44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 3, 2022 10:00AM
- May/3/22 2:40:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in March we were lamenting the fact that immigrants in Quebec had to wait 28 months for the federal government to process their permanent residency applications. Now, just a few weeks later, that delay has jumped to 31 months. The feds are 31 months and 29,000 files behind, some of which have been languishing since 2009.
There is an immigration crisis. The minister cannot just say that everything is fine. He cannot just try to pass the buck. These figures are from his own department.
Can the minister at least name the problem and acknowledge that yes, there is an immigration crisis?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 2:41:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party says the Bloc wants to pick a fight. The parliamentary secretary just said that the immigration crisis is Quebec's fault. They are the ones picking a fight.
The federal government is currently in court over cases that have dragged on since 2009. That has nothing to do with François Legault's targets; his party did not even exist in 2009. It is not Philippe Couillard's fault either; he had not yet returned to politics. It is not Pauline Marois's fault; it has been going on longer than that.
The system is broken. It has been broken for a long time. When will the federal government take a good look at its own actions instead of blaming Quebec?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if she is listening, but I must commend the member for Saint-Jean for the thorough job she has done. She gave a remarkable speech during the previous reading of this bill, which has greatly inspired my speech today. She was again inspiring today when she asked her question to the House and especially when she moved the motion about a woman's right to have free reign over her own body. Unfortunately, this motion was defeated, because some dinosaurs, primarily on the Conservative benches, voted against it. I think it is a disgrace, in the history of this country, to have voted against that motion. I hope that those who did will look at how they voted today. It proved to me that I am not truly Canadian. Today, in Quebec's National Assembly, a similar motion passed unanimously. Once again, that proved to me that Quebec is my country.
I will come back to the bill. I also want to commend the member for Dufferin—Caledon for his patience, as he has been waiting a number of months for his bill to move forward. To start, I will quickly explain what a super visa is, for those who are listening today. Basically, it is a visa, a travel document, designed for parents and grandparents. It does not permit the holder to work during their stay. It allows multiple entries of a period of up to two years. There are certain requirements, but the two most important ones are that the applicant must have medical insurance from a Canadian company and must prove that the child or grandchild who will be hosting them here has the financial capacity to support them. This means that there is a minimum income threshold that must be proven by the child or grandchild in order for the parent or grandparent to be issued the visa.
It will shock no one to hear that I am in favour of this bill.
For many families that want to bring their parents and grandparents to Canada, the logistics, paperwork and delays are an onerous and immense administrative burden. What these families often want is to sponsor their parents or grandparents and bring them here permanently. The super visa being considered provides the opportunity to have one's parents here while the sponsorship and permanent residence application is being processed. It is also another option for those not picked in the lottery.
That system is very restrictive. Few people manage to get a sponsorship application for parents or grandparents. I would like to add one thing: Right now, every time we check, the government has a backlog for almost all immigration programs.
It would be a good idea to fast-track and simplify the process for those who in all likelihood would receive a favourable decision. I think that would be all right.
The bill would also make some minor but specific changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We know this will apply to a relatively small number of the temporary residence visas granted every year. We also know that, because they have temporary status, these immigrants will not end up costing the federal or provincial governments anything. Lastly, we know that the few thousand people granted the existing super visa are generally people of significant financial means. Applicants have proof of funds, and parents and grandparents have prepaid health insurance. In essence, they have to be financially secure. They pose no risk to anybody.
What exactly is a super visa? What will this bill change? Bill C‑242 makes four changes. First, visitors must purchase private health insurance outside Canada. Current eligibility criteria require applicants to purchase insurance from a Canadian company. Yesterday, I was talking about supply and demand in a previous speech, and it is the same idea. This could expand the pool of insurance companies, which will probably reduce insurance costs for super visa applicants.
As my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, mentioned, all it takes is a quick search to see that this kind of insurance coverage is extremely expensive. For a young person in their forties with no known health issues, it can cost between $1,000 and $1,500. For people slightly older or with any health problems, insurance coverage can cost up to $6,000 or even $7,000 a year. For parents or grandparents, it can cost about $10,000 annually. This does not include all the costs associated with the immigration process.
As I said, yes, these people do have resources, but that is no reason to stop them from shopping around for insurance. Just because they have resources does not mean that they should not be able to shop around.
The bill requires that foreign insurance companies be accredited by the minister, which ensures that the company is legitimate and that its coverage is compatible with our health care systems.
By opening up the market to competition, we take away Canadian companies' monopoly on this type of insurance coverage. I am not an economist, but I have friends who are, and they confirm that I am right to believe this is a basic way to reduce the cost of coverage.
It will also allow some foreign nationals to combine this insurance coverage with a policy they already have for their home or vehicle. People might be able to save money, which, I imagine, could be used to settle here, buy goods and contribute to the economy.
What is more, Bill C‑242 extends the period of time a person can stay in Canada without having to renew the document from two years to five years. This would help minimize several current irritants. The super visa is a multiple-entry visa, and it is valid for a maximum of 10 years.
The number of round trips that parents and grandparents have to make between Canada and their country of origin increases airfare costs. This measure alone would be significantly reduce those costs.
As well, renewing the permit every two years very often requires a medical exam for the insurance premium. It is obvious that, over a total span of 10 years, the grandparents’ health could change, which could result in higher premiums and, more importantly, add some unpredictability to their stay in the country.
Going back to what I was saying, it is clear to me that as long as these people do not pose a financial risk to taxpayers, we should try to make life easier for them and their children who are hosting and taking care of them.
I mentioned earlier that these children, who are permanent residents or outright citizens, must have a minimum of financial means. Bill C-242 does not propose to reduce or abolish the requirement to prove that someone has the financial means to look after their parents or grandparents.
Instead, the bill proposes that the minister review the need to maintain the income requirement or threshold. Thanks to my colleague from Saint-Jean, I have learned that many people are talking about repealing it altogether. If the minister decides in the next two years to maintain this low income cut-off at its current level, he will have to explain why he wishes to keep it in place.
This bill is therefore not very compelling for parliamentarians. It seeks a review of the relevance of a legislative measure, something that I think is ultimately reasonable and commonly done.
When it comes to spousal sponsorships, Quebec does not even assess the spouses' financial capacity, and it nevertheless works very well.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has already looked into something similar and made a recommendation regarding the sponsorship of parents and grandparents.
The study on this aspect could help determine whether this threshold is appropriate in different places across Canada. The cost of living is not the same everywhere, as we know. Could there be different sponsors depending on where the individuals will be living? I think this would be a positive thing.
It would also acknowledge the fact that many families see a positive financial impact when parents and grandparents come to stay with them, since it allows them to rejoin the job market.
I could go on at length, but as parliamentarians we have a duty to set partisanship aside and address our constituents' problems.
I want to reiterate that what happened today in the House of Commons with respect to the motion the member for Saint‑Jean tried to move is unacceptable and shameful for this Parliament. It just reinforced my belief that Canada is not my country. My country is Quebec.
1451 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
