44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for tabling this private member's bill, as it brings to the forefront the importance of parents and grandparents in this country.
With that being said, one of the issues I raised at committee was around the appeal process, or lack thereof. In fact, there is no appeal process for super visas that are rejected. The only option is for people to go to judicial review.
I wonder if the member could speak to the issue of ensuring that there is a process to evaluate an appeal that would save money, not through a judicial review process, so applicants have the opportunity to table concerns about the rejection and have it reconsidered.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see you again after such a lovely summer. I hope you were able to meet with your constituents and all the people participating in this debate in the House this evening.
I do not know if the member for Saint-Jean is listening this evening, but I must commend her 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.
I also want to acknowledge the patience of the member for Dufferin—Caledon, who has been waiting many months for his bill to move forward.
First, I will quickly explain what a super visa is. I believe that everyone who rises to speak to this debate will do so. It is a visa, a travel document, for parents and grandparents. Someone who gets this visa is not allowed to work here, but they are allowed enter multiple times and stay for a maximum of two years at a time. There are certain requirements, and I will talk about the two most important ones. First, the person needs to have medical insurance coverage from a Canadian company. Second, the child or grandchild bringing in the parent or grandparent must provide proof of their ability to support them financially. There is a minimum income threshold that has to be proven by the child or grandchild in order for the parent or grandparent to receive the visa.
Spoiler alert: Let me just say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.
For many families wishing to bring in parents and grandparents, the logistics, the paperwork and the wait times are an immeasurable administrative burden. Often, these families want to sponsor their parents or grandparents to come here permanently.
The super visa being considered provides the opportunity to have one's parents here in Canada 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. As all members of Parliament know, in our constituency offices across Canada and Quebec, about 80% to 85% of our most complicated cases are immigration cases. It needs to be said. This should not be allowed to continue across multiple programs. It would be a good idea to fast-track and streamline the process for those who in all likelihood would receive a favourable decision anyway. It seems to me that it might not be a bad thing.
The bill also makes some overall 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 who are granted the existing super visa are generally people of significant financial means. The applicants have proof of funds, and the 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 practical changes. First, visitors may purchase private health insurance from an insurance company located outside Canada. The current eligibility criteria require applicants to purchase insurance from a Canadian company.
Yesterday, I was talking about supply and demand, 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, the premium can cost between $1,000 and $1,500. For people slightly older or with known health problems, insurance coverage can cost up to $6,000 or $7,000 a year. For two parents or grandparents, the cost must come to about $10,000 annually on top of all of the costs associated with the immigration process. Wes, these people do have resources, as I said, but that is no reason to stop them from shopping around for insurance.
The bill requires that the foreign insurance company be approved by the minister, ensuring 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 over this type of insurance coverage. I am not an economist, but this seems to me like a rather 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.
I imagine that this could help them save money that they can use to get settled here, purchase goods and services, and contribute to our economy.
The second thing is that Bill C‑242 extends the period of time a person can stay in Canada without having to renew the document from two to five years. This measure would help eliminate some existing irritants.
The super visa is a multiple-entry visa that 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 significantly reduce those costs. As well, renewing the permit every two years currently 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 and grandchildren who are hosting them and taking responsibility for them.
As I said earlier, children who are either permanent residents or citizens must meet a minimum financial threshold. Bill C‑242 does not relax or eliminate the requirement for proof of financial means to support their parents or grandparents. Instead, it would have the minister study whether the minimum income requirement should be maintained. As I learned from my colleague from Saint-Jean, many people are suggesting it should be eliminated altogether.
If, within the next two years, the minister wants to maintain the minimum income requirement as is, they will have to explain why. Ministerial instructions changed everything though, so parliamentarians have not taken much of an interest in this bill.
The bill calls for a review of whether a particular measure is appropriate, which is reasonable. The committee covered this, and it went very well. The committee members were in agreement. Simply put, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. It is all good. We have nothing bad to say about it.
There were ministerial instructions, but I think that this will make the measure permanent and ensure that it goes further in time. The member for Dufferin—Caledon did outstanding work on this. He has the support of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. I think that this bill will move forward one way or another, even if one party on the other side of the House opposes it.
1313 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise and speak to Bill C-242.
The heart of the issue of Bill C-242 is reuniting families. It is about ensuring that parents and grandparents can come to Canada to be with their loved ones. We know the value of that and cherish it as individuals. Like other people with children, I value the moments that my daughter and son spend with their grandmother and grandfather. Of course, my parents are immigrants here, so they get to enjoy that, but so many newcomers, so many immigrants who come to this country, are not in that fortunate situation. They did not bring their parents and grandparents here to Canada, and they cannot enjoy those moments. What Bill C-242 is trying to do is facilitate a process for those families to be reunited through the super visa process.
The super visa process is already in place, and the bill before us seeks to enhance it by addressing the high cost of the issue with respect to insurance coverage particularly, and then extending the period to which parents and grandparents can come to Canada under a super visa.
Interestingly, and because of petty politics, in my view, after the bill was tabled, we saw the government, through committee, literally in the ninth hour, bring forward ministerial instructions to try to kill the bill, which is exactly what happened. Despite government members saying that they have advocated for this for a very long time, the reality is that they did not act on it. I remember, because back in 2015 as a new member of Parliament, this was one of the issues that we studied. We studied parents and grandparents reunification, and there was a whole host of recommendations that were tabled, but then it just sat on a shelf and nothing happened. I express my congratulations to the member for actually pushing the government in this regard and getting this done.
With that being said, I do think there are flaws within the bill. Of course, my first choice would be for the government to lift the cap on parents and grandparents reunification so that all those family members could seek permanent residence status here in Canada in an expeditious way. Now, that did not happen.
However, the issue I have with Bill C-242 is that I was hoping, through the bill, to have an amendment so there would be an appeal process for rejections of super visas, which the member did support, but it did not get government support. It did not go through, which is very unfortunate, because as members can imagine, a person whose application has been turned down would actually have to go through judicial review, which is a very onerous and expensive process that should not, in my view, be required. There should be a simple appeal process for the review officers, the government and the minister to take into consideration the extenuating circumstances of why an application is being rejected and then make compassionate decisions.
I cited an example of one family whose application was rejected because they missed the income requirement in the final stages. Their child came early and they had to go on maternity leave. As a result, their income dipped every so slightly for a short period of time. After the child the was born, their income went back up, but then it was already too late, because they had already failed the program and they were rejected in the application. To me, that is a shame.
The government would say that they can reapply, which is true, but why make a family reapply? It is costly for the family. It delays the process, and equally important, it actually jams up IRCC and its staff, because they have to reprocess the same application yet again. Why go through that process when we could save the administrative cost on the government side?
That amendment, unfortunately, did not go through, but Bill C-242 would require the minister to report on it and review the issue around the review process, as well as report back on the income cut-off. I do think that reunification should not be based on one's ability to pay. Family reunification should be valued for what it is. Therefore, we should actually have a fulsome review of the costs that the government is imposing with respect to that and really examine whether or not we should be imposing it.
One thing that people often misconceive is the reality that when parents and grandparents come to Canada through family reunification, they contribute to our economy. They support the family, as both parents can get out into the workforce, as an example, and they can help with child care. They help with the growth of the children by teaching them their cultural and family history, language and so on. All of that contributes to building a multicultural Canada, one we are very proud of.
When we put up these barriers that block family reunification and only talk about their income, for example, saying that if their incomes dip ever so slightly, they are somehow disqualified, we are sending the clear message that family reunification needs to be bought. Just imagine that for one minute. If any one of us sitting in this chamber was told that we have to buy the ability to see our parents or grandparents, what would we say to that? I do not think that is who we are as a country and as a nation. I do not think that is who we are as people. Humanitarian actions acting on the basis of humanity mean that we cherish and value what we have and that we want to expand that to other people as well.
When it comes to family, I wish all families would be able to reunite. I wish that people would have the opportunity to be with their loved ones, create memories and then preserve those memories. The only way they can do that is for people to be able to reunite with each other.
I hope the government and the minister will take this to heart and examine the parents and grandparents sponsorship program and lift the cap to honour reunification in that way. In the interim, they should enhance the super visa program with an appeal process to ensure that there is an appeal process in place, and should lower the cost requirements. When we do that, we are respecting the families, and I think that is ultimately what we all want to see.
I will close by congratulating the member for bringing this bill forward. It is better to have legislation than ministerial instructions. It is petty for the government to play petty politics and bring in ministerial instructions at the last moment to usurp this bill. In the life of politics, at the end of the day what we all want to do, no matter which side we are on or which bench we are on, is make sure that policies are brought in to support and benefit the community.
There is no doubt in the minds of the New Democrats that ensuring family reunification for parents and grandparents is a laudable goal. It is a goal we support. We want to see this measure come to fruition, at least in the interim as a super visa. Let us reduce the cost of it for families and say that reuniting with loved ones should not be something we need to buy, but something we all honour and respect.
The New Democrats are happy to support this bill, and I look forward to seeing its full passage through the Senate.
1290 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rising for the first time after our summer break, so I would like to thank my constituents for a wonderful summer of meetings, Canada Day celebrations and really just reconnecting with constituents. It felt really good to be back out and about.
I also want to thank my constituency team, which worked really hard throughout the summer. We are talking about TRVs and immigration, and my case work team has been incredible. They have been there for families hoping to reunite.
We are also talking about the super visa program, which is extremely popular in my riding. We have a lot of first-generation immigrants who have family back home, whether that is in India or another region. When we talk about super visa programs, we talk about the changes the minister made back in June 2022 and how extremely important they were.
We heard from constituents who came back to us and said it is hard for their grandparents to travel back home every couple of years so they can come back again to the country. When we took this back to the minister, it was nice that he heard us out and made a change to the system so they would not have to go back and were able to stay for several years in this country.
It also helps families. We now have the child care program. Before we had this child care program, a lot of the families in my riding really relied on their grandparents and parents, who stayed home to take care of their children so they could participate in our economy, give back and learn from their careers.
When we talk about TRVs and family reunification, it is very important for our government. It is very promising that processing times are starting to come down as well, whether we are talking about spousal sponsorships, super visas or even TRVs for families to be together during very difficult times.
It is an honour for me to rise today to talk about the importance of the TRV process, the super visa process and the changes the minister made to insurance. Families can go to many different providers now, not just a few, to provide medical insurance so they can participate in the super visa program and have their grandparents and parents come to this country.
Going along with what my colleague said, we are very positive about the change by the minister back in June. It was well received by the community. Families know that they will be able to see their grandparents and parents here in this country for much longer than a few years and then come back.
449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
