think some of the variables that come into play are language ability, education and experience in different environments, and age is also a calculation when you look at some of the research.

There are some reports that have looked at the economic outcomes of newcomer refugees. There's a little bit of work on the family, which we've done. I think this is the cutting edge of where research is right now, looking at different landing categories and looking at the outcomes economically.

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

Okay, thank you.

With respect to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Your time is up, Mr. Genuis. Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you will have five minutes. You can begin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the witnesses for their input into this committee.

I also would love to congratulate Mr. Seeback for bringing this bill forward, because it opened up a very important conversation we should have that was long overdue.

As Madam Kwan mentioned, I have some concerns about this bill as well. The main concern that I have about this bill is that, in fact, it calls for super visa conditions to be carved into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which will be very difficult to bring changes to if we want those changes in future, because that all has to be done by legislation.

I would like to ask the witnesses: Would it not be a better idea that this be brought through the ministerial instructions, as that would allow the IRCC to make changes as we go?

[Dr. Howard Ramos]

It is beyond my expertise to offer an adequate answer. I pass to Mr. Sweetman, who may be able to offer a better answer than I could.

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

Ministerial instructions, in my view, are a very powerful instrument of government. They're very fast. My assumption is that the reason for this bill is that the minister has been unwilling or unable to issue a ministerial instruction. If the minister were willing to, then that's a very fast and easy way to make changes.

Having said that, one thing the bill does that ministerial instruction doesn't do is it ties the hands of future ministers. If the goal of the committee and Parliament is to tie the hands of the ministers, then you need legislation. There are advantages to tying the minister's hands, and there are advantages to giving the minister discretion. It depends on how much you trust and agree with the minister, and all future ministers.

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

One thing, you agree, is that, if it is brought through ministerial instruction, then we can bring in changes faster as well as the implementation.

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

Certainly, and there are big advantages. As much as I'm talking about pros and cons, there are big advantages to the ministerial instructions. They're easier to change if something dramatic changes in the future. They have some real advantages as well as some deficits if you disagree with the minister.

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

Mr. Ramos, you talked about the economic impact of parents and grandparents. A perfect example is my case. My parents came here. If they weren't here, then both my brother and I would probably not have been able to go through our degrees at university. After getting our engineering degrees, my brother has been working for a Canadian international firm for years, and I have set up my own business employing almost 20 people.

They not only helped us there, but culturally...and in child care as well. My wife and I were able to work because my parents took care of our children, and they were better raised. My daughters still say that when my dad was picking them up he would be more on time than I would be. Sometimes I would get occupied with my work. Then, at the end, my dad looked after my business for all of those years. My mom is still considered a better campaigner than I am when I'm on the campaign trail.

It's not only in my case. I see hundreds and thousands of those families who have brought a positive impact. I'm a big supporter of permanent immigration compared to this super visa option.

What would be your comments about that?

[Dr. Howard Ramos]

I think it's important to still have permanent pathways, and the super visa cannot be a replacement of permanent pathways. It's important, as the super visa's brought in, to try to offer immediate solutions for newcomers where it will work. It's equally important for us as a country to consider family migration as a viable option in the mix of our portfolio of pathways.

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

Thank you.

I think I have only 13 seconds left.

I just want to thank the witnesses again, and of course Mr. Seeback himself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you can begin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's interesting that my friend Sukh Dhaliwal talked about child care. We know that Canada and Quebec are currently experiencing a labour shortage, especially in child care.

Mr. Ramos, do you think Bill C-242 is something of a solution to the lack of child care spaces? Could we see it like that? Couldn't it be a bit of a precarious solution?

[Dr. Howard Ramos]

I wouldn't say it's a solution to child care needs as a whole, but one of the benefits, which much of the qualitative research has shown, and to some extent the work that we did, is that caring is an offshoot that comes. I think it's not adequate to see it as a replacement for child care or an investment in child care and early childhood learning, but it's seen as a value-added that supplements that.

I think that's the important thing to change in our conversation. It's to move from either-or positions to really seeing the supplementary and hybrid positions that are the new reality newcomers face.

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

Thank you for your answer.

Do you have amendments to propose for this bill? Mr. Ramos, what would you change if you could make a single amendment?

Mr. Sweetman could then answer my question if there is enough time.

[Dr. Howard Ramos]

I can't say that I have specific amendments to the bill as it is, though I would stress that thinking about the LICO and being as creative as possible and thinking about the wealth that the parents bring is an important consideration.

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

What do you think, Mr. Sweetman?

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

I'm not sure what amendment I would make. I might phase in the extension of the length of the super visa, the new stay in Canada. At the moment it's two years. Rather than going immediately to five, I might slowly phase it in over time—but not that slowly.

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

My time is up, but I want to thank you for joining us in committee. Your contribution will definitely help us in our work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We'll now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you can go for two and a half minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'd like to ask about an appeal process because right now there isn't one. I've had people who have had their applications for their parents or grandparents in the PR stream be rejected because they missed one month of their income requirement, after having waited three years and having been lucky enough to get the draw so they can actually get into the system.

My question is for both witnesses, maybe starting with Mr. Ramos first. Should the government embed into the system an appeal system, or should we, as a committee, make an amendment to this bill to allow for an appeal system?

[Dr. Howard Ramos]

It's difficult to answer that in the sense that an appeal system could potentially drag out the process even longer. It could be quite costly versus having an ability to just reapply for another visa. I think it's a matter of balancing out the two to see which is the quicker solution for the newcomer.

Certainly an ability to reapply would be quite important.