THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:06 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); and, in camera, to study Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents) and consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Patricia Bovey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I’m Patricia Bovey, a senator from Manitoba and deputy chair of this committee. I would like to begin by asking senators to introduce themselves.
[English]
I’d like to begin this round table introduction by asking Senator Patterson if he would introduce himself first.
Senator D. Patterson: Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Senator Pat Duncan from the Yukon. I’m substituting for Senator Frances Lankin today.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Bernard: Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
[Translation]
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).
[English]
Joining us today — and coming back for a second time — I’m pleased to welcome Kyle Seeback, Member of Parliament for Dufferin—Caledon and the sponsor of the bill. I very much appreciate that we’re eating into your time to come back and ask us further questions. We thank you very much. If I may, I would like to invite you, Mr. Seeback, to present your five-minute opening statement. Then we will carry on to questions. I should also let my colleagues know that Mr. Seeback has received the questions that came out of our prior discussion that we wish to have clarification on.
Kyle Seeback, Member of Parliament for Dufferin—Caledon, sponsor of the bill, as an individual: That’s wonderful — thank you very much. I also want to say thank you very much for inviting me back; I think that this is not an opportunity often afforded to members of Parliament. I really appreciate that you have given me this opportunity. I might like it so much that I would want to come and stay permanently, but I’ll leave that decision to others.
I want to talk about a few things in my opening statement, but I also want to field questions and answer them as best I can. I have followed closely these proceedings, as well as the questions that have been asked here at the committee — I think they are great questions, by the way.
One of the things I want to say is this: There is a difference between legislation and regulation. A lot of the questions I have seen have focused around it — it doesn’t specifically address this issue. With my background as a lawyer, that is often the case. Legislation is enabling. It enables certain things to happen. Regulation then comes in to deal and put more meat on the bones, so to speak. That is how I view Bill C-242, because in the areas where there are questions, specifically with respect to health insurance, the minister is going to act in that regulatory authority. They have already issued ministerial instructions there, and the minister has said clearly that they are going to endeavour to do this properly.
I know the insurance companies have written to the minister, and outlined their very serious concerns. I suspect that the Senate has the minister’s response to the insurance companies. This is a letter — and I’m trying to get the date on this, but I can’t — in which Minister Fraser wrote a response to the insurance companies, and acknowledged all of their concerns with respect to authorizing foreign insurance companies. The minister is well aware of those concerns, and has written to say that they are going to ensure that they get it right when they determine what those rules and regulations are going to be with respect to a foreign insurance company being able to offer this product here in Canada under the auspices of the super visa.
That takes me back to the whole concept of legislation versus regulation. The legislation is going to be enabling. The minister is going to put that in the place that’s going to protect the interests of Canadians, and hopefully add some additional competition.
The final thing is this: Even those who have criticized the bill — whether that’s the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, or even the insurance companies — admit there is a way to do it with respect to insurance. They say that if it’s done properly, and a few foreign insurance companies are authorized, they see that as a good thing.
I, again, go back to the minister’s letter to the insurance companies on this. The minister is well aware of what needs to be done on this. I think the minister will get that work done.
What they are all unanimous on — even the people who have had issues with the extension to five years, or had some issues with the insurance option — is how important the review of the low income cut-off, or LICO, is going to be. I think there is probably unanimous support around this table that this is an important aspect of the bill. I think that’s the important reason why this bill should move forward.
The ministerial instructions already exist on extension from two years to five years — it already exists with respect to foreign insurance as approved by the minister.
What they haven’t done is look at the LICO. I think everyone around the table has heard evidence on this. Even the immigration lawyers acknowledged how beneficial it is for Canadian families to have a parent or grandparent here: They pick up work. They allow a child to pick up an extra shift, do additional work or go back to school. Opening that up to people who are of lower income won’t create risk in Canada — it will actually improve the economic well-being of Canadians.
With that, I’m happy to answer your questions as best I can.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. As usual on this committee, senators will have five minutes for their questions. Mr. Seeback, as you know — having been here before — five minutes includes the answer that you give us.
Before asking questions, I would like to remind, as we do each time, all members and Mr. Seeback 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 and the translators.
Colleagues, today in the chair, I’m going to approach the question-and-answer session slightly differently. I have asked our clerk to draw up a list of everybody’s names by group, balancing it off, so you don’t have to hold up your hand to ask a question — you’re already on the question list. If, when I get to you, you don’t have anything to ask, you can certainly cede your time. Time permitting, we will proceed to a second round of questions.
As you approach your five minutes, I will put my hand up, then thank you very much and move on. I hope that will work.
To start us off, Senator Poirier, the floor is yours.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, Mr. Seeback. Unfortunately, I wasn’t here the first time, but I did follow and read everything that went on at that time.
An issue with the bill is the implementation of it, or the lack of, by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, thus far. It has been disappointing to see them not get any work done on the ministerial instructions since July. If this bill is to be adopted, can you explain the implementation process, and would it put the wheels in motion for the work — that should have begun months ago — to begin?
Mr. Seeback: That’s a good question. When I saw the first appearance of government officials and heard they had done basically no work with respect to the implementation of the ministerial instructions, I was very concerned about that.
However, we are talking about something different and new. This is authorizing an insurance company from a foreign country to offer an insurance product that is going to be potentially relied upon here in Canada.
As much as I’m disappointed with how little progress they have made, it also gives me the impression that they are going to take the time to get it right. I think that’s the big issue here.
When we talk about the insurance aspect of it, we could try to draft something. I know the insurance companies have given us what they think should be incorporated into the bill. The questions are as follows: What if they are wrong? What if they have drafted it in such a narrow way that no one can meet those requirements? I think we should give the time and the deference to the minister’s office and IRCC to put in place the guardrails that will ensure this product is available — and that it will protect hospitals and Canadian taxpayers.
Senator Poirier: The bill says that foreign insurance will need to be approved by the minister. Once the bill is adopted, if a foreign insurer has not been approved by the minister, does that mean they cannot provide insurance for the super visa? Am I correct on that?
Mr. Seeback: That is absolutely correct. They cannot.
Senator Poirier: In a way, consumers will be protected from potential fraudulent insurers all along due to the clause that the minister put in for approval.
Mr. Seeback: That is correct. I know this is a big concern. I can expand, or would you want to keep asking questions?
Senator Poirier: No, that was my last question. I just wanted you to confirm that we’re understanding this correctly — contrary to what some of the insurers have been telling us.
Mr. Seeback: That is correct. When it says “as approved by the minister,” any insurance company trying to offer this product has to be approved. If they are not approved, then the product is not approved.
Right now, you have to be medically admissible to Canada, even if you’re coming under the super visa. To get that, you have to go to a doctor and receive that medical clearance. Right now, we authorize all kinds of doctors — all across the world — to do that. Could there be fraud in that? There could be, but it’s a minimal risk that we are prepared to accept in order to allow this to move forward. I think that’s the same principle I apply here: Could there be a problem? Sure, but we’ll be able to identify that very quickly.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you for being here, Mr. Seeback. I’m impressed that this bill received unanimous support in the House of Commons, so I think senators should defer to the elected chamber whenever possible.
The issue that seems to have arisen in the committee is the insurance question. It seems that the people speaking out against this measure are the insurance lobby — and I would hypothesize that their interests are not the same as ordinary Canadian families hoping to be reunited with loved ones living abroad. I would also suggest that this committee would be remiss to not consider the optics of taking the word of insurance lobbyists over the word of experts who spoke in favour of your bill.
Can you explain how insurance companies are regulated abroad? Are there international standards?
Mr. Seeback: I cannot explain that.
But I want to refer to the minister’s letter that he wrote to the insurance companies — yes, the insurance companies have concerns, and, yes, I think part of their concerns is their bottom line. They are a for-profit driven industry. As a personal injury lawyer, I dealt with insurance companies quite often, and they are very concerned about protecting their bottom line, so I think some of that is happening here.
What the minister wrote to the insurance companies is this — and I’m going to read it into the record right now:
That is why no international providers will be designated until extensive analysis has been conducted. Before moving forward, the department will undertake consultations with provincial and territorial partners, regulators and health sector experts.
The minister is well aware of the concerns — well aware of the risks to our hospitals, doctors and taxpayers — and is going to make very sure that everyone is extensively consulted before they draft those rules, and that no one will be approved until they get it right. I think we should take the minister at his word for that.
Senator D. Patterson: We have heard senators raise concerns on behalf of the insurance lobby, such as the following:
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, to avoid the victimization of Canadians and their parents and grandparents.
We also heard a flat-out denial of that claim made by the insurance lobby from the expert witness Mr. Kareem El-Assal who stated, “The ministerial list would be able to address this sort of concern . . . .” That is his expert opinion. Frankly, I believe it is incumbent on us to listen to the experts here — instead of listening to lobbyists who, perhaps, have a more nuanced viewpoint based on their employment positions.
Would you comment on those viewpoints, please?
Mr. Seeback: I think that even the insurance industry, in its criticism, said they could see a small number of foreign insurance companies being regulated in order to offer this product — and I agree. It may start out with one, right? But, to me, one is better than none. I think we also have the assurance from the minister, in the letter that I just read, that he is not going to proceed until they have had extensive consultation with provinces and stakeholders — and they ensure that they get it right, and we’re not putting our health care system to work.
When I consider those two things — the insurance industry saying, “We could see a path where there are a few that are well regulated,” and the minister saying, “I’m going to make sure it’s well regulated” — I think, to me, that answers the question. If we, as parliamentarians, try to design that system, I think we run the risk of getting it wrong — as opposed to the minister getting it right when he says that he is going to get it right.
Senator D. Patterson: Would you please table that letter with the clerk for our benefit?
Mr. Seeback: Yes, I’m happy to do that.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for being with us today to provide those clarifications.
What you’re saying is that there are sufficient safeguards and protections in the agreements people will have with foreign insurance providers and that all of this will be approved by regulations and so forth. You seem confident in this system. However, what recourse will people have if there are irregularities or if standards are not met? Is there any form of recourse against these insurance companies? Do you address that in your initiative?
[English]
Mr. Seeback: Thank you for the question; it is a very good one. It’s not in my bill — I return to legislation versus regulation. For me, I have legislated the opportunity for the government to do something; I’m suggesting the government now has the opportunity to do this. They could choose not to do it, of course, because it says “as approved by the minister.” The minister could proceed with these consultations and decide, “You know what? I’m not approving anyone.” I think that’s a fair outcome.
My objective on this is to make it enabling, to create the option. It’s about ensuring that I’ve created the option with the proper safeguards in place, which is making sure the minister’s office gets it right. In regard to what the consequences would be, off the top of my head, an insurance company could be removed from the list if they are offering a product that is not sufficient.
I think the minister could also put in place some kind of guarantee that — if an insurance company is offering a product that’s not in compliance — there could be certain penalties, or other things, put in place. Again, I think you’re raising great points. The minister is watching these proceedings. It’s further informing what those guardrails should be — I think they are going to do it.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for the response.
I feel we also have to realize that there are people behind this initiative, behind this bill. People, particularly grandparents, arrive here and they sometimes find themselves in vulnerable situations or facing cultural differences. We need to make sure that they will be able to defend themselves or have recourse if they run into trouble, particularly with regard to insurance. I feel that’s important.
I’d like to raise a question I asked you the last time you were here.
We know that after five years, the government doesn’t check if people renew their insurance, which they must have secured upon arrival in Canada. I hadn’t asked you about this, but do you feel this should be addressed? If someone is here for five years and doesn’t renew their insurance for some reason, we need to know the consequences of that for the provinces and for the individual.
[English]
Mr. Seeback: I am going to approach it in a number of ways: With the current super visa, as it exists, you could stay for two years, so it could already have lapsed. We heard from department officials, and we haven’t heard any evidence of that happening. They were somewhat clear on this: They haven’t heard that has happened. It’s something that could happen, but all kinds of things could happen. I think the likelihood is low.
The second thing is this: Under the existing program, you can apply for an extension of that super visa. You could have it extended for another two years, and stay for four years. So this risk is already there; it already exists. I don’t think my bill makes it any worse than what’s already there. If we’re going to approach my bill with “We can’t prove this because there is this risk,” I don’t think that’s the right approach.
I think you have raised a great point. When I watched these proceedings, I was shocked that IRCC said, “Well, when they show up, we check it and that’s it.” Someone who came on the super visa — in its previous incarnation of two years — stayed for two years, applied for an extension, stayed for another two and no one ever checked their health insurance. I think that’s a problem, but I think the government can fix it as well. It has nothing to do with my bill.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: That’s very clear. Thank you.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Mr. Seeback, I hope my question doesn’t seem too simplistic, and I also want you to know that I’m very respectful of all the work you have done on this. But I have been struggling because it seems, to me, that there is a legislative redundancy here. The current framework seems to be working — and would I be correct in understanding that the changes being proposed are really a codification of best-case scenarios that are already happening?
Mr. Seeback: I would say that I drafted my bill, and there were no ministerial instructions on this. When we were about to vote on my bill, I was told that the minister was going to issue instructions taking two parts of my bill, so the bill was already there. The House — in its wisdom — said, “We think that it might be better to codify this into legislation than leave it at the whim of a particular minister.” Yes, there is a bit of duplication here. I do think that legislating this makes it stronger; I think that’s a good thing.
The added benefit is that we get the LICO study, which I keep going back to because I think now — with ministerial instructions — it’s the most important part of the bill. We actually need this work done, but IRCC hasn’t done it. I think Canadians are crying out for it to be done, and it will open up opportunities to lower income families which, I think, is really important.
Senator McPhedran: You have been asked, from a number of vantage points, about the impacts on foreign insurance providers and the eligibility criteria. I don’t see any means in the bill for there to be any enforcement of reasonable standards here.
Mr. Seeback: No.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Mr. Seeback: There isn’t. I did that intentionally because, as an individual member of Parliament, I honestly don’t have the capacity that was needed to conduct all the necessary consultation — with all the provinces and with all the insurance regulators — in order to get this done, especially when I was number six in the lottery. That is why I put “as approved by the minister.” That was how I did it. I drafted it that way by giving deference to the minister in order to ensure they put the proper guardrails in place. If it takes two years, that’s fine. If they decide it cannot be done, I think that’s fine as well. I think they’ll do the due diligence — and do what’s right for Canadian families trying to bring parents or grandparents in on super visas, as well as do what’s right for Canadian taxpayers in hospitals.
Senator McPhedran: If I’m understanding that answer correctly, there’s no concern about the influence of lobbyists — from the insurance industry — ensuring they get a good deal in these regulatory standards?
Mr. Seeback: They might; that’s the risk. I think it’s worth the risk. Maybe next time — that is, if I get another opportunity — I can do a better job on that part of it, but, given the time constraints, I thought this was the best way to go about it, and I still do. I think the minister is going to be under enormous pressure to find a way to get, at least, a couple of foreign insurance companies there.
As we have heard before, the ability to, perhaps, pay in your own currency, whether it is rupees or something else, is a big advantage too. Even if it is one or two, I think it is going to help some people.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thanks for being with us. We appreciate it very much. You would be welcome to try to join us. All you have to do is apply.
Mr. Seeback: The current Prime Minister might not grant me that courtesy.
Senator Kutcher: There are a lot of good lawyers here. That’s all we need: another good lawyer.
Mr. Seeback: You are being too kind by saying “good lawyer.” I appreciate that.
Senator Kutcher: I am pleased to hear that you have a concern about safeguarding Canadians. That is the same concern that we have — which is why we are having some challenges with moving forward — because we want to ensure that happens.
Many of my colleagues here felt, as you did, a bit surprised that a long time had passed, and, yet, there was little to show for it in terms of moving ahead on some of these pretty crucial items. Also, I didn’t feel assurances that the movement would be heading in the direction that one had hoped. I’m somewhat touched by your faith in the minister.
I want to touch upon three areas, and then ask you a question that brings them together: The one issue that we have heard from the insurance companies — and, certainly, they are there to make a profit, and not to help us with our health; that’s clear — is that foreign insurance companies should meet Canadian regulatory standards. I didn’t think that was an onerous issue.
Second — and Senator Petitclerc touched upon this already — there needs to be clear consequences if a foreign company has reneged. Reneging ex post facto doesn’t help a person who has lost all of their money. It is unclear whether there would be any consequences, and what those consequences would be. We were clear on that.
The third area is an issue that, I think, you also dealt with and raised — namely, the need for renewal of insurance. Some people may not realize how costly it can be if they don’t have that. It could bankrupt their families, and that would be a horrible outcome.
Do you think your bill could be strengthened by adding those components to it?
Mr. Seeback: It’s hard to answer this question. When I drafted this bill — and I have to go back very far on this — I worked with the Library of Parliament on it, and they said, “It is hard to do what you are doing because you are trying to, effectively, modify something that has been created by ministerial instruction through legislation.” That’s what I’ve done. The details of the super visa are not in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA — they were created by ministerial instruction. However, as someone who is not in government, how do you alter ministerial instruction? It’s quite a task. I came up with this route. If you are going to try to put those guardrails in this bill, I think that it doesn’t fit within the statute. That’s the challenge. I don’t think trying to put these things in does that.
What I do think is that the minister is well aware — and I hope you read the minister’s letter once I table it — of these challenges. The bigger risk is the risk related to the question that I was asked: Maybe they’ll design it in such a way that no insurance company will come in; I actually think that is the real risk. The risk is that the conditions will be so onerous that no one will choose to offer this product. If that’s the case, so be it; I did my best. Maybe I can find another way to do it down the road. I don’t think the risk is the other way, where it’s going to be too easy, and people are going to be left holding the bag. I do think the minister can design it in such a way that if they do that — who knows what it could be? It could be that they have to put up some kind of bond based on the percentage of policies they are issuing. If we put that in, I don’t think it fits within the IRPA.
Do you understand what I’m saying? I think we have to, maybe, have some faith.
The Deputy Chair: May I suggest we move on to the second round? I’m afraid you are at the end of your time.
Senator Duncan: Mr. Seeback, thank you for your attendance here today, and thank you to my colleagues for allowing me to fill in for one of our other colleagues.
I appreciate the intent of this bill. I have read through it and studied it. Its purpose and intent is to reunite families — I totally appreciate that and applaud your efforts.
Much of the discussion and the reading focuses on insurance for those not covered by a provincial or territorial health care plan in Canada. Without delving too far into the details — but, as we know, that is where the interpretation of legislation is so important — in a former lifetime, I was a manager of insured health. In that capacity, I sat in on a committee representing the Yukon at the Interprovincial Health Insurance Agreements Coordinating Committee. That group decides on the hospital rates everywhere in the country, and talks about the challenges of health care between the provinces and territories — there are entirely different rates for hospitals, and entirely different fees paid to doctors. Something that will be critical is that one may have insurance, but it is not going to cover the doctor’s fees in a particular area.
Let me give you a real example that affects both Canadians and the individuals who may be coming into Canada: Most Canadians don’t realize that they have to have medical travel insurance. If you are picked up by an ambulance in British Columbia, it is going to cost you money. If your doctor says you have a particular condition, and the surgeon you need is in Vancouver — but you are a Yukoner — that’s $27,000 one way. Insurance companies are not necessarily going to cover that. Canadians may not realize they need to have that insurance. For those on a visa, insurance companies may say, “We don’t cover that kind of travel.” Then it becomes a public issue.
My cautionary tale is this: I heard you reference consultation. I didn’t hear you reference consultation — in terms of health care — with the provincial and territorial health officials. That is absolutely critical in this because that’s where the interpretation of legislation is so important, and the interpretation of what insurance is provided is so incredibly important.
Mr. Seeback: The minister does say that in the letter. The letter says that, before moving forward, the department will undertake consultations with provincial and territorial partners, regulators and health sector experts — so I think it is covered. There are existing insurance policies right now in Canada for people who are coming in on a super visa. They are designed in such a way that there are instructions on what they have to have. If you are purchasing health insurance — to come under a super visa — from a Canadian insurance company, it is well defined what that coverage has to cover. I don’t think it is all that hard for the minister to say, “If you’re getting it from a foreign insurance company, it has to have the exact same coverage as what we have here.”
You might be opening up a whole new question, which is: Do the existing health insurance policies from Canadian insurance companies cover every possible contingency? I don’t think any of us know that. With respect, I’m not sure that is within the ambit of what my bill does. That might be something that we want to raise directly — because people are coming already, and they are buying this insurance.
Senator Duncan: That’s right.
Mr. Seeback: To the best of my knowledge — we heard from department officials — no one has said that someone who has come on a super visa has found that their coverage was insufficient.
Senator Duncan: With all due respect, let’s not wait until that happens because then it is a major public issue. We already have public issues with regard to health care in Canada. Let’s not create more when a little bit of homework could make sure that we do not.
Mr. Seeback: I think the minister is going to do that homework. The last thing the minister wants is to be exposed to all kinds of terrible news on insurance that he has authorized. That is going to be directly traced back to a decision the minister has made, so I think the minister will ensure that they get it right.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I’m substituting for Senator Dasko. I have not been following the proceedings, but I have read the documentation. I’m going to ask you a question that may be a little broad, but reading the issues that have come up in the last few appearances made me wonder if this bill is necessary, or if changing the regulations would have been sufficient to accomplish the goals of the bill. That’s my first question.
[English]
Mr. Seeback: I’m not a legislative expert, despite my background as a lawyer. It is really hard to legislatively adjust a ministerial instrument. The super visa exists — by ministerial instruction — as it is, so to try to legislate guardrails around that is very difficult because you are putting things into a statute that don’t generally belong there. The IRPA deals with a whole bunch of things, but not the nuts and bolts of the super visa. The nuts and bolts of the super visa are all in the ministerial instructions. We have functioned very well with that since this was brought in 12 years ago.
What I’m trying to do is, effectively, enable further ministerial instruction on this. I’m not being very prescriptive; I’m leaving it very open-ended for the minister to take the advice of the House of Commons on this — they have said they like this, and I hope the Senate will say the same thing. Then the minister can act in the best interests of Canadians. That’s how I’ve tried to frame this and draft it. It doesn’t address every question, and I don’t think you can with legislation. When you try to design legislation that deals with every terrible outcome — we have a saying in law which is “Tough cases make bad law.” That’s the danger we get into when we try to make this too prescriptive.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for the response. I’d like to point out that I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of the bill. I believe that family reunification is a major issue and that solutions must be found. In reading the documentation, I found that some witnesses told the committee that the super visa could be an alternative to the parents and grandparents program because it would ensure family reunification and could lead to permanent residence. Do you believe that should be the super visa’s role, and how would your proposed amendments to Bill C-242 affect that role?
[English]
Mr. Seeback: I don’t think it replaces it. When I was previously elected, I represented the riding with the largest population in the country at the time, and it is incredibly diverse; there are large diaspora communities. My experience with diaspora communities, and with the super visa, is this: Parents and grandparents want to come for five or six months, and then go back home because that’s where most of their connections are. What this does is provide a bit of a relief valve for people who are going to submit permanent residence applications as a parent and grandparent. It’s not as urgent to do that if you know you can come for five or six months every year for 10 years.
We have real challenges in parent and grandparent family reunification in this country. We used to have massive backlogs; we tried a lottery system. Now I think the system opens for three minutes, and then all the spots are gone — open, apply, bang, closed — and you have all these people who could not get in. I think enhancing the super visa gives them almost the same as PR, in a sense. They can come for five or six months, spend time with their children and grandchildren and then go back home. They can do it for longer periods of time, which is beneficial to their family and beneficial to them, and I also think it doesn’t necessarily make everyone as desperate to apply under the FC4 class, or parent and grandparent family reunification.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Oh: Welcome back, Mr. Seeback. I’m a proud sponsor of this bill. I would like to elaborate upon two questions that my colleague Senator Poirier just asked. To confirm with you, is the minister going to pre-approve some foreign insurance companies to be part of the super visa, or will this be case by case?
Mr. Seeback: The minister is going to pre-approve some, and that’s going to be it. Maybe none will apply — again, we don’t know. When they draft the rules, I suspect it might be something like a request for proposals or RFP. You draft the rules — and some people submit applications to the minister, and say that they would like to offer this product based on all the criteria set out. The minister will say yes or no — either you meet the qualifications or you do not. It won’t be that you can say, “I have met the qualifications, and, therefore, I get to go.” I used to be a swimmer, and I tried to make the Olympic team, but I came in third at two Olympic trials — I don’t get to say that I made the Olympics, right? There is a standard, and it is a clear standard. The minister will set that standard, and will say yes or no — either you made it or you didn’t.
Senator Oh: If there is a pre-approved foreign insurance company, how would this impact the competition and current premium rates?
Mr. Seeback: The reason why I did this on the insurance — and having come back to the committee for the second time, in hindsight, maybe I should have left the insurance alone. No, I’m kidding. It’s proving to be the headache of my bill. I might need a drink after this.
I think the effect on premiums can only be positive, even if it is two companies. I always talk about India because I had a gigantic Indo-Canadian population in my previous riding of Brampton West, and I have a large one in my current riding. If you can pay in rupees, I think that is an advantage. If there is one insurance company from India, and you can pay in rupees — and it has met every test the minister has put in place — that itself is an advantage. That’s what we should be striving for.
Everyone says, “I support the spirit of the bill.” Most of us don’t know how heart-wrenching it is to not spend time with your family, or to not be able to. I was very fortunate; I was born here, and my parents were born here. But for so many communities, it is heart-wrenching.
The heart-wrenching stories that I hear every day are as follows: “I couldn’t go to my brother’s funeral. I couldn’t go to my father’s funeral. I couldn’t go to my nephew’s wedding because I tried to get a regular visitor visa and I couldn’t, or I didn’t meet the LICO.” Imagine you are told your son didn’t make enough money, so he doesn’t get to go to the funeral.
I sincerely appreciate the concern of the Senate in trying to put this under a microscope. I just want to urge you not to lose sight of the fact that I think the minister will get it right, and this will add so much goodness to Canadian families.
Senator D. Patterson: You just mentioned the LICO, Mr. Seeback. The testimony that we heard directly from the experts at the committee is that the third provision of the bill is an important benefit: It is the legal requirement on the minister to explore how to modify the low income cut-off, or LICO, as you just referred to, to make the super visa more accessible.
Section 4 of your bill creates greater oversight on the minister by requiring them to present their findings to Parliament and the public. I’m wondering if you could refresh us, and explain the benefits you envision to come from this provision.
Mr. Seeback: I will actually read from the brief that the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association provided. It’s in line with the research that I have done, and with what I have heard anecdotally.
Forty-eight per cent of participants in the evaluation reported that having their parent or grandparent in Canada helped them work more hours; 34% reported that it helped their spouse work additional hours; 26% reported it helped them go to school, college, university or take a training program; and 44% reported it helped their spouse go back to school to receive additional training.
Who do you think needs that the most? The family that doesn’t have to worry about the LICO? The family that’s making $200,000 a year? It is not for them. The LICO affects the newest Canadians who are struggling the most to make ends meet. They would benefit the most from the LICO being lowered so they can have their parent or grandparent here. If we just look at the economic benefit, it is enormous. If you look at the social benefit, you can’t actually put a dollar figure on that.
Senator D. Patterson: You added some provisions that require the minister to report, and also provide a reason, if they do not put these measures in place. Is that correct?
Mr. Seeback: That is correct. This also came from a parliamentary study that was done in 2017 or 2018 wherein the committee recommended that the minister look into the LICO. The minister did what they sometimes do with reports; they said, “It’s great,” and then put it on a shelf.
This requires something to be done. If the minister says they cannot lower the LICO, it is going to require them to explain why. I think that’s the other important part: The minister can’t just not do it. Now they have to explain why, and I don’t think they can come up with an actual reason to say why. Therefore, I think the LICO will be lowered, and it will be good for Canadians.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you again, Mr. Seeback. If we were to try to help you strengthen this, we could amend it — but we have heard your argument about that — or we could also add observations to it, which might catch some of these components and strengthen it. What are your thoughts on either of those options?
Mr. Seeback: I think amending the bill runs the risk of it, perhaps, not making it through. It is a minority Parliament, and we never know what the life of that will be. I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t know what adding observations does — but if it’s something the minister has to take note of, I think that would be great.
I honestly want to say that I think the Senate has done fantastic work on exposing some of the problems within IRCC with respect to the super visa. I do think the minister is aware of the challenges, but if there are observations that could be added, that’s probably a great way to go.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much for your presentation and your very convincing arguments.
By way of background, you have spoken eloquently about your riding being so populous. Do you have a sense of the difference that the passage of this bill would make across the country — not just in your area?
Mr. Seeback: I think the amazing thing about Canada is that new Canadians go everywhere. I know there is a growing Filipino community in the Yukon, and they probably want their parent or grandparent to come and see them. I don’t think the social benefits are only ascribed to my former riding of Brampton West, or my current riding of Dufferin—Caledon, or Toronto Centre, Rosedale or anywhere else. I think — all across this country — new Canadians are choosing to make their homes all over the place, and it will benefit them.
Senator Duncan: I appreciate that. I was just wondering if you have numbers or any sense in terms of working with IRCC, particularly the impact on rural Canada.
Mr. Seeback: The demand for the super visa is mostly determined by the LICO — the people who economically qualify, and want a parent to come here. I don’t think my actual bill is going to make a big upswing because two to five years is not a huge change, especially with all of the renewals, but it will be beneficial.
I think the big deal will be when the LICO gets lowered. Then, I think, you are going to see a lot more people apply, and a lot more people coming, and I think that’s a good thing. I know there are some people who think it could be a challenge at IRCC because of current backlogs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, just delivered a report indicating that IRCC is well staffed. I’m happy to table that as well. The report states:
Based on our analysis, current staffing levels at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) are expected to be more than sufficient to meet the processing time goal for the next five years.
I think the pandemic affected IRCC, but the PBO thinks they are going to get back on track.
Senator Duncan: We don’t have any idea of numbers?
Mr. Seeback: We don’t; no.
Senator Duncan: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our time. Mr. Seeback, I want to thank you again for the extra time. As you can tell, we dug pretty deeply on this, and we really appreciate the opportunity to have shared our concerns with you — I want to thank you for addressing them, as you have. We bid you farewell, and thank you very much.
Colleagues, we are going to allow Mr. Seeback to leave, and then resume our discussion on this bill in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)