THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 1, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, my name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. I will ask my colleagues to do a quick round of introductions. Before we do that, I want to say a warm welcome back to Senator Bernard.
Senator D. Patterson: Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Petitclerc, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Senator Oh, Ontario.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today, our committee begins its study of Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).
Joining us today is the sponsor of the bill from the House of Commons, MP Kyle Seeback, Member of Parliament for Dufferin-Caledon, and the proponent of this bill. Welcome and thank you for joining us. I apologize for the rolling delays we have had to experience here.
I now invite you, Mr. Seeback, to provide your opening remarks. I remind you that you will have five minutes for an opening statement followed by questions from our members. The floor is yours.
Kyle Seeback, Member of Parliament for Dufferin—Caledon, sponsor of the bill, (as an individual): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have been a member of Parliament for almost eight years now, and this is the first time I have had a private member’s bill emerge from the House and come to the Senate. So I’m here considering it to be a very great honour that I can talk about my private member’s bill.
I was the Member of Parliament for Brampton West, and it was the largest riding population-wise in the country at the time — over 260,000 constituents. It was highly multicultural. The super visa, when it came in, was an incredibly popular program. It was allowing people to have their parents or grandparents come to this country for an extended period of time to spend time with their family, and it worked exceptionally well. Since that time, I heard that there were some I wouldn’t say complaints but desires for enhancement of the bill.
My bill does three things: First, it will extend the amount of time a parent or grandparent can visit their family in Canada from two years to five years. Second, it will allow a parent or grandparent to purchase insurance from a foreign country as approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Third, it is going to require the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to prepare and present a report to Parliament on reducing the low-income cut-off. I would like to talk about all three of those aspects of the bill briefly.
Extending the time just makes sense. I have been told that, “Well the two-year visa could be extended when they were here and therefore it can be extended many times, so why do you need to make it five years?” Well, I thought it’s just for the sake of efficiency. If you can extend it a number of times, why make someone have to reapply to the government and add to the work of government? By making it five years, it saves those steps. Also, it’s going to be a very useful extension. For example, someone could come and visit this country for five months a year for 10 years over the course of a 10-year visa, which I think is perfect for many families. Therefore, I think the extension is going to be very well-received; I know it’s well-received. I am also aware that the minister has done this with ministerial instructions, and you may have questions about that. Of course, I’m happy to answer those.
The second issue is with respect to health insurance. The cost of health insurance is quite high. It can range from $1,700 to $4,600 for someone over the age of 70 who is in good health. I would remind everyone that when you apply for a super visa you do actually have to get a medical certificate that says you are not medically inadmissible to Canada. Therefore someone coming here is already in good health. By opening this up to competition through insurance companies from foreign countries, I believe it will lower the cost. Cost is one of the big factors that make it hard for families to access the super visa. There is already going to be the cost of someone flying here. Then you have the cost of annual insurance. These things are impediments to families spending time together.
The third thing is to require the minister to prepare a report to reduce the low-income cut-off. This, to me, is really a big deal. When someone comes to this country, those are the tough years — your first years here. Those are the tough economic years. It’s actually the time when you would benefit the most from having your parents or grandparents here with you in the country. Yet, you are not going to be able to do that because you haven’t met the low-income cut-off as the sponsor here in the country.
My problem with this is a number of things, but, first of all, I’d say this: It comes from the wrong view by the government that having a parent or grandparent come to this country to stay with you is an economic burden and therefore you have to have a certain amount of income to support them.
I think the exact opposite is true, and this was looked at by the House immigration committee in 2018. Parents and grandparents allow a family to have greater economic opportunity. That can come from perhaps picking up an extra shift at work because you have a parent or grandparent here. It could be as a result of lower daycare costs because you have a parent or grandparent who’s here to help take care of children.
I think the entire concept that bringing a parent or grandparent here is an economic burden is false. I think the government should study it, take the time to do it properly and come up with a new formula for the low-income cut-off that would substantially reduce that amount of income.
The other problem with the low-income cut-off is the unintended consequences that happen. Ms. Kwan told me at committee about a constituent in her riding who left work early because her child came early — in her third year — and therefore did not meet the low-income cut-off because she had to take maternity leave early. I think that is really unfortunate. To me, the best way to address that is to significantly reduce the low-income cut-off.
I think all three of these things are going to make a big difference in the lives of Canadians and new Canadians especially. I hope that you will approve this bill. I know there could be ways to make this bill better. I absolutely know that. My concern is, if we go down that road, it will go back to the House — and we are in a minority Parliament where an election could be held at any time — and the bill won’t make it back and won’t get passed.
I’m going to implore all of you to consider that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I think this bill is good, and I really hope that you will pass it in due course. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Seeback. We will now proceed to questions from the floor. I notice we have a lot of senators here. It’s a good reflection on how engaged we are with your bill.
For today’s meeting, senators will have five minutes each for your question. That includes the question as well as the answer. Colleagues, if you keep your questions tight, we’ll get a more fulsome answer.
Before asking questions, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
The first question will come from the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Bovey, followed by Senator Osler. Welcome, Senator Osler, to our committee.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Mr. Seeback. I very much appreciate that you’ve come to the Senate and that this is your first visit with us. It’s always good to have MPs speak to us and hear your perspectives from your communities that you represent.
I am very supportive of this bill. I want to thank you for the work you’ve done on it. I certainly appreciate that often the perfect can be the enemy of the good, so let’s make sure the good carries forward.
I agree with your two to five years, so I’m not going to question that. I want to question your comments about the low‑income threshold. I hear what you’re saying about having grandparents who can help out with a young family and the fact that they can indeed help the family situation.
Do you want to expand on the low threshold as it is now and how much you think it should be lowered? I guess part of that is wrapped up in how much of that should be enshrined in the bill and how much of that should be articulated in a more general way in the bill to allow for the threshold to change through regulation as economic situations change?
Mr. Seeback: I was asked this question by Ms. Kwan at the House of Commons committee. She asked me, “How much do you think the reduction should be?” She said, “25%?” I said yes. She said, “50%?” I said yes. She said, “Should we eliminate the low-income cut-off altogether?” I said yes. That’s my opinion. I think it’s discriminatory. I think it discriminates against people who are not of significant means, and I honestly do not understand the utility of it.
That being said, I’m just a member of Parliament who has an opinion on the matter. I have not done extensive research into this. That is why I’m actually proposing that the government do the hard work, do the heavy lifting. They should go and do whatever consultations they need to do, have whatever experts they need to come and look at this and determine if the low-income threshold is sufficient, as is. Why is it sufficient?
I think when they look at it, they will come back with the view that it needs to be lowered, and they will come back with a recommended lower amount. Is that perfect? No, but I think it will be good. With every $1,000 or $500 that it gets lowered by, that means there’s another family who will be able to qualify. That’s why I think it’s the best route to go.
Senator Bovey: In your research, were you able to look at the rules, regulations and situations in other countries, like Great Britain, for instance? I’m just back from there, and I was part of these kinds of conversations over there. I wonder if you had a chance to look at any of their situations.
Mr. Seeback: I think there are very few countries that actually offer a generous parent and grandparent reunification program in the world, first of all. I’m not aware of other countries in the world offering a super visa. We have to remember that people are coming here for a visit, whether it’s a short one or a long one. This is not permanent residency.
We should lead on this. We’ve led the world in family reunification for parents and grandparents. That’s something we should all be proud of. Further enhancing the super visa to make it more accessible for more people is something we could also be proud of.
Senator Osler: Thank you very much for your remarks. I’m a surgeon by training, so your comment about perfect being the enemy of good is one that really resonates with me. We talk about it all the time. But you did mention that there are ways to make the bill better, and you did mention lowering the low‑income threshold.
Are you able to list for us a few more suggestions? Are there possible amendments that could make this bill better?
Mr. Seeback: Perhaps the committee could do a long study on the low-income cut-off. That was actually proposed in a committee report in the House of Commons; they proposed that the government do that. It was a recommendation that was never done, so we don’t have the data with us to look at that. What we’re left with, really, is our own research that we do — our own opinion.
My personal opinion is that the low-income cut-off, in itself, is discriminatory. I think it should be removed. But there could be a compelling argument that the government could make if they did the research.
That’s why I think that going the route of requiring the government to examine this and produce a report on lowering the low-income cut-off — or, in the alternative, the minister has to explain why they’re not going to lower it — either way would be a win. One way, it’s going to be reduced. The other way, we might understand why it’s not reduced. I’ve not been able to get a good answer as to why someone who wants a parent or grandparent to come for an extended visit has to have a certain amount of income in order to do that.
The Chair: We have a long list of senators. I also notice we have quite a few non-members of the committee. I hope to get to all of you, but priority will obviously be given to members of the committee.
Senator McPhedran: Mr. Seeback, thank you for being here. I think this is a very important bill. Thank you for the initiative. I’m wondering if you could say anything more about whether you looked at the number of times that the threshold that’s required for “wellness” actually gets used as a bit of a cover for discrimination on the basis of disability.
Mr. Seeback: I haven’t looked at that.
Senator McPhedran: [Technical difficulties] as part of looking at how to make this more accessible.
Mr. Seeback: No, I have not looked at that. I do know that if you are applying for permanent residency in this country, whether it’s through a parent or grandparent family reunification, certain disabilities or pre-existing conditions make you medically inadmissible to the country. I don’t know how that factors into applying for a super visa. I did not look into that.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, Mr. Seeback, for coming today and for your presentation. My interest is around the insurance piece. With this bill, the insurance companies from outside Canada will have to be approved by the minister to be eligible under the requirement. I have two questions. Should the minister consult with the industry in Canada on these approvals? What role does Canadian health insurance play in this process?
The second question is: What parameters do you believe the minister should be considering while approving a list of international insurance providers? Will we also have criteria for delisting? There are so many scams these days that people are subject to. How can we ensure that families do not get taken advantage of when purchasing unapproved coverage?
Mr. Seeback: That’s a great question. In the original draft of the bill, I said you could purchase insurance from abroad, without any caveat. I heard significant feedback on that. It could end up with people coming into the country not having coverage, with the provinces therefore having to pick up the bill.
I decided to go with “as approved by the minister” because the minister has had to, in consultation with insurance companies, set up the insurance that exists now. They had to set up a product now that you can buy. It’s a product that is allowed by the government. They already have the template on what you need to have in order to come here.
I think the minister should make sure that any foreign insurance company meets the exact same standards that we have for insurance companies in Canada. Right now, we can approve doctors to give a medical certificate. That’s how it happens. If you want to come to the country, you must have medical clearance. If the government can do that, if they can determine which individual doctors should be and should not be allowed to give these medical clearances, they can do the same thing for insurance companies.
I joke a little bit about this. As a Conservative MP, when I say I have faith that the government can do it, that could be held against me, but I do. I actually have faith that the government can do this because they’ve done it already.
Senator Martin: Thank you, Mr. Seeback, for the effort, the work, that you have already put into this bill. I know that your experience will have served you very well. Based on your answers so far, some of my questions have been answered, so I just have one. We have many other senators around the table.
My question is regarding the health insurance policy aspect of the bill. Your bill states that health insurance may be purchased from an insurance company outside of Canada that is approved by the minister.
Could you explain what are the benefits of the health insurance company being approved by the minister?
Mr. Seeback: By having it approved by the minister, there’s virtually no chance that we’re going to be left in a situation where someone buys a health insurance product from a foreign country, has to access health care in Canada but then finds it’s not covered. The hospital may seek compensation from the individual, the individual won’t have the resources and then the hospital is left without being paid.
By having the minister set the parameters for the approval, I think that will mean there’s very little chance that’s going to happen. The important thing for me with the approval of foreign insurance companies is that even if it’s one company that meets the standard, that’s one more company that’s going to add competition, which I think is going to lower the cost.
For example, it could be Sun Life India. They get approved, and they offer the product. I think the fact that someone could buy that product in rupees because that product will be geared towards the market in India means they will pay less than they would pay here in Canada.
Again, to me, it all comes back to access. The more ways we can make this more affordable, the more families will be able to access it. It helps those families, and I think that helps the country as a whole.
Senator Martin: I support this bill and the work you’ve put in. Thank you very much for that.
The Chair: Mr. Seeback, I wonder if you would take a quick question from me. There are always intended outcomes of legislation, and then there are the unintended outcomes. I think of the unintended outcome of this legislation. The route you have chosen to go is ministerial instructions. It is up to the minister to approve or not approve the insurance companies that can play in this new market. So is it not possible that, in fact, even though you’ve created this route, very few fish will be able to swim through this new route because the minister simply won’t approve them? Have you built in any accountability?
Mr. Seeback: There’s no accountability built in. The accountability is that the minister will have to answer to the Canadian public who will ask, for example, why isn’t Sun Life India approved? There are large multinational insurance companies that will have branches or divisions that operate in foreign countries. Why won’t the minister approve any of them? There is that risk.
I think the challenge is that if we try to set the parameters ourselves, we might get it wrong. If we get it wrong that means that a hospital might not get paid or a parent or grandparent gets stuck with a $50,000 or $60,000 bill. Both of those outcomes are worse than if the minister doesn’t approve anything.
I don’t think they will do it. I think there will be incredible pressure on them to do it. Again, I go back to the fact that this bill is not perfect. However, I do think it’s a great step in the right direction.
The Chair: Mr. Seeback, since ultimately this is about hospitals and health care, and hospitals and health care fall within the provincial domain, have you had any discussions on this bill with provincial counterparts?
Mr. Seeback: I have not had discussions with provincial counterparts, and I’ll explain why. Currently, the federal government sets a program with an insurance regime that allows for a foreign national to purchase the insurance that’s required to come here on a super visa. They have already set up the regime in consultation with provinces. If they’re going to now set up a regime that allows for the purchase of an insurance product from a foreign country, I believe they will ensure that it meets the same standards. Therefore the risk of provinces being left with health care dollars that they don’t get back will be very small.
This route has already been designed by the government for domestic insurance companies, and therefore they will make sure an international or foreign insurance company follows the same.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Mr. Seeback, for bringing forward this really important piece of legislation.
We’re hearing from some stakeholders that some amendments might be needed to better align the bill with existing legislation and regulations. Other than the issue you raised about the possible outcome of a soon-to-be-future election — I don’t know where that comes from — do you have any other concerns related to possible amendments that might improve the bill?
Mr. Seeback: I don’t. I would say this: I think that with all the legislation the government wants to pass, the fact that the average minority party — I don’t have another concern other than it will not pass. Ms. Kwan presented an amendment at the House of Commons committee that would allow for an appeal process for someone who just misses the low-income cut-off as a result of something like going on maternity leave early. I supported that amendment. Unfortunately, there was some confusion at committee that day, and it actually didn’t pass.
I think it was a great amendment. You might want to consider that here. But I’m just going to ask you to weigh that against the fact that I think it means this bill likely will not pass. Minority parliaments last 18 months. We’re almost there. That’s the average lifespan. People have pointed out that there is already ministerial instruction and questioned why we even need this bill. The answer is that ministerial instruction can change by the signature of a pen. I think this is too important. If we get this bill passed, the two things are enshrined in law and the report has to be done. I think it’s an important report that the government has never done despite committees asking them to do it.
So, yes, my only concern with improving the bill — and I would admit it can be improved — is that it will die on the Order Paper.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for raising the issue of the ministerial instruction of July 4. It may address some aspects of the bill, but I don’t know if it addresses all aspects of the bill. Are there parts of this bill that haven’t been addressed by the ministerial instructions?
Mr. Seeback: They haven’t addressed the low-income cut‑off. It’s interesting. When I was young, I was told that imitation is the finest form of flattery. My bill was out there, and it was just about to be voted out of committee, and then they issued the ministerial instructions on both of these things — on extending the time from two to five years and on the insurance issue.
If the government is issuing ministerial instructions on the insurance issue, I think they know they can do it in a way that protects Canadian taxpayers and hospitals. But they didn’t touch the low-income cut-off, and that is the least talked about part of my bill.
I actually think that report is critically important because no one has ever done the work. Almost five years ago, the committee at the House of Commons recommended that work be done, and it hasn’t been done. That, too, is why I think it’s so important to pass this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I would like to thank you, Mr. Seeback, for the work that you have done on this bill, which is extremely important. My question has already been asked, but I will take the opportunity to not only thank you, but also ask that you give an idea to the people who are watching of what exactly is entailed.
Who is being targeted here? Who will feel the consequences if this bill is approved, and in which way? I would like to have an overview of the real impact of the bill: who will be affected? What are the projected numbers? Have we tried to measure the potential impact of the bill?
[English]
Mr. Seeback: Thank you very much for the question. Right now in this country, we’ve never been able to solve the problem of how to deal with parent and grandparent family reunification. We tried waiting lists. We let a certain number of people in, and then the waiting list grew and grew. We’ve tried lottery systems. We’ve tried all kinds of things. The fact of the matter is that there are far more people who want to reunite with their parents and grandparents in this country than we allow under our immigration levels. What we have is hundreds of thousands of parents and grandparents who are on long waiting lists or actually end up not getting in because the website closed three minutes after it opened for the applications.
By expanding the number of super visas that we’re going to give and by allowing a longer time frame for people to come, we are going to be — it’s not the perfect solution because it’s not permanent residency. But so many more families are going to be able to be together for a longer period of time, it’s almost creating a bit of a separate stream. While you’re hoping to get your application approved to come here for permanent residency and ultimately citizenship, you would have an enhanced opportunity to access a super visa. It’s not the same, but it’s such a dramatic improvement as opposed to applying for a visitor visa where rejection rates are very high. This, to me, is going to benefit an enormous number of families.
I’ve heard about this so much in my time in politics, how important it is to have a parent or grandparent here to support you. In my family, we have a joke that parents or family should come and stay about as long as it takes for some fish to go bad in your fridge. But in so many other communities, that’s not the case. They have multi-generational families, and those multi‑generational families are important not just for the economic gain, but for the actual passing on of traditions and being together. To me, this gives that extra boost for families looking for that, which is why I think it’s also so important.
The Chair: There is a cap on the number of parents and grandparents who come through the super visa. I wonder if you could comment on the cap and whether this program change will put some pressure on the government in future immigration numbers or plans to lift the cap and extend it.
Mr. Seeback: I will be very honest. I was not aware that there was a cap. We haven’t reached the cap ever, to my knowledge. I don’t understand why there would be a cap. This is for parents and grandparents to come and stay for a certain amount of time over a certain number of years. I think if we end up with more people qualifying — which is my absolute hope as a result of this legislation — and we bump up against that cap, then I think the government should, absolutely, increase it. I think there would be a lot of pressure on the government to do that.
The Chair: Thank you, MP Seeback. We will ask officials about the cap, if there is one, and whether there’s a waiting list.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Mr. Seeback, for your work on this file. It’s very interesting.
I want to follow up on questions of who are the grandparents? Which countries are they coming from? Where is the demand the greatest? You may be tempted to answer, “Everywhere,” but I would like you to just give a little flavour and provide some information about which countries the grandparents are coming from.
Also, does the low-income cut-off, or LICO — since it’s a Canadian measure — actually determine which countries people are coming from? Does it mean that grandparents from some countries are not coming?
Mr. Seeback: The largest source country of immigration to Canada, depending upon the year, is usually India. China has been pretty high. The Philippines and Nigeria, those are also high ones. We’ve been getting a lot from the United States recently.
Senator Dasko: The grandparents?
Mr. Seeback: No, just in general immigration. From my experience, who are those individuals looking to bring their parents? Exactly those demographics.
The super visa is incredibly popular in the Indo-Canadian community, and it is very much used. I know that it is used in the Nigerian community as well. It is used in the Filipino community.
The other part of the LICO that I think is challenging is that it takes into account how many people are in your household. We also know that new immigrants to Canada have larger families. The more members in your family, the higher the LICO you have to have. That, in and of itself, is also a problem. That is why I’m saying that we need to lower it.
For example, if you have yourself, your wife and four children, that is six. If you want to bring your parents and grandparents, that is now ten.
The LICO goes up the more people who are in your family. I think that is also an enormous challenge.
We talk about how we need to increase the population in the country, and then we say, “Well, you have too many kids. Therefore, you need to make more income to bring your parents over.” I think there are many problems with it, which is why I want the government to look at it.
Senator Dasko: Meanwhile, the LICO is going to stay. This is a study into the LICO. It is not, actually, getting rid of it.
We’re always hearing about immigration backlogs for, honestly, just about every program that I can think of. Maybe there are some that are much better than others, but on a net basis, given that five years is better than two — but then, of course, the government has to investigate all of the insurance companies, so there is an administrative burden, let’s say, at that level.
How do you think immigration officials will be able to deal with this? Is it going to net out on the positive side? Is it going to add to the backlog or help to clear it up? What are your thoughts?
Mr. Seeback: I don’t think it is going to add to the backlog. Automatically, by moving it from two to five years, you cut down on the number of renewals that people have to apply for and applications that have to be processed. Right there, that is a gain.
The second thing is the acceptance rates for the super visa are exceptionally high, well over 80%. That is because they have all of the things. You check all of the boxes, and it is basically going to be issued. It’s not like a visitor visa where they look into whether someone will go back, what their ties are to the country and all of those other kinds of things. Super visas can be processed quickly because it’s “Do you meet the requirements?” And then “Yes.” I don’t think it’s going to add to the burden.
The last number that I think I had was 139,000 super visas issued. If we go to 200,000 or 250,000, will that be more work? Yes, of course, it will. But when you are eliminating from two to five years, and you double the number of people who get it, and you more than double the amount of time that they can stay here without applying, I think the workload comes out to be about the same. Then again, I went to law school because I wasn’t good at math, but I think it works out.
The Chair: Thank you, MP Seeback. I’m not good at math either, but that 139,000 figure sticks with me. Is that a figure over a certain number of years or over one year? My information is that the IRCC issues approximately 17,000 super visas annually. We will query them. We don’t want to put you on the spot with the numbers, that’s what the officials are there for, but if you have any information that would be good.
Mr. Seeback: I think that is the aggregate number.
Senator D. Patterson: Congratulations on getting your bill through the Commons, Mr. Seeback. I know it is a journey over there, “the other place” as we fondly call it. I think that you have to win some kind of a lottery to start the process.
Thank you also for your candid comments that amendments, in your view, could likely kill the bill. I think we have to respect your assessment of those risks as a member of the other place, and so I’m inclined to be supportive of passing the bill unamended.
My other questions were dealt with by colleagues, but I would like to ask you: Was your bill well-supported in the House of Commons? Could you speak to that?
Mr. Seeback: Yes, it was. It was supposed to receive unanimous support, but there was one MP who, through the vote app, voted “no” and then called me to apologize and said that they meant to vote “yes.” So I would say that it received unanimous support.
I will go back again to talk about this, the opportunity. Legislation is better than ministerial instruction on this. It just is. If a future government — whether it is Conservative, Liberal or NDP — wants to change this, they are going to have to introduce legislation. I could see that being an incredibly bumpy road.
A ministerial instruction that we have now on both the insurance part and on the extension from two to five years, that is removed at the wave of a pen. I do think that it is important to pass this.
I absolutely recognize that the bill could be improved upon. I wish Ms. Kwan’s amendment had passed. I honestly and truly do. It was a miscommunication on the floor at the committee. It was a very acrimonious committee because the government members at the committee actually did not want it to pass. They voted against it. They then changed their tune.
But in all of that, the amendment which would allow for some form of appeal on compassionate grounds for the circumstance that I described — someone going on maternity leave early — that amendment did not pass. I wish it had. You may want to consider something like that. It does make a lot of sense.
I am just going to ask you, again, to balance that with the fact that I suspect we will not then pass this bill. The time for it to go back to the House and then come back here will be long. I think my number was number six, and this is where we are from the 2021 election. That’s my fear. I will say it again: Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Senator Bernard: Thank you for this bill. I support this bill, Mr. Seeback.
In your testimony this evening, you used the term “unintended consequences.” I may have missed it, but I am not sure what you meant by that. If there are some unintended consequences that you would like to have this committee hear, I would appreciate you letting us know what those are.
Mr. Seeback: I think that I was responding to a question from the chair about unintended consequences. I do not think that there could be any unintended consequences.
The only thing there could be is if something happens with the insurance aspect of the bill to allow the purchase of insurance from a foreign country. If, somehow, that went sideways, and someone ended up in the hospital and the insurance company did not pay, that would be an unintended consequence of the bill. I am giving the minister the opportunity to approve it and to set up a regime in order to make sure that any insurance company that offers this product will actually pay.
If you are nervous about that section — and I can understand why people might be nervous about it — the ministerial instructions that were issued by the minister allow for this. They know that they can do it or they would not have issued the ministerial instructions that are verbatim to what I put in my bill.
I think the government is ready to take on this challenge. I think that they can take on the challenge. I actually don’t think that there will be any unintended consequences of this bill. I think that it will have the intended consequences we all want, which is more people coming here on a super visa to be together with their families.
The Chair: MP Seeback, as you can see, we are not an acrimonious committee — not at all. We are very efficient. We have 20 minutes left. Let me kick off round two by asking you what an intended consequence is. You said in your speech that it is to increase competition. It’s not the first outcome, but you are looking at increasing competition for such products.
I’m not good at math, but 17,000 people being issued visas last year at a rough cost of $5,000, which is the top end, would be $8.5 million in revenue for a Canadian insurance company. That is a lot of money. However, I happen to think that is not likely a lot of money for Canadian insurance companies.
Have you been in touch with them? What have they said to you?
Mr. Seeback: No. No insurance company has gotten in touch with me with respect to the bill. I have always found that somewhat odd.
I think that competition is one aspect of it. If two fish that swim through the gate are now allowed to offer this insurance product, then I think that will create more competition and will drive down the cost for a family who are trying to come here.
The other aspect of this — and this was discussed at the House of Commons committee when they did a study in 2018 — is that the product will be offered in the currency of that country. That, in and of itself, will make it more advantageous for a family that is trying to bring either a parent or a grandparent here. That insurance will be geared towards that actual market in that country. It will be paid in the currency of that country.
That will create savings whether there is increased competition or not. Again, I think that is going to be good. Any way that we can make it more affordable gives more access, which is really the goal of the bill.
The Chair: MP Seeback, do you know the ratio of parents or grandparents who currently come into Canada on the super visa program? I have asked this question of officials and I have never gotten a straight answer. I thought that I would pose it to you.
Mr. Seeback: I don’t know. I’m not sure that they necessarily keep that data. They may not differentiate. They may just say parent, grandparent and don’t track it.
The Chair: I see no more questions. Therefore, I suggest that we thank Mr. Seeback for his leadership on this bill and for his time with us.
We will now move to our second panel with a significant number of public servants joining us by video conference. Thank you, colleagues, for being with us today and for adjusting your schedules to meet our unpredictable voting schedule in the Senate. It is truly appreciated.
We have from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Alexis Graham, Acting Director General, Social and Temporary Migration; Jean-Marc Gionet, Director General, Immigration Program Guidance; Craig Shankar, Director General, Migration Health; James Seyler, Director, Immigration Program Guidance; and Ben Mitchell, Counsel, Legal Services. From Finance Canada, we have Khusro Saeedi, Acting Senior Director, Framework Policy, Financial Institutions Division; Phaedra Sydor, Senior Advisor and Economist, Financial Institutions Division. From the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, we have Darrell Leadbetter, Senior Director, Insurance. We appreciate your time and the perspectives you will add to our study. We will, however, hear an opening statement from Ms. Graham only.
Ms. Graham, you have five minutes allocated for your statement, followed by questions from senators.
[Translation]
Alexis Graham, Acting Director General, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Good evening, honourable senators. I am pleased to appear before your committee this evening. I apologize for testifying virtually; as some of us have been exposed to children with colds, we thought it best not to risk passing on any germs to members of the committee.
I am thrilled to talk to you today about the super visa and the changes introduced by Bill C-242. I am here with my colleagues from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, as well as from the Department of Finance and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
[English]
Canada’s immigration system recognizes the social, cultural and economic benefits of reuniting parents and grandparents with their loved ones. The super visa was established in 2011 and, since its introduction, is a popular multi-entry visa. The super visa is valid for up to ten years. It allows parents and grandparents to visit their children or grandchildren for extended periods of time. There are no limits on the number of individuals who can apply. IRCC approves approximately 17,000 each year.
Because of the longer stays, applicants must meet additional criteria, including private health insurance for emergency medical coverage 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, as the committee has just discussed, I would note that the super visa is currently established in ministerial instructions, not in legislation or regulations. The instructions are signed by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and by the Minister of Public Safety. This approach allows the minister to pursue program changes quickly.
[Translation]
As you may know, ministerial instructions were recently updated in July 2022 in order to support the key clauses of the bill. The minister has increased the period of authorized stay from a maximum of two years per entry to a maximum of five years per entry, and the minister has been granted the necessary powers to designate foreign insurance providers.
[English]
While these updates have already come into effect, this bill proposes that these conditions be enshrined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It also requires that a report be tabled in Parliament. This report would examine the income requirements, consider accounting for special circumstances and establishing a review process for all temporary visa applications.
As the committee deliberates these proposals, I would like to bring a few considerations to your attention.
First, currently, officers authorize a length of stay per entry into Canada of up to five years. If this bill receives Royal Assent, the five years will be codified in the act, obligating officers to always allow the maximum length of time.
In regard to the health insurance, currently, super visa holders are required to purchase coverage from a Canadian company. While allowing companies from outside of Canada will increase the range of options available to individuals, we need to ensure that these clients continue to receive reliable and sufficient insurance.
With the changes recently made to ministerial instructions, the department has begun to explore opportunities to identify and designate insurance companies from outside of Canada. This will take time as consultations with health sector experts, regulatory bodies and provinces and territories are required.
Finally, with respect to the report to Parliament, we’re always interested in reviewing existing program criteria and certainly do welcome the opportunity to share our findings.
In summary, I will note that the super visa is an important pathway to reunite parents and grandparents with their loved ones in Canada. The proposals presented in this bill serve to strengthen these supports for families.
Thank you very much. We’re happy to take your questions now.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Graham. We will start with questions from the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Bovey. I will remind everyone the shorter your question, the more fulsome your answer. We are doing absolutely brilliantly by the way to start the season.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Ms. Graham, I very much appreciate your comments, as we all do. I have a couple of questions if I may.
I appreciate the distinction of ministerial instruction moving to legislation. If I’m right, the entry will be for five years instead of a designation of up to five years. The first people coming in will be allowed to make that time choice.
I’d like to know how you feel about the lowering of the minimum income cut-off and what effect that might have. What are your thoughts on that threshold, if I can call it a threshold?
Ms. Graham: Thank you very much for your question. With respect to that minimum income requirement, the intention here is really to ensure that parents and grandparents have those basic financial supports during their stay. That is really the policy intent behind that provision.
That being said, we have heard a lot of interesting ideas, particularly as this bill progressed through the House of Commons. We are very pleased to have that opportunity, should this bill pass, to prepare a report to Parliament on this important issue. It will certainly be a good opportunity for the department to share those findings publicly with you.
Senator Bovey: I’m intrigued in the sense that I’ve heard that parents and grandparents coming in will need financial support. I am hearing from families who are wanting their parents and grandparents to come as well. They see them as a support for the family, caring for the family; the parents will help out and not just the other way around.
What do you think that balance is? It’s probably both, but with the statistics you have, what do you think is the balance between parents and grandparents who are helping the economic situation and those who are a drain on the family’s economic situation?
Ms. Graham: I think that there are indications, information and studies that have shown that parents and grandparents are those supports. They provide child care, and they allow people to enter the labour market who otherwise might be at home. This is an important component that we will certainly be looking at as we do this analysis on the low-income cut-off.
The idea, really, at the end of the day is that we want parents to be supported. I think that comes across very clearly as an objective overall, but there are, perhaps, more nuanced ways of looking at that low-income cut-off, and we’re very welcoming of the suggestions that we’ve heard and are very poised to undertake that analysis.
Senator Bovey: I’ll stop here. I gather you don’t have the statistics or the data now to know where the reality is?
Ms. Graham: We don’t have excellent quantitative data at this point on that.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Ms. Graham, for your testimony.
Are you able to tell us, currently, how the private medical insurance coverage is monitored for the super visa holders once they’re in Canada? In particular, if the period of stay now goes from two to five years, how are the insurance renewals tracked, and what is the frequency of lapsed private health insurance?
Ms. Graham: Thank you kindly for that question.
The ministerial instructions specify that applicants need to provide proof of satisfactory medical insurance coverage, and that is delineated by or assessed as valid for a minimum of one year as per the date of entry, and it covers the applicant for health care, hospitalization, repatriation and provides a minimum of $100,000 coverage.
This is always examined for each entry into Canada and is available for review by the examining officer upon request. That first point of entry is really that point that we do that assessment, and officers have discretion at, essentially, border entry points to determine whether they want to reassess that or not.
I’ll turn to my colleague Jean-Marc Gionet for additional details on that as well, which I may have missed for you.
Jean-Marc Gionet, Director General, Immigration Program Guidance, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, Ms. Graham, but, no, I think you’ve covered it.
I’m not aware that we’ve received reports of situations where insurance claims were not honoured or respected, but I think that is something that as we explore the framework going forward, we can take into account.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being with us and changing at such short notice.
Are there any aspects of this bill that would need attention or perhaps modification to harmonize with existing legislation, such as the Insurance Companies Act or existing regulations?
Ms. Graham: Thank you kindly for the question. I’m going to pass that to colleagues from the Department of Finance Canada and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions please.
Khusro Saeedi, Acting Senior Director, Framework Policy, Financial Institutions Division, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you very much, and thank you for the question.
I think the integration and the way the bill works with the Insurance Companies Act is going to be a topic of study as we examine it further and look at the details — together with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — on how it could be implemented.
Senator Kutcher: I didn’t understand the answer. You telling me it’s a topic of study doesn’t help me out.
Mr. Saeedi: The Insurance Companies Act in Canada applies to all insurance companies, those that are federally incorporated under Canadian federal law as well as foreign insurance companies that do business in Canada on a branch basis.
To the extent this new power will allow insurance companies to be designated, one of the things to examine will be how that would integrate with Canadian federal law and the Insurance Companies Act.
Provinces also have a role to play in the regulation of insurers. They also have the ability to incorporate insurance companies at the provincial level, and they assess their safety and soundness there. In addition, each province has its own legislation dealing with aspects of insurance contracts, issues such as consumer protection and insurers must follow all applicable rules and regulations in the province and territory where they do business. There are a number of areas that would require examination as we look to see how the new requirement — the bill — could be integrated in the Canadian framework.
The Chair: Do you have an answer, Senator Kutcher?
Senator Kutcher: I’m not sure.
The Chair: I’m not sure either, but maybe we can come back to it. Is that all right?
Senator Kutcher: Yes, or we could get it in writing. I’m a bit confused.
The question was: Are there parts of the bill that would need to be modified, and I’m hearing that you may want to study it in the future. That doesn’t give me a lot of comfort in understanding where we are now. Then there is the issue of provincial insurance companies, which I think is a really important one.
I’m asking you how the federal and provincial insurance components would fit with this bill. I don’t want this bill to get caught between competing interests with insurance companies, and then someone gets left in the lurch.
How were you going to do that?
Mr. Saeedi: I understand. I’m happy to clarify. I could pass this back to my IRCC colleagues, but I do want to answer you a bit more directly.
I believe the way the legislation is written is that it allows discretion for the minister to examine and see which insurance companies we designated to provide the super visa insurance that’s required, and there’s some flexibility to examine what those rules would be. I think that would be the topic of discussion for the IRCC.
There’s nothing that I could tell you right now where I would say that there’s incompatibility, based on what I’ve seen so far between what’s in the draft bill — I see your point — between what is in the draft bill and what is in the Canadian framework.
Senator Kutcher: That’s much more helpful. I appreciate that very much. We don’t want people to come and all of a sudden find they have no insurance. That would be horrific for them, right?
Thank you.
The Chair: I have a very brief question of my own, likely to IRCC.
The super visa program, as far as I remember, has been available since 2015 or maybe even earlier — 2011, my excellent Library of Parliament analyst has just told me. It’s been operational for a good 10-plus years. You say 17,000 applications are approved per year. Rounding that up, that’s a heck of a lot of temporary residents in Canada.
Is there any history of individuals in this stream choosing to lapse their super visa and apply for permanent residency through the humanitarian and compassionate stream?
Ms. Graham: Thank you very much for the question.
I’m not aware of that information currently, to be quite honest. That’s something that we would have to look back into our data to determine.
I can say that it is likely not to be a common occurrence because we don’t have that articulated as a program integrity issue or something like that.
I don’t know, Jean-Marc Gionet, if you have more details on that piece, that would be most welcome.
Mr. Gionet: No, I’m not aware that we do track that information. I think my colleague is correct. Given the extended length of the stay and the flexibility that’s afforded with the super visa, I might speculate that those instances are limited. That’s not to say, Madam Chair, that it is impossible, but I certainly don’t have that linked information at my fingertips this evening.
The Chair: Thank you. I hear from you that, then, it’s not a concern; you haven’t had a history of this. That gives us some comfort that we’re not opening up a risk-laden situation for Canada.
Unfortunately, in every stream of immigration, there is a certain amount of abuse and a lot of the abuse centres around the agents, or facilitators, of entry into Canada. Have you had any previous experience that people in this stream of the super visa are being in any way unethically dealt with when using this stream?
Ms. Graham: Thank you very much for your question. I think it is a general issue around unscrupulous consultants and people taking advantage of prospective newcomers and visitors. There have been many studies on this, including at the House of Commons immigration committee. A regime was recently put in place to help bolster the licensing and regulation of immigration consultants in Canada. This is an issue, for sure.
Unfortunately, there are people who do take advantage of people, provide them with incorrect information and take money from them. However, I’m not aware of any particular issue with respect to clients in this stream. That hasn’t come to our attention yet. But again, I think it’s something we could definitely look into and see if we’ve noticed any particular issues with super visa holders on that particular account.
The Chair: Thank you. My final question is around this: Do you track grandparents versus parents? For the life of me, I have never gotten a straight answer. We put parents and grandparents together. I’d like to know: How many parents versus grandparents? Is this a myth or is this a reality?
Ms. Graham: I don’t have that information at my fingertips. My colleague Mr. Gionet may have additional information for you, but I would ask for a clarification there. Are you referring to the super visa specifically or are you referring to the parents and grandparents permanent residents program?
The Chair: I think it is important for IRCC to track the difference between parents and grandparents whether it’s in the super visa or in the permanent stream because it speaks to issues of health and other concerns or capacities. But I think you need the evidence. Let me make that recommendation to you. We’ll likely put it in the report as well, but let’s see.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Before I ask my question, I just want to say that I will be speaking in French.
I would firstly like to better understand the term “minimum necessary income.” Is that the income that the children must have so that their parents will be allowed to come to Canada? I just want to understand the definition. I have another question after you give me your answer.
Ms. Graham: Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much for the question. I will be answering in English.
[English]
Just to be clear, the low-income cut-off is based on the income of the host child or grandchild. Your hypothesis is correct. It is based on the income that is made by the family in Canada who is hosting the parent or grandparent.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: If, in order to make it easier to bring parents over, you reduce the minimum necessary income, what will happen to the children that will have another mouth to feed? Their income should actually be higher so that they are able to host the person who is coming over. That’s why I am having trouble understanding the logic when we say that the income will be reduced.
I had my mother come over a few years ago. I would have liked to have seen the bill then. If we are reducing the cut-off when there will be another mouth to feed, where’s the logic in that? Do you have an answer?
[English]
Ms. Graham: I’m happy to take that question for now, senator. That is why the low-income cut-off is there currently. Essentially, Statistics Canada defines the low-income cut-off as the income threshold below which a family will devote a much larger share of its income than an average family on the necessities of food, shelter and clothing. That is the definition of that cut-off as defined by Statistics Canada. It’s based on exactly what you are describing as ensuring that people do have a basic amount of income in order to support the family members that they have, both at home and whom they are hosting from other countries, in this case, their parents or grandparents.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Often, people bring over the grandparents so that they can support the family and help out their children who earn an income by working. I see the logic there. Nonetheless, if the family income isn’t enough, there’s a problem. Thank you for your answer, which was useful.
[English]
Senator Martin: Thank you all for being with us this evening. My question is related to the health insurance policy aspect of the bill.
A ministerial instruction came into effect on July 4, 2022, instructing the department to allow applicants who provided satisfactory evidence of private medical insurance from a company outside of Canada approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
Could you share with the committee how the minister constituted the list of private medical insurance from companies outside of Canada? What were the criteria used for a company to be approved?
Ms. Graham: I’m sorry; you were cutting in and out. Would you repeat the question?
Senator Martin: I was wondering about the private medical insurance companies that are approved by the minister. Could you share with us how the minister constituted the list of private medical insurance from companies outside of Canada? What were the criteria used for a company to be approved?
Ms. Graham: Is this in respect to the super visa or another program?
Senator Martin: From the ministerial order from July 4. The department would allow applicants who provided satisfactory evidence of private medical insurance. I’m curious about the companies that are approved by the minister. What criteria would be used to approve such a company?
Ms. Graham: Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that.
Right now in the ministerial instructions, there is the opportunity to create this designation framework and determine which companies would be able to provide insurance to super visa holders, but we haven’t actually designated any companies currently because we are still undertaking the analysis required to set that criteria and make sure that any designation regime will continue to protect clients.
I will now turn to Craig Shankar to add more detail to that. Thank you so much.
Craig Shankar, Director General, Migration Health, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, senator. To add to what Ms. Graham just shared, we don’t have a designation framework yet for foreign insurance companies. This is a new line of work for our department, and the work is currently under way to develop this designation framework.
At this stage, we are analyzing the health insurance landscape within the country and looking at what types of regulations exist. Mr. Saeedi, from the Department of Finance, spoke a bit about that a few minutes ago.
We’re taking that into account. There are a number of stakeholders that play a role here. There are provinces and territories, of course, both from the regulatory side of the insurance and also from the health system side. We also have to take into account the best interests of the clients and make sure that they’re well protected.
These are the types of things that we are taking into account. This work is currently at an infancy stage, and our intention is to try to be as consistent as possible with what exists currently. Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the officials who are here today to join us to have this discussion. I have a two-part question that I want to direct to the IRCC. The first part of the question is around medical insurance coverage monitoring for the super visa holders in Canada for the past 10 years since the program has been in place. Does the IRCC track renewals of insurance or whether super visa holders have valid medical insurance? Do you have that data?
The second part of this is in thinking about expanding and broadening insurance options, has the IRCC studied or are you studying how the introduction of foreign insurance providers might affect insurance coverage and year-to-year risk?
Ms. Graham: Thank you for your questions. With respect to the first question on monitoring and tracking health insurance, IRCC does not currently do this systematically. I will ask Jean‑Marc Gionet to expand on this, but there are touch points with clients that we do check this. However, it’s not something that we track on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Gionet: Thank you for the question, senator.
To build on my colleague’s response, it is a requirement as part of the original application or the request for an extension that the clients demonstrate that they have a valid insurance coverage. That is checked by the officers who are reviewing the application, as well as it being checked upon arrival at the port of entry for the parents or grandparents who arrive to make sure that the insurance is valid.
Senator Moodie: The follow up question would be: How do you know that people are actually getting insurance that works?
Mr. Gionet: I will turn to my colleague James Seyler who may have a bit more anecdotal information.
As I mentioned earlier, I’m not aware that there have been circumstances reported to us that a client who shows up to seek medical care has not been able to get the coverage or that the insurance situation was not found to be valid or in force. The checks and balances we currently have are at the application stage and upon entry, but perhaps my colleague, Mr. Seyler, has information to add.
James Seyler, Director, Immigration Program Guidance, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you to both colleagues. I can only confirm from my own knowledge that this is the case, that we have no instances of widespread failure to fulfill the contract of that medical insurance, that hospitals or medical providers would go unpaid.
The reality is, as Mr. Gionet said, we do check that information on the initial application. We check it at the port of entry every time they enter Canada wishing to stay for an extended period as a super visa holder and then again when any extension is requested from within Canada for a renewal or an extension of that stay.
Senator Moodie: I have a follow up question, again. I’m being troublesome here. Do you have a reporting mechanism for hospitals and institutions to actually flag that there has been an issue?
Ms. Graham: Thank you for the follow-up. I will defer to other colleagues on this line, but my understanding at this point is, no, there isn’t that follow-up mechanism currently in place.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
The Chair: My question goes along the lines of Senator Moodie’s. While I understand the insecurity that is associated with someone in Canada, especially someone who is likely a senior citizen without medical insurance, I have to make a reasonable assumption that no reasonable person in Canada would not have health insurance. It would be very good to get the facts.
Outside of this, and some of the other issues that we have explored, Ms. Graham, have you done a risk assessment on this bill?
Ms. Graham: Thank you for the question.
We have not done a full risk assessment per se. This bill has tracked quite quickly through the parliamentary process. That being said, there are already key elements of the bill that have been introduced by the ministerial instructions.
The government fully supports this bill. It is very much in line with the commitments the government has made on family reunification overall. The changes made to the ministerial instructions reflect the fact that we certainly believe that any risks introduced by the bill could be mitigated through solid analysis and making sure that all the research and stakeholder consultations are done around the designation framework.
The Chair: Thank you.
Finally, a little tiny factoid that I would like. We have talked about 17,000 applicants or super visa-approved individuals coming into Canada. Does that constitute 100%, 80% or 95% of those who applied? Do you have that figure?
Ms. Graham: I will turn to Mr. Gionet who has those statistics available.
Mr. Gionet: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I can offer a few statistics that perhaps touch on some of the earlier questions that I have heard as well in terms of understanding the dynamics and also whether we can distinguish whether there is a parent or grandparent on the application for this program.
Since 2011, we have issued more than 144,000 super visas, so the figure of 17,000 annually is correct. Of the approved super visa holders, at the time of application, we know that 38% were between the ages of 61 and 70. We know that 42% were between the ages of 51 and 60. We also know that a majority of the visa holders are female. In terms of top-source countries, those would be: India, China, followed by Pakistan and the Philippines.
Your related question in terms of approval rates I think is ultimately what the question was getting at. Over the past 10 years, it has been on average that 80% of the applications that we received are approved. In 2021, it was 76%. In 2022, it was at 82%. It hovers around that same threshold.
The Chair: That is excellent to know. Thank you, Mr. Gionet, for giving us that information.
Sorry, but I have to ask. Do you have the reasons 20% were refused on what grounds? Do you have aggregate information on why they were refused?
Mr. Gionet: Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. At an aggregate level, I think a good proportion of the applications are refused because the applicants are not providing the required documents, but also things along the lines of failure to provide evidence of the familial link, the evidence on the proper medical insurance, the financial supports, things of that nature at a very high level. That is what I can confirm.
The Chair: That suffices for us.
Colleagues, I’m looking around the room, if there are no further questions I want to thank all our public officials for being with us and providing us with your answers. If there is anything further you would like to add, please do not hesitate to send us a written submission. I am sure we will see you again at some point in the future at this committee.
With that, colleagues, we are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)