THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 2, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:31 a.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: My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario and chair of this meeting. Let us begin by doing a round of introductions from my colleague senators, starting with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: I’m Senator Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Osler: Senator Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Moodie: Senator Moodie from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia.
Senator Burey: Senator Burey from Ontario.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Just walking to his seat is our colleague. Ready, set, go, senator?
Senator Kutcher: Why do I feel like I’m back in grade school? That’s what it was like all the time. Senator Kutcher, from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Today our committee continues 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 for our first panel is Mr. Kareem El-Assal, Director of Policy and Digital Strategy at CanadaVisa. Thank you for joining us. I invite Mr. El-Assal to provide opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Kareem El-Assal, Director of Policy, CanadaVisa, as an individual: As Mr. Kyle Seeback pointed out in yesterday’s session, the main reason why this bill should be passed is to codify the reforms he has proposed into law.
Although two of his three proposals have already been adopted by the government, the risk is they are adopted via ministerial instructions, meaning they could easily be changed or reversed by a future government.
Passing this bill will provide certainty to immigrant families and will promote a host of benefits for the Canadian government and Canadian society at large.
First, immigrant families will know their parents and grandparents will be able to stay in Canada for five years at a time. They won’t have to worry about a new government deciding to reduce the length of stay without warning via ministerial instructions. Increasing the length of stay also reduces the amount of time and money immigrant families would need to spend submitting application renewals, and fewer applications would also help Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, with the more manageable workload.
Second, increasing competition by allowing the minister to designate foreign health insurance providers would give families more choice and more affordable options, in theory. Increasing competition also incentivizes Canadian and foreign providers alike to offer the best products and services to applicants.
I would also like to note, with Canada increasing its immigration levels and the super visa becoming a more attractive option thanks to these reforms, we should see more super visa applicants moving forward. This would be a good thing for Canadian insurance providers and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians they employ.
The third provision of the bill is another really important benefit to us all. It places a legal requirement on the minister to explore how to modify the low income cut-off, or LICO, to make the super visa more accessible. It also creates greater oversight on the minister by requiring them to present their findings to Parliament and the public. This is obviously a good thing.
It also strikes a nice balance within the bill. On the one hand, we are giving the minister more authority by allowing them to designate foreign health insurance providers, but we are also balancing the new-found authority by holding the minister to account to ensure the government remains steadfast in its commitment of bringing families together.
Before I conclude, I would like to stress the importance of addressing existing challenges and identify more ways in which we can accommodate the strong demands to bring more parents and grandparents to Canada.
For the Parents and Grandparents Program, or PGP, itself — our only permanent residence pathway — we can consider introducing rolling expressions of interest and holding weighted lotteries each year. For the super visa itself, although IRCC is now processing record levels of temporary resident visa, or TRV, applications, the department continues to fall short of its own super visa processing standards. This needs to be remedied. We can also complement the super visa by offering new additional temporary resident pathways to parents and grandparents.
I am not claiming any of the following ideas are perfect, but I’d like to propose them nonetheless to stimulate dialogue. What about introducing a visa pathway to parents and grandparents who demonstrate they have sufficient savings to support themselves in Canada? That way, we do not penalize those who may not meet the LICO on legitimate grounds. On this note, we can consider waiving the LICO requirement altogether for those who don’t need it at the time of their application due to legitimate reasons such as having recently started a new job, having gone on maternity leave, pursuing education, falling ill or having young children at home.
On the latter points, the arrival of parents and grandparents can enable Canadians to work more hours and save more money, since they no longer have to worry about child care.
We can consider introducing a work permit option for parents and grandparents who want to work and supplement the household income. This can also prove beneficial for low-income households.
Maybe we can introduce a sponsorship undertaking to create the legal requirement for families to pay back any public benefits potentially claimed by parents and grandparents.
We should also evaluate global comparators. If you look at Australia, for example, they offer around 10 different permanent and temporary visa options for parents, grandparents and elderly family members. At the moment, here in Canada, we only have three options: the PGP, the super visa and the TRV. Keep in mind, Canada’s newcomer targets are much higher than Australia’s — more than double on the PR front.
The Chair: Please do not use acronyms such as PGP and TRV. Alphabet soup is a little difficult for us. So please proceed again.
Mr. El-Assal: PGP stands for the Parents and Grandparents Program. TRVs are temporary resident visas. IRCC is Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The Chair: That one we know.
Mr. El-Assal: To conclude, the introduction of the super visa in 2011 was considered innovative. Perhaps it’s time we go back to the drawing board to innovate some more. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. El-Assal. Forgive the interruption. Colleagues, you will each have five minutes for your question and your answer. I would like to remind you all, both members and senators in the room, to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for your witness testimony and your thoughts.
I have a couple of questions if I may, in my five minutes.
You talked about the idea of parents and grandparents having their own income to be able to come. I would like you to elaborate a bit on your thoughts on the minimum income threshold and the lowering of that, if you can, please.
Mr. El-Assal: We have to understand the rationale behind the LICO. It does have pros and cons. There is a pro in terms of having a threshold to ensure that there isn’t a race to the bottom in terms of the living standards of immigrant families.
On the other hand, because the way this policy is enforced is fairly binary — either you meet the threshold or you don’t — it doesn’t take into consideration legitimate reasons as to why someone has fallen short.
Let’s say, for instance, I just started a new job, and my salary is very high. At that time, because I have not met the LICO for the last year, I wouldn’t be eligible to access the super visa. Let’s say, for instance, an individual has gone on maternity leave, but they did previously surpass the LICO requirement. There needs to be a bit of discretion there so that we can be more accommodating to achieve the spirit of the super visa, which, of course, again, is to bring families together.
Senator Bovey: I understand that you agree with the lowering of that minimum income threshold. Could you speak to your idea about work permits for the parents and grandparents who may be coming in under this provision?
Mr. El-Assal: Yes. This seems like a novel approach. One may wonder why even contemplate this. Interestingly, yesterday in your session with the IRCC officials, one of them pointed out that roughly 40% of super visa admissions are individuals who fall between the ages and 51 and 60. They are still of a working age.
Why not, at the very least, give them the option, if they so choose, to be able to work in Canada? Of course, we’re all aware of the historic number of job vacancies we face. It has been around a million job vacancies for the better part of the pandemic. This can be another way of alleviating pressure within our labour market.
Senator Bovey: Would that be a regulation rather than a provision in the bill itself?
Mr. El-Assal: Yes. This falls outside of the bill itself. What I’m pointing out is that this bill itself is a good one. As Mr. Seeback pointed out yesterday, we shouldn’t allow perfection to be the enemy of the good.
We do need to find additional solutions to help alleviate the significant demand we face in terms of Canadians looking to reunite with their parents and grandparents. What I’m saying is we have the Parents and Grandparents Program. Let’s enhance the super visa. Let’s also complement these two options and the temporary resident visas with additional solutions.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you very much for your testimony.
My question relates to the extension of the maximum period of stay — with the super visa applicants the extension going from two to five years.
You have spoken to some of the benefits of extending the maximum period of stay. Could you comment on the challenges and any possible unintended consequences?
Mr. El-Assal: Certainly. As a general rule of thumb, the longer a temporary resident remains in Canada, the higher probability their ties to their home country wane. As a result, it may be harsh and punitive, after the 10-year duration of the super visa has expired, for the person to have to return home. They may no longer be in a position to do so or have strong enough ties to do so. That raises the possibility that we would have more humanitarian and compassionate applications being submitted to the government. This is something that we definitely need to consider.
Senator Osler: Has there been any thought or consideration given on how to handle that possibility of increased number of applicants?
Mr. El-Assal: This question could be better addressed by the department itself; they are the ones who have insights in terms of how frequently this happens, what the volumes are.
At the end of the day, they may report back that this is an overblown concern and, in fact, the number of humanitarian and compassionate applications they receive from super visa admissions is very low. It is a possibility that we can explore more by looking at the data.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
The Chair: Yesterday, the officials did point out that they had no substantial evidence to lead us to that conclusion, just for Mr. El-Assal’s information.
Senator Dasko: Thanks for being here, Mr. El-Assal.
You were talking about the possible improvements to the program. I think you mentioned that there were 10. I’m not sure you got through your list of possible improvements. Did you leave any out? Would you mind saying them if you didn’t get through your list yet?
I also wanted to ask you, of the possible improvements that you were referring to, which you think is the most important improvement to the program that should be made. Also, which of the improvements do you think are the most feasible that we could make to the program? Thank you.
Mr. El-Assal: Thank you, senator, for your questions.
I think the lowest-hanging fruit is for IRCC to simply achieve its own service standards. The department sets benchmarks for itself by saying these are the reasonable goals we expect to be able to achieve to process these applications.
When it comes to the super visa, I believe the benchmark it set for itself is four months. I took a look at the department’s website yesterday. It ranges between 5 and 12 months for most countries. The last year it reported its ability to achieve its service standards — for the 2020-21 fiscal year — it said it was able to achieve its service standards just over half of the time. This is an area which is the lowest-hanging fruit. Let’s make inroads here.
I would like to see improvements to the Parents and Grandparents Program. We have not come up with an adequate way of managing the demand.
A huge concern I have is that we have prevented any new entrants from expressing their interest to sponsor their parents or grandparents for over two and a half years now. What happened was, in October of 2020, IRCC said, “If you’re interested in sponsoring your parents or grandparents for permanent residence, please fill out a form on the website.” The department got 200,000 submissions. They have closed submissions ever since. We haven’t even given individuals a chance. These are ways within our existing tools that we can use to address this situation.
Again, I would like us to introduce additional options. As I noted, Australia has about 10 different visas for not only parents and grandparents but elderly family members. Canada welcomes way more immigrants and newcomers than Australia. Why is it that we only have three options?
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Mr. El-Assal, for your testimony. It’s appreciated.
I’m trying to wrap my head around some of these insurance issues. I wonder if you could help with your thoughts on this.
We have a letter from the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, who can’t be with us. I’m sure your firm knows this area cold. I want to read what they say and then get your thoughts on it:
There is significant risk associated with authorizing foreign insurance companies. To maintain program integrity, we would not object to a limited number of foreign insurance brokers and underwriters being subject to equivalent standards to brokers and underwriters in Canada. We also recommend that any authorization of foreign health insurance involve robust information programs to make it clear that only authorized insurance brokers and underwriters are eligible —
— This is important —
— to avoid the victimization of Canadians and their parents and grandparents.
I’m wondering what your thoughts are about that; whether this legislation needs to have something like that in it, or do you think that the ministerial list would be able to address this kind of concern?
Mr. El-Assal: The ministerial list would be able to address this sort of concern; however, IRCC would need to engage in a significant public relations campaign to make Canadians and their parents and grandparents aware that it is only the insurance providers on this list that are authorized to provide coverage under the super visa.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. I think that’s excellent advice. In your opinion, how well and how effectively has IRCC rolled out various information campaigns?
Mr. El-Assal: I wish I could plead the fifth here. Sometimes they do an excellent job. Sometimes they leave a lot to be desired.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Senator Martin: I was curious about what Senator Kutcher just asked as well, so I can continue maybe looking at the insurance policy aspect of this bill.
Earlier, Mr. El-Assal, you talked about some innovations that could be considered, like work permits for parents and grandparents. You have brought some really good ideas forward. This is a work in progress, and I did ask the officials this last night. In your opinion, what is the best method for establishing the proposed list of designated foreign insurers?
Mr. El-Assal: I would say that the minister and the government would need to consult widely with industry experts. They would need to establish benchmarks in terms of the criteria that these foreign insurers would need to meet. They would need to clearly identify the criteria publicly so that all stakeholders are aware of what the thresholds are. This would be the fairest way in terms of the foreign providers understanding what processes and requirements they need to fulfill to be considered eligible.
The reason this is important is because we’re already seeing this challenge in the immigration sector when it comes to the language testers that are designated by IRCC. The department itself, in an internal memo that I obtained last year, conceded they do not have a transparent framework in place to allow potential new entrants in the language-testing sector to be able to offer their test to immigration applicants.
To their credit, they recognized this limitation. Let’s learn from it, and let’s ensure that we have a transparent and open process and a fair framework in place so that this policy works as effectively as intended.
Senator Martin: In terms of the criteria that would be used, did you want to articulate any that would be important to be part of the criteria?
Mr. El-Assal: To be honest, senator, I feel there are many other insurance experts that would be better to outline benchmarks here.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Welcome to our committee, Mr. El-Assal. My question to you is around data. Yesterday we learned that there are significant gaps in our understanding of just how successful these three pathways that you mentioned have been. We heard that there are questions about super visa holders defaulting on insurance. There is no real knowledge about how often that happens. Phrases like “being aware of significant or substantial issues surrounding this” were some of the answers we got — not numbers or a clear understanding that those numbers are known. How many super visa holders transfer and try to become permanent visa holders?
These are all important questions on how we evaluate the current status and how we might evaluate a new program. What is your thought on data and what the current status of data collection is that informs us about how we move forward, and what would you like to see collected?
Mr. El-Assal: Thank you, senator, for raising all these issues. They are near and dear to my heart.
What I will say is that we do have significant data at our disposal. To IRCC’s credit, they have crunched the numbers and provided public insights in terms of the performance of various streams. For instance, they conducted an evaluation of the Parents and Grandparents Program a few years ago, which I studied, and they outlined — I felt in a nuanced way — both the economic and social benefits of the Parents and Grandparents Program as well as some of the limitations. We do have a fairly good understanding there.
With respect to the super visa, all this data is available. I agree with you; perhaps what we can do is have the department share it more widely so that all stakeholders can access and analyze it to make sure we are making evidence-based decisions moving forward.
The Chair: I have a couple of questions of my own. Let me start with an assumption that if this law is passed, we will see more super visa applications. I’m making that assumption; it may not be true. Let’s start with that. Can we make a fair assumption that the number of applicants will go up and, therefore, the number of temporary visa holders in this stream will also go up in Canada?
Mr. El-Assal: Yes, we can make a fair assumption on two fronts. Number one, Canada is welcoming more immigrants. Just by that alone, we’re going to see more super visa applications moving forward.
Second, I submit to you that these reforms make the super visa far more appealing. As a result, we should in theory see more Canadians access this program.
The Chair: You proposed an interesting idea around allowing these temporary residents who are parents and grandparents to fill labour market needs. It’s an intriguing idea, but it goes against one of the main arguments for the bill, which is that parents and grandparents come to help the children, to support the family, to look after the home. I know there is no purity in all of this, but I was just wondering: Is there not some slight contradiction here?
Mr. El-Assal: Not at all, senator. I think we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. We’re not saying we expect these parents and grandparents to work 40 hours a week and to shoulder economic load for Canada’s future. What we’re saying is let’s give them the option, if they so choose, to work, while at the same time, if it’s required, the family can decide, “We need their assistance on the child care front.”
One thing I want to point out, senator — this is a topic I studied — I looked at the 2016 census data on immigrant incomes by family size. As a general rule, the larger the family, the higher the income is. The income levels are comparable to the household income sizes of Canadian families. One of the limitations we make when we assess the outcomes of immigrants is we look at them as individuals rather than as part of family units. Even if you’re adding an additional income, and let’s say that person is only making minimum wage, it still goes a long way. At the end of the day, it helps to equalize the household income of immigrants with their Canadian-born counterparts.
The Chair: Thank you. Let me probe a little further. You talked about an Australian program with 10 different streams. A question, since we do have time: Are you able to quickly orient us to these 10 streams or can you send us some information about the various routes so that we can refer to them in our study report?
Mr. El-Assal: Absolutely. I’ll be happy to share the link to the Australian government’s website with the clerk. What I’ll point out is, interestingly, the Australian government looks to accommodate families looking to reunite both on the low and the high end of the income spectrum. They have visa options for higher-net-worth individuals for parents and grandparents. If they demonstrate they have high levels of income, they can pay a higher fee to be able to reunite with their children and grandchildren in Australia.
Conversely, for people on the lower end of the income spectrum, they do a needs-based assessment. They do have humanitarian elements within their visa regime. For instance, if a parent’s or grandparent’s last remaining family members are in Australia, the Australian government will look to accommodate them as well.
I think we have to remember, at the end of the day, Canada’s immigration system has three main objectives: strengthen the economy, reunite families and help refugees. So when we look at the Parents and Grandparents Program, we have to focus on the family and societal benefits of bringing parents and grandparents over to Canada. Of course, we want to mitigate the potential economic challenges, but at the end of the day we have to allow the familial considerations to carry the day.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Mr. El-Assal. It’s nice to see you again. I think the last time you and I met, it was pre-pandemic days, and we were in different roles. But I am pleased to see that you have continued to research this topic in great detail, so congratulations for that. My question will be about the bubble gum part of your proposal. Regarding parents and grandparents working, can this be handled by regulation or a ministerial order, as opposed to making any changes to this bill? Because I think one of the things we want to keep in mind is not making any changes to the bill as we address it.
Mr. El-Assal: Absolutely, the minister can introduce a policy reform with the stroke of a pen, enabling parents and grandparents to access work permits in Canada.
The Chair: Mr. El-Assal, we’ve talked a little about risk today in this session. From your point of view, where you are sitting and from what you know, I wonder if you could address the issue of risk and to whom the risk is in all of this.
Mr. El-Assal: Of course, there are risks. I think we have touched on many of them. I don’t want to focus on the negatives, but to have a balanced conversation, you do have to explore the upside and downside risks.
On the downside, introducing foreign entrants, even if it is highly regulated by the Canadian government, does pose risks. We see this in the international student sector where even though IRCC outlines on its website that there are over 1,500 designated learning institutions that make international students eligible for post-graduation work permits, we still have unscrupulous actors overseas who are able to convince international students to go to a particular Canadian higher education institution that is, in fact, not a designated learning institution. So, as a result, these students lose a lot of money and, at the end of the day, they don’t get the coveted post-graduation work permit, which they are looking for in order to pursue permanent residence.
So the concern here is that unscrupulous foreign actors may convince parents and grandparents or even Canadians that a particular health insurance provider makes them eligible for the super visa, they pay the premium, and then unfortunately their application is denied by IRCC, and they have lost a lot of money. We have to be careful about this, and that’s why I am an advocate of a vigorous public relations campaign by IRCC to help inform the public that it is only these providers that the minister has reviewed and designated that can offer medical insurance for the purpose of a super visa. That’s just one of the risks.
The Chair: We have time, Mr. El-Assal. You can carry on or choose to stop there.
Mr. El-Assal: We have discussed it already. I do think the department can help us. They do have this data. I don’t think they are hiding it. I think we just need to encourage them to share it. How many of the 144,000 or so individuals who have obtained a super visa since it was introduced in 2011 have, in fact, decided to make an agency claim to remain here as permanent residents? That is something we need to evaluate to ensure that moving forward — as the super visa admissions grow as expected — there aren’t the unintended consequences of people deciding to access the agency as a means of remaining here permanently. We don’t want to have loopholes in place, so this is something we need to evaluate.
At the end of the day, program integrity is for all of our benefit, including for Canadians looking to bring their parents and grandparents over. We just want to make sure we don’t have these kinds of challenges moving forward.
Senator Cardozo: I have a question on numbers and data, Mr. El-Assal. What is your estimate of how many people would come in through this program, and how does it relate to our immigration targets, especially in terms of the 500,000 target for years going forward?
Mr. El-Assal: I can’t provide an estimate. All we can do is work off the data provided to us by IRCC. So, Senator Cardozo, I actually looked at IRCC’s temporary resident visa numbers yesterday. Unfortunately, they don’t delineate between overall TRVs and the super visas. However, again, the stat is available, so submitting a customer request to them will allow us to see what the numbers have been since the super visa was launched in 2011. What we do know from the department, and they noted this yesterday as well, in your session, is that they welcomed 144,000 people since 2011, which works out to an average of about 17,000 per year.
With respect to the interplay between our immigration levels targets and the super visa itself, there isn’t much of a link. There is no cap for the super visa, whereas there is a cap for our PR admissions: It is 465,000 this year and it will rise to 500,000 by 2025. We also know that the Parents and Grandparents Program admissions will gradually rise over the next three years. However, there is no connection whatsoever between obtaining a super visa and your odds of being invited under the Parents and Grandparents Program. They are two completely different processes.
Senator Cardozo: One of the reasons it intrigues me — the issue of having parents and grandparents being able to work — is that you are dealing with immigrants who will come here and have a support network automatically. They won’t be using immigrant centre-type services, but they may work, and so they may contribute to the economy in that way.
I’m keeping in mind the point that Madam Chair made in terms of some of the contradictions of such an approach, but is there a sort of cushion that we would be adding, in a sense? Are we reducing risk?
Mr. El-Assal: Sorry to interrupt, senator. May I continue?
Senator Cardozo: Yes, please.
Mr. El-Assal: I believe we would be mitigating risk. Again, let’s give them the option if they do want to work, if they do want to contribute.
Going back to the earlier question by the senator about data, one of the interesting findings from IRCC’s evaluation of the Parents and Grandparents Program a few years ago is they found that a decent share of parents and grandparents who come here as permanent residents do work. Again, if they’re motivated, if they are interested in working to keep themselves busy, to supplement the household income, let’s give them the option. And as a corollary, the benefit to us is that we are mitigating any potential fiscal risk to Canadian taxpayers.
To be balanced, I will outline a counter-argument which I’ve heard myself, which is, “Let’s keep family class streams for family; let’s keep economic streams for the economy.” So some would argue we shouldn’t focus on offering work permit pathways to parents and grandparents. We shouldn’t look at potential economic-class options for them because, at the end of the day, we are more focused on the societal benefits of family reunification.
I don’t buy that argument. I understand it, but I do feel that we have to evaluate all the options available to us and I feel this could help alleviate demands on the Parents and Grandparents Program overall.
The Chair: Mr. El-Assal, yesterday we heard from the department that they are not overly concerned — at least that’s the perception I took away — that super visa temporary residents in Canada will come with insurance and that they may allow that insurance to lapse, thus creating a hazard for themselves, for the families, for the systems, for the provincial health care system, et cetera. Would you be concerned about that?
Mr. El-Assal: An important point to consider — and Mr. Seeback stressed this yesterday — is that these parents and grandparents must complete a medical exam before they come to Canada. The panel physicians are designated by IRCC and the Canadian government. So they are coming here in good health. We are mitigating the risk that way. In addition, we are complementing our risk management by requiring that they obtain medical insurance. Again, let’s access data from IRCC to see if we are seeing an uptake among super visa admissions in accessing provincial health care services, but we shouldn’t speculate either.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I have a question about some of the insurance risks. As I understand it, when a person applies for a super visa for two or even five years, they must submit the results of a medical examination and proof of insurance for one year. After one year, the person is responsible for renewing that insurance, I imagine. I would like you to clarify that for me.
Does anyone check to see whether the insurance has been renewed? If not, do we know whether people often don’t renew it, and if so, what happens? I imagine that the person has some responsibility afterwards if something happens to them.
I’m trying to understand this situation, meaning, a request for insurance for one year in the case of a longer stay.
[English]
Mr. El-Assal: Thank you, senator, for your excellent questions. For your first question, your understanding is correct. And for your second question, no, there is no verification. In terms of knowing how many people voluntarily allow their coverage to lapse, because we don’t verify, we don’t have data on that. This is something for us to explore. How we do it in a way that does not come across as invasive — I don’t know. But it is one of the loopholes that exist with the super visa.
Just to clarify this even further, senator, if someone on the super visa decides to leave Canada, for them to be able to re-enter the country, they must once again prove that they have the insurance coverage for one year. However, as you note, if the person decides to remain in Canada for an extended period of time — I mean, simply beyond the first year — there is no verification. They can have their coverage lapse with little to no consequence in terms of their visa status.
The Chair: Until something goes terribly wrong, and then there is a serious consequence.
Senator Kutcher: To follow up on Senator Cardozo’s questions on the work permit, my understanding is that now, on the super visa, the work permit is not easily obtainable. Speaking from personal family experience, this may result in people coming under this rubric to move into underpaid and unregulated work, where they would be at risk for all sorts of negative consequences or potentially no protections. Has that discussion happened, to your understanding? And if so, what have been the outcomes of those conversations?
Mr. El-Assal: That’s an excellent observation, senator. That’s a real possibility. To the best of my knowledge, I can’t think of too many ways for an individual on a super visa to be able to access a work permit. The options are few and far between. So, yes, it does raise the possibility that, in theory, they may go underground — sorry, not underground — in terms of working under the table.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: I want to follow up on the question that Senator Kutcher asked because this is something I’ve been thinking about as well in terms of employability. I think what I heard you say in response to a question earlier is that there are several people under other classes of immigration schemes where parents and grandparents are working. I am wondering if there is any research that tells us what their experiences in the employment sector are or have been. We have a history in this country of people being exploited, experiencing racism and discrimination in the workplace. So I am wondering if there has been any research to look at this specifically.
Mr. El-Assal: Thank you, senator, for that question. The only group of parents and grandparents who are able to work in Canada are those admitted under the parents and grandparents permanent residence program. We do have data in terms of their participation in the Canadian labour market. Statistics Canada, in conjunction with IRCC, collects longitudinal data on the socio-economic outcomes of immigrants in Canada. They release this on an annual basis, so it is available.
In terms of answering your question more specifically, in terms of whether it has been analyzed for the sectors, occupation as well as potential discrimination that parents and grandparents have faced in the labour market, I’m not aware, to the best of my knowledge, that this type of research has been conducted. Is it possible? Yes, it is possible. The data is available.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. El-Assal, for spending so much time with us and sharing your perspectives and information with us. We will take all that you have said into consideration as we write our report on the bill and, no doubt, we will see you again at this committee sometime in the future.
Colleagues, we will turn now to the industry panel. We welcome, from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, Joan Weir, Vice-President, Group Benefits; Susan Murray, Vice-President, Government Relations and Policy; and Anthony Lin, Senior Counsel, Insurance, with Manulife. Thank you for being with us today.
I now invite Ms. Weir and Ms. Murray to make their opening remarks.
Susan Murray, Vice-President, Government Relations and Policy, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association: Thank you very much. We are pleased to be here in person to testify. Joan and I will share some opening remarks with you, and Anthony will be available for questions. He has product knowledge and works at Manulife. He is also chair of one of the committees at Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, or CLHIA, that deals with this particular product.
[Translation]
At the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and the National Life Insurance Company of Canada, we represent all insurers across the country. Our members offer a range of products and services, including specialized health insurance for super visa holders, temporary foreign workers, and student visa holders.
[English]
The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association does have serious concerns with one clause of Bill C-242, clause 2, which allows the minister to designate foreign insurers outside of Canada to offer medical insurance to super visa holders. This could harm super visa holders and their families and could introduce risk for health care providers.
Today, super visa holders have the same protections as Canadians who purchase insurance in Canada. Regulators ensure that the companies are solvent, that they are licensed properly and that they have complaint processes in place. Foreign insurers operating in Canada must operate under the same regulatory framework as Canadian insurers in order to ensure protection for all super visa holders.
In our view, clause 2 of Bill C-242 must be amended to ensure the protection of super visa holders and Canadian health care providers. This could be a relatively simple amendment, such as:
Any foreign insurer wanting to offer this product must follow the process under the Insurance Companies Act and be properly licensed by OSFI —
— which is the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions —
— and the provincial regulators.
I will turn to my colleague Joan Weir, who will provide more detail about the medical insurance product itself and how it protects super visa holders.
Joan Weir, Vice-President, Group Benefits, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association: Thank you. I will start by saying that this product is not travel insurance. Travel insurance is a short-term product offered to Canadians travelling outside the country to deal with unforeseen emergencies. However, this specialized medical insurance is offered to people who are in Canada for an extended period of time, often for many years, and replaces the public health system that Canadians use when they visit a doctor or have an emergency in hospital.
When a super visa holder visits a Canadian health care provider, Canadian insurers pay the provider — physician or hospital — quickly and in Canadian funds. When a super visa holder arrives at the border with insurance purchased from a Canadian insurer, it is clear that the coverage is appropriate for Canada. Canadian health care providers know that they will receive payment, and processes are clear.
Canadian medical insurers provide full case management services for international super visa holders requiring treatment in Canada. Insurers and their assistance providers have full knowledge of the Canadian health care system, quality, specialties and subspecialties.
When super visa holders purchase insurance from a Canadian insurer, they are able to receive care within Canada, and health care providers, again, know they will be paid by the insurer for eligible expenses.
Similar processes would not necessarily be in place for foreign insurers which are not regulated in Canada. This could put a burden on Canadian medical service providers to pursue payment or ensure eligibility. Super visa holders may need to pay out of pocket first and then seek reimbursement at a later date. Should an unregulated foreign insurer default on payment, there would be no recourse for the hospital or the health care worker. The cost of expenses not being paid by the unregulated foreign insurer would be passed on to the consumer, provincial health systems and Canadian taxpayers.
In our view, any insurer offering this product to super visa holders in Canada would have to be supervised by the same regulatory framework as Canadian insurers or foreign insurers offering any other insurance product in Canada. This will ensure that Canada’s health care system and super visa holders are well protected.
We believe that it is crucial that amendments are made to clause 2 to ensure full protection of super visa holders, their families and Canadian health care providers.
With that, we’re happy to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Weir. We will go to questions from senators. We all know the drill. The first question goes to Senator Pat Bovey, deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank both our presenters. I very much appreciate your knowledge and your viewpoint. I have a couple of questions if I may.
I appreciate what you said about foreign insurers and the idea of an amendment to ensure that they meet Canadian regulations and are regulated. That said, yesterday, we heard from the proponent of this bill that allowing people to get insurance out of this country could lessen the cost of their coming. I would like one of you to address that.
The other question, which we just heard, is the question of renewals. Is there a way to ensure that after year one insurance is renewed?
My last question is if you were consulted on this bill. Those are the three parts, all up front.
Ms. Murray: Exactly. I will open. Joan and Anthony, please jump in because you will have more information.
This is a competitive market already in Canada. Many of our insurers offer it. We do have a foreign insurer operating in Canada that offers this product already. We are quite open to more competition, and if there are other foreign insurers that want to be involved, that’s terrific. Our point is really the regulatory framework, not the competitive aspect. Hopefully, that addresses the first part, and I will now go to the last part.
Private member’s bills are generally written quite quickly and written by MP’s offices, so it wasn’t the same process as may have happened had it been a government bill, where you might have had consultations at the front end and Justice drafters linking various bits of input. So, no, we were not consulted. We did listen to the testimony in the House committee. At that time, the minister had just issued his directive, which we thought made the bill more or less redundant. We thought that would be enough, but when you are doing legislation, in our view, you have to be much more specific, and it’s really important to have some reference to the legislation that exists federally in the bill.
Ms. Weir: I’ll just broaden the cost question. There are probably 9 or 10 insurers that already offer this type of product in the marketplace. It’s very similar to temporary foreign workers — the product they would have — as well as student visa holders, as mentioned before.
Cost really depends upon a couple of factors: age and health conditions. Even if a health condition is well monitored and stable, it can flare up at any time. Understand that they come with medicals, but, as we all know because we all travel, it’s important to have the insurance to cover it. Cost depends on many factors and not just on competition.
Ms. Murray: It differs between individuals.
Ms. Weir: Yes.
On the renewals piece of it, it’s a great question. It’s one that can arise from time to time where it isn’t renewed, and I guess from an insurance perspective, we don’t know if that person has actually returned home or if they are staying in the country without it. It’s not something that we can comment on further than that.
I will mention that in December there was a change made by the department to allow monthly payments. So I heard a bit about an annual payment, but that has now changed back to monthly payments if the individual wishes to do that. That may make it easier on the individual to keep their insurance current.
Anthony Lin, Senior Counsel, Insurance, Manulife: I would like to add with respect to the question on renewals, because this is a competitive marketplace, an individual is not required to come back with company A that they went with in the first place. If they want to check the market, they are able to and fully within their rights to find an appropriate product that suits their needs and they can go to another company, and company A would not be tracking that. We simply don’t track that.
That also ties in with your first question with respect to costs. What company A considers to be a risk might not be the same thing that company B considers to be a risk. Therefore, that could affect the price differences. Certainly, you have all these other individual characteristics which come to play, but what the company says they’re willing to pay for or cover plays a significant role in this. That’s why saying, “Well, they charge cheaper for this,” might not be the same because they might not provide the same benefits that we in Canada know what the health care service providers would like to see and what we cover in our policies.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much.
Senator Osler: Thank you all for being here today. I have three questions. You know the global private medical insurance landscape better than us. Can you give us an idea of how many foreign private medical insurers currently would meet Canadian insurance underwriter and broker standards?
Second question: Without an amendment, what are the must-have requirements for these foreign insurers to be able to offer medical insurance to the super visa holders residing in Canada?
Third question: Can you offer an opinion on a minimum period of coverage, particularly if that period of stay gets extended from two to five years?
Ms. Murray: Thank you for the question, senator. I’ll turn to my colleague Joan, who can probably answer. I’ll just open on the foreign insurers. I don’t know how many foreign insurers operate in Canada, but the rules and regulations are that they have to have some presence in Canada. Many of them are members of ours, but I can’t give you the sense in this market. I know at least one foreign insurer operates in this market and has a presence in Canada because those are the rules.
In the Insurance Companies Act they have to have a presence in Canada really so the regulator can have some kind of a view as to whether they are solvent, following disclosure rules, if they have a complaint process — all of the rules that Canadian insurers have. There has to be some type of presence in Canada for a foreign insurer to operate here.
In terms of other countries, whether they have equivalent regulatory systems, that really depends. The insurance market is very different from country to country, so I can’t really say. We have our own regulations. As you know, some companies are incorporated provincially, and some are incorporated federally. Quebec companies will be regulated by the Autorité des marchés financiers. It’s not an easy question.
Anthony, do you want to jump in with anything else?
Mr. Lin: Thank you very much. The insurance market in Canada is very well regulated. If I may just put it in a nutshell, OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, will look after the financial well-being of the company so they are assured that the company has the financial wherewithal to pretty much cover all insurance products that they underwrite at any one time so they can pay the claims if something catastrophic were to happen. At the end of the day, policyholders are protected.
From market conduct perspective, that’s the role of the provincial and territorial regulators. They will want to make sure that you’re selling things properly. As it was mentioned before, talking about disclosures, are your marketing materials correct? Are you making outlandish claims that are not supported by your actual product?
When you ask how many of them would meet the current standards, there is no short list that we would be able to provide to you right now. At the minimum, if you want to operate in Canada, go to OSFI. If you want to register your company at the federal level, you do it pursuant to the Insurance Companies Act and you work with OSFI and you show them your business plan and that you are financially viable. Then you get licensed at the provincial level in order to sell in those markets. That’s the way you would work.
We already have these mechanisms in place in the Insurance Companies Act because there are currently companies that are created outside of Canada and run outside of Canada which are allowed to operate in Canada pursuant to our rules. We think that if we want to expand this type of product to allow foreign insurers to underwrite it — as evidenced, we already have one doing it according to our processes, so the others should as well — the current legislation should be amended to reflect that these standards should be met.
Ms. Weir: Maybe I will build on that and say that it would be difficult to give a number of global insurers, as Anthony mentioned. Certainly, we do have a number of them that are already insured here. Only one works in this type of business. The rest work in other health business.
I will say this type of business is special. It’s a little bit of a niche business, so it’s not every insurer that would want to come to Canada and set up and do this type of business. That’s why there is only one global insurer that is licensed in Canada to do this.
In Canada we also have many insurers that have set up practices around the world. Manulife is one example of that. When a Canadian company goes to a different country, they have to follow the insurance regime in that country and set up accordingly.
I don’t think we answered the opinion on the minimum period of coverage. Is that the last one? That was on the health coverage you were talking about? I guess we would recommend that they have the health coverage for as long as they are here in Canada, so whether that be two months or five years or whatever period it is. In order not to burden our health care system, we need them to have coverage.
Senator Osler: Our understanding is that when they arrive, they simply have to provide proof of coverage for one year.
Mr. Lin: That was one of the requirements when this program was at its conception. It says that you must have foreign insurance coverage for a minimum of one year. Oftentimes, that’s what they choose to purchase.
Obviously, it would be in the best interests of the Canadian medical system if they continue to have coverage until such time as they qualify for a government health insurance plan — that they continue to hold private medical insurance. As mentioned before, whether it’s from company A or company B doesn’t matter so long as they have something that provides that type of insurance.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for your testimony and for the brief you provided to us. We senators need to be comfortable that people who are coming under this super visa are protected as much as possible from unscrupulous insurance agents in other countries and don’t put themselves and their families at risk of financial ruin. I’m not as concerned about whether the doctors are paid, but we don’t want that to happen.
You suggested that foreign insurance companies need to have the same regulatory framework as Canadian insurance companies do, and that would satisfy the concern that if they met those criteria, then there would be a remedy and recourse if there was a problem. Is that correct?
Mr. Lin: Yes.
Senator Kutcher: The question I have is this: Are you comfortable that the ministerial list would be able to specify those components, and therefore that would mitigate that concern? That’s the first question.
The second question about that concerns what we were told yesterday: that one of the reasons that the legislation is necessary is that ministerial lists can be changed by a stroke of the pen. Would that same argument be applied to the insurance component of the ministerial list? If the legislation can be changed by a stroke of the pen by the minister, could the insurance requirement also be changed by a stroke of the pen? Say, a government not as interested in whether new people are coming or are properly protected might change that simply by a stroke of the pen.
I’m just trying to understand, because if the legislation is there to ensure that people can come and be safe when they come and contribute to Canadian society — which is what we want — I’m having a difficult time putting those two things together. I would like your thoughts on it.
Ms. Murray: Thank you very much. Those are good questions.
When the ministerial directive was introduced in June, we did write to the minister and to the Minister of Finance to articulate our concerns around the list and how it would be developed. We understand that consultations will commence. We have not been invited yet to discuss that. But we would take the same position on the ministerial directive as we have with the legislation — that it has to be the same process and the same regulatory framework for those insurers that are coming to Canada for the protection of the super visa holders, for sure. Anthony, do you want to add anything there?
Mr. Lin: I agree with that.
The Chair: May I ask a quick clarifying question to Mr. Lin or Ms. Murray? You said this type of business is special, it’s different. Can I also assume it’s not insignificant? Because when you throw in super visa holders and all other temporary residents — they might be students, they might be temporary residents — this is not an insignificant part of your business. You are representing the interests of big business here, right? Are you not? You’re big business types.
Ms. Murray: I’ll say these are different products. There is a different product for a temporary foreign worker, for example, than for the super visa holder.
I’ll go back to the beginning of the COVID pandemic and how we worked with governments to ensure that we could bring temporary foreign workers across the border when the borders were closed and ensure that they had appropriate insurance because for provincial governments that’s quite important.
It may be that this is one of the products where we do the most interaction with provincial governments in terms of ensuring that the coverage is appropriate and what they need, at the same time as offering a product to a citizen from whatever country who is coming across the border.
Ms. Weir: I don’t think I have anything more to say. I think it was myself who said this is a niche product, and what I meant by that was it is an important product, absolutely. Canada does have immigrants coming to the country, and we need to protect them and offer protection for them, and that’s what we do. Because it’s dealing with the medical system in Canada, it’s not a product every insurer would offer. Most insurers offer supplementary benefits, which probably many of you do have, which supplement the health care system. That’s probably more common. That’s what I meant by niche.
This is a special product. You have to know the health care system. You have to be able to work with case management, with hospitals and nurses and physicians, and not every insurer has those capabilities.
Ms. Murray: I’ll just comment on the big business, too. Our membership is very diverse. It is in this area too. One of the insurers that offer this product is actually a mutual company. We have non-profit companies, like Green Shield and the Medavie Blue Crosses, so it’s a very diverse industry in Canada. That’s part of the strength of the system. Some of our companies only offer health-type products. Some offer a full range of products. So we range from very small in membership — Blue Cross, for example — to three of our insurers in Canada who are in the top 15 global insurers in the world. So we are a significant global player, but we also have regional players. We have some Quebec companies that only operate in the province of Quebec. Blue Crosses are very regional.
So it’s quite diverse.
Senator Dasko: My question was similar to Senator Kutcher’s, but I would like to probe it just a little bit. In your view, is there a way that the minister could carry out this function of ensuring that foreign companies are suitable for offering this service? Is there, in your view, a way that the minister can actually do this, or do you think that this is not a process that is actually viable in the end?
For example, can the minister consult the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance to engage that office in this process? Or might there be another way that the minister might do this? I am looking to explore and dig a little deeper on that side of it as to whether there is the possibility of something in this process that would actually work, in your opinion.
Ms. Murray: It’s a very good question, senator. Our view is that any insurer that makes the list would have to go through the process of applying through the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. There is certainly a way to work with that if there is an insurer identified. They go through a process and they are approved to operate in Canada and then they get to make the list.
The previous witness talked about the public education aspect of that. One of the things that really would be of concern to us is that the list is perceived to be quite open in some way, and somebody purchases a policy in another country, arrives at the border thinking they have the appropriate coverage, and they don’t, and they are not allowed in. Or, even worse, something happens to them in Canada and they find they are not covered or there is no way to get the money back. There are problems there.
So for us, it’s really, yes, there can be a list for sure, but the approval process has to include the Canadian regulator.
Mr. Lin: That’s accurate.
Senator Dasko: Do you think it can be done or do you think this is not really feasible?
Ms. Murray: There will have to be some coordination. That’s what we said in our letter to the minister. They would have to engage with both the federal and provincial regulators, and alert them that there is this — I am just not sure if there is a list of insurers waiting to come into Canada. I don’t have any sense of that from our discussion. We don’t really understand what is driving that part of it: if there is a list of them, if they know how to apply to operate in Canada. So I’m not certain, but our view is we can approve more insurers in Canada. If they apply and go through the process and want to offer this product, terrific. I’m just not sure.
Senator Dasko: When it comes to public education, I do not see how the Government of Canada can actually launch a public education program in foreign countries on this topic. To me, it’s just not feasible. That side of it, that is.
My question really is about digging into this process and whether the minister would be able to have a process that would be fulsome and would meet the needs that you think are important.
Ms. Murray: Does he have the authority to create a list? That would maybe be another way of asking the question. He certainly wouldn’t have the authority without having discussions with the regulators, in our view.
It’s not self-evident as to how that would work. On the other hand, if we’re going to try to create more competition, then that’s a good thing, as long as the processes are followed. That’s why we’re suggesting that we just refer to the process in this bill.
It’s one thing to have a ministerial directive where there are discussions. It’s quite another to have a piece of legislation that talks about a list in the absence of any kind of cross-reference to the Insurance Companies Act or process or consumer protection in any way. It’s concerning to us.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Martin: My colleagues have asked some of the questions that I had, but it’s also important that we’re having this discussion.
I’m looking at the glass as half full. There is no such list, but there is going to be a framework, and there will be criteria set. The previous witness talked about how that can be effective.
I think that all of us are watching, and there will be a designated list, but through a very clear process that will be determined.
You say that the industry is diverse — of course, we’re insured in so many ways — and there are big global players, but this area for super visas is a niche product. I thought you had said there was one global company that offers it, but are there others in Canada that offer this type of insurance? How niche is it? What we are doing in this bill, I believe, is providing other viable options for the families and giving them that choice. I was curious about how niche this product is.
Ms. Weir: I was just going to say that we have 9 or 10 insurers that offer this type of product, and that is out of 20-some health insurers in Canada. So maybe a little less than half offer this type of product in Canada. Of the 10, say, there is one that is a global insurer that is set up in Canada to offer this type of product.
Senator Martin: Where is this global insurer based?
Ms. Weir: Switzerland.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much. My colleagues covered this area, which is of great interest to all of us.
The Chair: Let me hear you say this again so that I understand it, and maybe my colleagues will want to understand it too. This bill gives the minister the authority to develop their own list through ministerial instructions, but that could also mean that the minister develops a list that says that only those who are regulated in Canada will be on the list. The minister could do that, correct?
Ms. Murray: That would be absolutely what we would hope would happen, yes.
The Chair: On competition, it would go against the spirit of the bill, right? I’m not quite sure what that would achieve. Well, it would bring international companies to Canada. Maybe that’s a good thing. But we are straying from the subject.
Thank you very much, witnesses, for your insights into the study. We have been enlightened and educated.
(The committee continued in camera.)