44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑242 makes minor, very specific changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The bill seeks to make it easier for a child or grandchild with temporary resident status or citizenship to bring in sponsored parents and grandparents. It amends certain specific super visa eligibility criteria.
The super visa was introduced in 2011 under the Conservatives. It is a visa that allows multiple entries and is valid for a maximum of 10 years. It allows parents and grandparents to enter Quebec and Canada and visit their family under a temporary visa for two years without having to renew their status. A regular visa for multiple entries is also valid for a maximum of 10 years, but it allows a maximum stay of six months each time.
I do not have precise statistics on the number of super visas issued per year, but we know that there are fewer than 20,000 issued nationwide every year. This represents a fairly marginal proportion of 1% to 2% of the 1.7 million temporary resident visas issued annually from 2017 to 2019.
The super visa has allowed thousands of parents and grandparents from abroad to come to Canada for extended periods, which benefits the families not only socially, but also economically. For example, by being in Quebec, those parents and grandparents can help care for young children, allowing working-age immigrants and citizens to fully participate in the labour force and the economy.
Having them here saves parents from paying for child care. Studies show that immigrant parents are less likely than non-immigrant parents to pay for child care in order to go to work. Sometimes, these families simply cannot afford child care.
It is well known that immigrant women are particularly likely to be underemployed for their level of education. Faced with a choice between accepting low-paying work for which they are overqualified and staying home with the children, many immigrant mothers choose to stay home and save on child care costs.
It is worth noting that the difference in the use of child care services between immigrant and non-immigrant families is not statistically significant in Quebec, which has had a universal public child care system since 1997.
As one study found, it is women who usually assume the additional responsibilities of child care. Bill C-242 is therefore more likely to have a positive impact on the social and professional lives of immigrant women.
Since they have temporary status, these super visa immigrants cost the government little or nothing. One of the eligibility criteria for the super visa is that the person sponsoring their parents or grandparents must provide a letter that includes a promise of financial support.
A child or grandchild who invites their parent or grandparents to come to Canada must prove that their household meets the minimum necessary income. Applicants for the super visa must have medical insurance from a Canadian insurance company and must provide proof that the medical insurance has been paid.
The obligation to provide proof of medical insurance reduces the likelihood of any potential demands on the health care system or social services funded by Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. The insurance also protects the parents and grandparents, who will not be taking any risks and will not have to pay the total cost of medical care out of pocket.
As with any temporary immigration document, applicants must prove that they will voluntarily leave Canada at the end of their visit. Contrary to what we may infer from all the financial restrictions that the government has put on this super visa, having a parent or grandparent come here does not pose an additional financial burden. It is just the opposite. Having a family member provide child care allows parents to spend more time working, freeing them up to take additional shifts, for instance.
Studies also show that parents and grandparents who are invited under the super visa program or sponsored under the parents and grandparents program help their immigrant children remain in or join the labour market. Having a grandparent at home can also enable parents to accept jobs with irregular hours that fall outside child care hours.
Bill C-242 seeks to facilitate the arrival of these parents or grandparents by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in four concrete ways. First, it allows applicants for a temporary resident super visa to purchase private health insurance from an insurance company outside Canada. Based on the law of supply and demand, it is possible that, over the long term, Canadian insurance companies may lower their own insurance premiums and contributions for temporary immigrants.
Second, it extends the maximum stay in Canada to five years instead of two, without requiring the document to be renewed.
Third, the bill also requires the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to prepare and table a report assessing the implications of a reduction to the minimum income requirement, again to facilitate the arrival of parents or grandparents by reducing the financial restrictions associated with applying.
Fourth, the super visa currently allows eligible Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their parents and grandparents so that they in turn can obtain permanent residence. Basically, this program operates like a lottery.
By extending the validity of the temporary resident visa from two years to five, Bill C‑242 gives these families three extra years to improve their chances of obtaining permanent residence for their parents or grandparents.
Bill C‑242 is particularly relevant in light of the labour shortage happening in Quebec and everywhere else. That labour shortage is exacerbated by a shortage of child care spaces.
The Fédération des intervenantes en petite enfance du Québec, a Quebec organization representing child care providers, says that there is a need for 75,000 regulated, subsidized spaces.
This shortage has considerable economic impacts: Seventy per cent of SMEs say they are having human resource management issues directly related to a lack of child care spaces.
Bill C‑242 does not deal so much with the issue of the quantity of immigration as the quality and fairness of the immigration process. It is consistent with the concept of looking after new immigrants rather than feeding a machine designed to receive large numbers of immigrants with no regard for their integration into the host society.
As we know, the process of adapting and transitioning into a new society is often tumultuous and rife with challenges, particularly in terms of the language and culture of the host country, difficulty finding a job, a lack of social support and all the material sacrifices caused by arriving in a new country.
Bill C‑242 could therefore make things easier and allow new immigrants to have more time, for example, to properly integrate into the host society, learn the French language, look for work and improve their living conditions.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑242.
1175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 11:42:24 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon has the floor for his right of reply.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank the Bloc Québécois and NDP members for the support of my private member's bill. If they had not supported the bill at committee, it would not be here for third reading. I do not know where the government is going to be on this private member's bill when it comes to a vote.
The Liberals talk about how it is great that the super visa has been extended from two to five years. They talk about how it is great that foreign insurance companies can now provide the health insurance coverage for super visa applicants. They took those two chunks from my private member's bill and passed ministerial instructions to allow them to happen. That is fantastic, but it is just dipping their pinkies in the pool. I am suggesting they take the full plunge. Let us just jump in the pool altogether. Ministerial instructions can be fickle. The minister might say he no longer likes it and he can just snap their fingers, change the ministerial instructions and those two enhancements to the super visa could vanish overnight.
My bill would legislate it. It would enshrine it in legislation. It could not be changed at the whim of a minister. That is why the bill should continue and go forward. It is important to have these changes, and members from the government rose in debate and said how fantastic they were. I know they were not congratulating me for them. They are taking the credit for doing them in ministerial instructions. It did take my private member's bill to get them to actually do this, despite a committee, five or six years ago, suggesting these things be done. The Liberals were the government the whole time. However, the second a Conservative MP put something forward, they saw the light, so I guess I should give them some congratulations for that.
What the Liberals do not talk about is that the other part of my bill deals with the LICO, the low-income cut-off. So many new Canadians are disenfranchised from getting a super visa because they do not meet that low-income cut-off. New Canadians, people who have been here a short period of time, are generally working several jobs and their incomes are not very high. They cannot even apply for a super visa. It is easy for members of the chattering class to say “too bad”, but people who are working hard should not be discriminated against because their incomes do not meet that test. My bill would require the minister to prepare a report to lower the low-income cut-off. I do not know why the government seems to be against that. It should be supporting it.
This bill is going to pass here at third riding, thankfully with the support of my friends in the NDP and my friends in the Bloc Québécois. I am beseeching the members of the government to talk to their independent senators, who are really Liberal senators, and pass this in the Senate. It is an important piece of legislation. It would go further than ministerial instructions. It also would get the minister to prepare that report to lower the low-income cut-off.
Why it is so important and why I am pushing so hard on this, even now at third reading, is that having a parent or grandparent here in Canada is so important for families, and not just from an economic sense. What we heard at committee and what we know is that having a parent or grandparent here in the country improves the economics of that family. That is indisputable. That is why lowering the low-income cut-off is a good thing. It would allow more families to bring their parents or grandparents here, which would help them economically.
What we also have to talk about are the amazing things that it does for the family unit. Whether it is passing down traditions or the cohesiveness of having parents and grandparents in the home together, these are things that we should all support. If we truly want new Canadians to succeed in this country, not only economically but socially, we should all be saying let us dramatically reduce the low-income cut-off. So far, the government has not moved on that.
So far the Liberals have not said whether they are going to vote in favour of this bill at third reading. They should for that reason alone: to allow more new Canadians to qualify for the super visa. It would be good for them. It would be good for the country. I hope the Liberals will vote for it.
803 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 11:47:15 a.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried on division or to request a recorded division, I would invite them now to rise and so indicate to the Chair.
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 11:47:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would prefer it to carry on division, or perhaps, by unanimous consent.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 11:47:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be clear: We would like a recorded vote.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 11:48:03 a.m.
- Watch
Being that we are a little ahead of time, I would suggest that we suspend until the call of the Chair.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:03:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, if the motion for the concurrence in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented on Friday, April 29, 2022, is moved under the rubric Motions during Routine Proceedings today, it shall be disposed of as follows:
(a) only one member shall be allowed to speak; and
(b) upon the conclusion of the 10-minute question and comment period following the first intervention on the motion, the debate shall be deemed adjourned and shall be resumed today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment provided that;
(i) during the debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair,
(ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate tonight or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion shall be put without further debate or amendment,
(iii) the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:05:03 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:05:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise once again to finish my speech on Bill S-5. For the benefit of my colleagues in the chamber today, I will do a quick review of where we were last week.
Before looking at how the bill is written, I explained why we should always be ready to question the Liberal government's real agenda whenever it makes announcements or introduces legislation about the environment. We need to look no further than its history of hypocrisy, double standards, failures and empty promises. If its members say that they are doing something in the name of the environment, it is not necessarily the case to begin with, and later we do not see the expected results.
Sometimes it gets worse than that, when a policy that claims to be helping the environment will end up having a negative impact on the environment. With all the economic and social costs, and with our industries attacked or neglected despite their own best efforts to be environmentally responsible, Canadians are left to wonder what the point of it really was, but it does not need to be that way.
There needs to be a balanced approach to caring for the environment and promoting industry. Bill S-5 seems to be a little different from the more outrageous examples that Canadians are used to seeing from the Liberals, but some of the amendments have raised concerns that we will not maintain the right balance, which is the point I was making before the House adjourned.
I was talking about one of those amendments in the section dealing with assessments of whether a substance is toxic or not. The original version of the bill mentions “vulnerable population”, but it has been amended to include a new term, which is “vulnerable environment”. As a new term, it is vague and unclear, and this could be another source of regulatory uncertainty for the stakeholders who are involved in the assessment or enforcement process.
Such a concern does not come out of nowhere. It is a real possibility, and we have already seen it happen more broadly with the same government's impact assessment process. It has not only ruled out new pipelines for oil and gas, exactly as it was expected to do, but the Liberals have made their hostility to that sector abundantly clear, and they will find any excuse to express it to the point of absurdity.
The Chancellor of Germany travelled all the way here to ask for our support in supplying them with more LNG, but we let him down. Since then, we recently heard the Prime Minister say that Russia invading Ukraine will accelerate Canada in its transition away from petroleum products, even though there is a surge in global demand for Canadian LNG and oil to stop relying on Russian energy. Despite the needs of our allies, the Liberals will not miss a chance to publicly attack our energy sector. This will be a sad part of the legacy of the Impact Assessment Act.
That same process has created challenges in other areas of resource development, whether it is with forestry or even with expansion in new mining projects, and I will provide a quick example.
In the CUSMA deal, when it was renegotiated, there was a three-year window to source lithium tariff-free regionally, but because of the Impact Assessment Act, there is not a chance that there will be a mining project in Canada put on—
591 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:08:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has not yet touched on Bill S-5, which is certainly the subject of debate today, and I would ask you if there is a need to ask for relevance.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:08:51 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for her intervention. It is a reminder to always, of course, stick to the bill at hand.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:09:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I was talking about an amendment that was in there previously, so I have touched on the bill, but sometimes the truth does hurt.
I will finish with my example, quickly. When it comes to these lithium projects, we are missing the opportunity to source them tariff-free in that three-year window because of the impact assessment project. We were told in committee it would take approximately 10 years to be able to get a project going because of the Impact Assessment Act, so it is very important to have that issue raised when we are talking about this bill because we are talking about the environment.
As much as the Liberals want to talk about Canada leading a new industry of critical minerals for a green economy, the time frame, as I just referred to in that example, is an obstacle to starting these new projects. The government has spent a lot of time talking about how we have an abundance of raw materials for this emerging sector. Canada has what it takes to successfully compete in the global market for electric vehicle batteries and other products, and there is a lot of potential there if it works out.
It has always been true that our country is blessed with having so many natural resources. It is the economic foundation of our prosperity. The Liberals point to critical minerals as the answer to reducing emissions, creating new jobs and strengthening our position through an energy transition, but how can it happen if it takes too long to review and approve, for example, mining projects? All the minerals will stay in the ground.
The Liberals see an opportunity in front of them, but their own policy will make us watch on the sidelines as it passes us by, and they will sabotage their own environmental plan. The delay makes it all but impossible to get ahead of the curve and be competitive. I will take this opportunity to remind the government, once again, that stakeholders told us this when we were studying the subject at committee. This is what happens when the government does not listen or respond to practical feedback from industry. It is counterproductive.
I have already raised this issue with the minister, but the government has not acknowledged it and has not shown a willingness to reconsider what it is doing. Unless we take a different approach to development, one that is compatible with protecting the environment, this is a problem that will continue to hold us back. It will remain a lose-lose scenario.
There is another example of this that is closer to the subject of the amendment. Under the new fuel regulations, the government wants to rely on expanding the production of biofuels Again, it offers it as a solution for both the environment and our future economy. This would increase demand for crops like canola, and we are advised farmers should produce the higher yields required without using more land to do it, which remains to be seen.
However, this creates an incentive in a market dynamic for farmers and ranchers to switch to producing biofuel crops. That is their decision to make, and rightfully so, and many will probably want to do so because of the prices and other factors. It is not explicitly part of the regulation or the policy behind it to favour biofuels, but the reality is that we will have people breaking up natural grasslands to start growing these crops that offer higher returns. This is something I have already seen across southwestern Saskatchewan in my riding, and also elsewhere.
These are sensitive ecosystems, which could be the sort described as a vulnerable environment, as we see in Bill S-5, but this is a vulnerable environment at risk from environmental policy instead of toxic substances. If there is a strong incentive to break them up, they will no longer be conserved, as is currently being done, by farmers. After that happens, we will never get them back. As a result, we would also lose carbon sequestration and the other benefits grasslands and similar areas provide.
If we are trying to protect the environment, we cannot consider it in isolation, as though it is something opposed to industry. This is a real example where economic activity has brought added benefits to sensitive ecosystems. For a long time, the agricultural sector has preserved and revived the grasslands. It is in its best interest to do so. This fact has been recognized and included in conservation efforts, but now we are starting to disrupt the balanced relationship that exists, and that would have a negative impact on the environment.
This all goes to show the danger of something that sounds good as an environmental policy but does not care as much about consistency or consequences in the real world. It can interfere with climate goals and cancel itself out. With Bill S-5, it would be unfortunate if something like that happened again in an unforeseen way. It is why we need to carefully consider the details and feedback we are getting from stakeholders when we hear them at committee or when we are back home in our ridings.
Finally, the bill itself provides a right for anyone to request an assessment for whether a substance is capable of becoming toxic. This opens a wide door for the department to take in a large number of assessments outside of its regular work. We have seen how Liberals manage federal services and how easily those have been overwhelmed, whether it was with processing passports over the summer or the backlog of air travel complaints.
There is room for improvement in this bill, and we hope any remaining concerns will be resolved.
963 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:14:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, the member said that when it comes to extracting critical resources like the products required for lithium batteries, Canada would somehow be standing on the sidelines. I think those were his words.
I would encourage him to talk to his Conservative colleague, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, who had a pretty big smile on her face last summer when the Prime Minister showed up in our area to announce that Umicore would be establishing a multi-billion dollar facility in her riding, the largest lithium battery facility in North America, for that matter. It does not appear as though corporate industry is waiting on the sidelines. It is jumping in feet first into the Ontario sector because it knows there is an opportunity here.
More importantly, the member now talks about lithium and the transition toward lithium and electrifying the vehicles that we have. Does that mean the Conservatives have now come to realize what the future holds, that the future is in electrification and we will be moving away from fossil fuel-burning vehicles towards lithium and electrification—
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:15:19 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:15:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, we always favour an approach whereby industry is given an opportunity to lead and we let people, the consumer, have a choice. Mandating things in or out is not a fair market approach. If electric vehicles are the best solution, providing the best value and product for a person to use, consumers will buy them. However, that is not the approach we are seeing from the government.
What I was referring to in the example I gave in my speech was the fact that the government negotiated a three-year window to source lithium regionally, tariff-free. It is going to take 10 years to do so. We heard that at committee. We have also seen other lithium projects in this country cancelled or scrapped after millions of dollars of investment in trying to get them going, because of regulatory uncertainty put in place by the government. Those are the issues we are seeing and continue to see not being addressed.
Conservatives definitely support those projects where we have development and resources, but the government is getting in the way and preventing anything from happening sooner rather than later.
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:16:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, all parliamentarians in Quebec voted in favour of a motion stating that Quebec should have predominant jurisdiction over the environment. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the division of powers in environmental matters.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, there is a very important role for the provinces to play. Certainly, we can see that the environment in Quebec is much different from the environment in Saskatchewan. A policy that may work in Quebec probably will not work in Saskatchewan, and one that works in Saskatchewan might not work in Quebec.
I think when the government tries to take a one-size-fits-all approach, it does not work. We need to have policy that works with the provinces and not against them. I would like to see the government taking a better approach that enables the provinces to be the masters of their own domain.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:17:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I lived right on the border with Saskatchewan for a long time. Cypress Hills is a beautiful interprovincial park there. It is fantastic. One of the conditions, however, that park is facing, as I heard from park officers, is that climate change is destroying the provincial park. The member would probably know about much of the drought that southern Saskatchewan is facing right now.
What is the member's climate plan to save Cypress Hills park?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
