SoVote

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/3/22 5:47:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-242

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the member for Dufferin—Caledon, a member of the Conservative caucus, for putting forward this bill. It is a bill that very much reflects Conservative Party values and emphasizes the importance of open and fair immigration. It is also a bill that is very pro-family. It recognizes the value of strong families and of families being able to spend time with each other, and the need to have creative measures that allow for families to spend time together. What we really need to reflect on in terms of reforms to our immigration system is the value of family and extended family and how we can promote family connectedness so that people do not have to suffer through these processes and spending long periods of time away from close family members in the context of waiting for applications to be processed or in the case of other situations. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to that a bit today. Specifically, the bill put forward, Bill C-242, by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as follows: to allow a parent or grandparent who applies for a temporary resident visa as a visitor to purchase private health insurance outside Canada and to stay in Canada for a period of five years. It would also require the Minister of Immigration to prepare a report on possibly reducing the minimum income requirement for a child or grandchild. This recognizes the value of what is often called a “super visa”, supporting family members so they can be together and support each other. A bit of context is important here. Very often, families are looking at sponsoring members of their immediate or extended family to come to Canada for permanent immigration. That is a valuable channel, but there are limits to it. There is an additional option, one that maybe reflects the desire of some family members who would like to come and stay for a long time in Canada but do not plan on permanently immigrating here. I believe it was a Conservative government that developed the idea of having a super visa program as an additional channel for people. The super visa is for people who are not immigrating permanently to Canada but would simply like to come here, be with family members, like children and grandchildren, and spend extended periods of time with them. As a condition, those who come are expected to purchase private health care and are therefore not relying on the public system. This is very reasonable. We should not stick ourselves in this binary of saying that either people do not come or they come and immediately have all the social services associated with someone who has a permanent presence in Canada. Instead, we can create mechanisms that allow people to come and spend significant amounts of time in Canada with family members, while paying privately for insurance. At the same time, we should look to make these channels more accessible and more reasonable so that more people can take advantage of these opportunities to be together as a family. The super visa program is a very good program and a very popular program, and for those who are able to fit into this stream, it really achieves the best of all possible worlds. It is beneficial to Canadian society to have these folks come and be with family members and provide various kinds of support to their families. Also, again, it recognizes the fact that there are some limits in the permanent immigration stream regarding parents and grandparents. It strengthens this particular stream and allows those who may not wish to be here permanently to nonetheless come and be present in and supportive of their families. Needless to say, the value of extended families is well known, I think, to all Canadians. For many cultural communities, there is a particular recognition of and appreciation for the role being played by extended family members. As I give this speech now, I have five children at home, and I am very glad that my mother-in-law is able to visit and play such a key supportive role in our family. That enables me to travel and enables my wife to do all the things she does. For newcomers to Canada who do not have the benefit of grandparents being here in Canada, that can create some really significant challenges. Having that super visa channel available and extending it to five years, making it more accessible and making it easier for people to make those health care insurance purchases by giving them a broader range of options of who they can purchase from, makes that transition so much easier for people who are living and working here in Canada. This is really designed to ease that process. Again, it reflects a Conservative understanding of the value of family connections, both within the idea of a nuclear or immediate family, but also within the extended family and the supports that are provided there. This is an excellent bill, but there are many more things that the government needs to do, and that Conservatives are calling on the government to do, to address the unnecessary pressures on families that are associated with our immigration system right now. One of the main complaints we are hearing in our offices is the strain that is created for families by backlogs. The fact is that across a broad range of immigration categories, there are huge delays, and this forces families to be apart from each other for much longer than they should be. The idea that people have to wait years, for instance, to have a spouse come to Canada, or that they have to wait years for other members of their families or for caregivers to come to Canada who meet all the requirements and are very much needed, is an issue that we need to really get to the bottom of. This affects the issue of refugee sponsorship as well. The delay, I think, is three years for private refugee sponsorship, so Canadian community groups, church groups and others who are waiting to sponsor vulnerable refugees have to wait for a three-year period. It may be that those refugees are in a vulnerable situation: they may be in need of ongoing financial support where they are or their security may be in question, yet they are sitting and waiting while the Canadian sponsors are sitting and waiting for that long processing delay. Those lengthy delays are simply unacceptable, and they require urgent action by the government and by all of us. In our last concern of the election platform, I was very proud of some of the concrete proposals that Conservatives put forward in terms of expediting, processing and addressing the long backlogs. Of course, the adjudication process is critically important, but it needs to be timely. It is always tragic when families are forced to be apart for years for no reason other than bureaucratic delay, so we need to do much better. The government needs to do much better in terms of ensuring a lean, effective and results-driven immigration system. We all see these frustrations in our offices right now, and this is why we have really been pushing forward on the issue of backlogs across the range of categories. As well, my colleague for Dufferin—Caledon gave notice of motion at the immigration committee today on a motion to call for addressing the backlogs in citizenship applications, which is a different issue from immigration applications. There are various elections coming up in different parts of the country. Here in Ontario, there is going to be a provincial election relatively soon, and people who would otherwise be eligible for their citizenship and would participate in that election are waiting in longer and longer queues to get their citizenship applications processed. It is not just on the front of families being together, but it is on other fronts, such as people being able to exercise their democratic rights and other things where the issue of delays, inefficiencies and backlogs within the immigration system has concrete negative effects for families. We put forward some concrete proposals in our last election platform around addressing this. I think it is very important. I will conclude by congratulating the member for Dufferin—Caledon and recognizing the work that he is doing in trying to strengthen and make more accessible the super visa program. This very much aligns with our vision of a family-friendly immigration policy: one that recognizes the value of strong families and of families being able to be together.

1460 words

All Topics

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

May/3/22 5:57:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-242

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon for his work on this legislation. The government is firmly committed to reuniting families and their loved ones abroad. Family members are an important part of our immigration system. Canada has one of the most generous and comprehensive family reunification programs in the world. Through this program, we help to keep families together and contribute to the integration of immigrants, who are an important part of the success of our communities across our country. Parents and grandparents want to visit their adult children and grandchildren. Likewise, Canadian citizens and permanent residents benefit from the support of their parents and grandparents. Parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who wish to visit their family for a longer period can apply for a parent and grandparent super visa. This process is authorized through ministerial instructions. The super visa is a multiple-entry visa that is valid for up to 10 years and allows for stays of up to two years at a time. Super visa holders may also request an extension of their stay for up to an additional two years while in Canada, and there are no limits on the number of extensions they can request. Since the super visa allows for longer stays than a regular temporary resident visa, applicants must meet additional medical and financial criteria. These criteria include a medical exam, private medical insurance from a Canadian company and financial support from a child/grandchild host, who must meet an income cut-off minimum based on their family size. These important safeguards are in place to ensure that this potentially vulnerable population has financial support and protection in the event of a medical emergency while in Canada. They also ensure that there is no undue burden on the Canadian taxpayer through unpaid medical bills. This is particularly important, as demonstrated by our experience during the pandemic, when many health care systems across the country are strained. This private member's bill, Bill C-242, proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow a parent or grandparent to stay in Canada for five years under the super visa and to purchase private health care insurance from outside Canada. It also requires the minister to table a report on reducing the income requirements that the child or grandchild must meet for the parent or grandparent to qualify for a super visa. While the government supports many principles of Bill C-242, we have concerns that it would reduce our ability to ensure that parents and grandparents are arriving with adequate supports during their stay. We also continue to look out for the best interests of Canadian taxpayers. First, the act is not the appropriate instrument to make program changes to super visa conditions. Parliament intended for the act to serve as framework legislation, which authorizes the making of regulations and ministerial instructions. As I stated, the super visa is authorized through these ministerial instructions. As such, we propose amendments to Bill C-242 to maintain the authority for super visa conditions under ministerial instructions. This would allow the government to respond quickly to the emerging needs of clients, rather than necessitating a lengthy legislative process. The government supports the member's proposal to increase the length of stay per entry. However, we propose to extend this from the current two years to three. Once again, this would be changed through ministerial instructions. Since super visa holders already have the opportunity to extend their stay in Canada for up to two years, this means parents and grandparents could then stay in Canada for up to five years without needing to leave the country. The government believes that increasing the length of stay any further would negate the spirit of the super visa, which is to support temporary residence in Canada. Increasing the length of stay beyond three years without needing to request an extension could lead to visitors establishing more permanent connections to Canada, and this would undermine the purpose of having a legal framework to address temporary residents. The government does not support the member's proposal to allow super visa applicants to purchase private health insurance from foreign companies. Private health insurance is required through a Canadian company, and this is to ensure super visa holders, who are a potentially vulnerable population, have sufficient and reliable medical insurance in case of a health emergency while in Canada. This is an important component of the super visa. The government believes that allowing super visa holders to purchase insurance from companies outside Canada could introduce various risks. Applicants might purchase coverage from unregulated or fraudulent providers, for example, and this could have devastating consequences to parents and grandparents, as well as for our health care system. We have actually seen what can happen when parents and grandparents arrive on regular visas that do not require emergency medical insurance. We know of several cases when parents were visiting on a regular visitor visa and experienced a medical emergency, such as a stroke, during their stay. They did not have health insurance and incurred medical bills worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. These stories underscore the importance of ensuring that super visa holders are protected with appropriate health insurance during their visit. I would like to also note that allowing super visa holders to obtain coverage from international health insurance providers, as proposed in the hon. member's bill, could pose significant complexities for the government to verify the coverage. To ensure the validity of foreign health care providers for coverage and billing purposes, IRCC would have to establish a complex and costly designation framework to establish pre-approved insurance options from abroad. With respect to Bill C-242's final proposal, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship commits to tabling a report to Parliament to review the current financial requirements for children or grandchildren. While the Government supports a review of this requirement, I wish to underscore that we believe a financial requirement remains a necessary and important component of the super visa. While family reunification is an important part of our immigration system, it should not place undue financial burdens on Canadian taxpayers, and visitors should be adequately supported during their stay. I will state once again that the super visa's minimum necessary income requirement is in place to ensure the host child or grandchild can provide for the basic requirements of their visiting family members while they are in Canada. This is also key to maintaining public support for the super visa, which facilitates longer stays of parents and grandparents. The government is committed to family reunification. We must maintain an immigration system that meets the needs of Canadians if we want to take full advantage of this system. The government believes the current conditions of the super visa adequately balance the interests of families that wish to reunite with their loved ones, as well as those of all Canadians, as it protects their hard-earned taxpayer services. The super visa enables us to reunite families quickly and for longer periods. At the same time, the government is able to adequately manage the operations of this program under its current framework. For over a decade, the super visa has remained a popular and accessible option for Canadian citizens and permanent residents to reunite with their parents and grandparents, with approximately 17,000 super visas issued each year. I believe it is a highly successful program by any measure. That being said, the government always remains open to finding ways to improve our programs and policies. Although the government supports the spirit and intent of Bill C‑242, it will only support this bill with the proposed amendments. The goal is to ensure the integrity and long-term viability of the highly successful super visa program.

1318 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/3/22 6:06:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-242

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if she is listening, but I must commend the member for Saint-Jean for the thorough job she has done. She gave a remarkable speech during the previous reading of this bill, which has greatly inspired my speech today. She was again inspiring today when she asked her question to the House and especially when she moved the motion about a woman's right to have free reign over her own body. Unfortunately, this motion was defeated, because some dinosaurs, primarily on the Conservative benches, voted against it. I think it is a disgrace, in the history of this country, to have voted against that motion. I hope that those who did will look at how they voted today. It proved to me that I am not truly Canadian. Today, in Quebec's National Assembly, a similar motion passed unanimously. Once again, that proved to me that Quebec is my country. I will come back to the bill. I also want to commend the member for Dufferin—Caledon for his patience, as he has been waiting a number of months for his bill to move forward. To start, I will quickly explain what a super visa is, for those who are listening today. Basically, it is a visa, a travel document, designed for parents and grandparents. It does not permit the holder to work during their stay. It allows multiple entries of a period of up to two years. There are certain requirements, but the two most important ones are that the applicant must have medical insurance from a Canadian company and must prove that the child or grandchild who will be hosting them here has the financial capacity to support them. This means that there is a minimum income threshold that must be proven by the child or grandchild in order for the parent or grandparent to be issued the visa. It will shock no one to hear that I am in favour of this bill. For many families that want to bring their parents and grandparents to Canada, the logistics, paperwork and delays are an onerous and immense administrative burden. What these families often want is to sponsor their parents or grandparents and bring them here permanently. The super visa being considered provides the opportunity to have one's parents here while the sponsorship and permanent residence application is being processed. It is also another option for those not picked in the lottery. That system is very restrictive. Few people manage to get a sponsorship application for parents or grandparents. I would like to add one thing: Right now, every time we check, the government has a backlog for almost all immigration programs. It would be a good idea to fast-track and simplify the process for those who in all likelihood would receive a favourable decision. I think that would be all right. The bill would also make some minor but specific changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We know this will apply to a relatively small number of the temporary residence visas granted every year. We also know that, because they have temporary status, these immigrants will not end up costing the federal or provincial governments anything. Lastly, we know that the few thousand people granted the existing super visa are generally people of significant financial means. Applicants have proof of funds, and parents and grandparents have prepaid health insurance. In essence, they have to be financially secure. They pose no risk to anybody. What exactly is a super visa? What will this bill change? Bill C‑242 makes four changes. First, visitors must purchase private health insurance outside Canada. Current eligibility criteria require applicants to purchase insurance from a Canadian company. Yesterday, I was talking about supply and demand in a previous speech, and it is the same idea. This could expand the pool of insurance companies, which will probably reduce insurance costs for super visa applicants. As my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, mentioned, all it takes is a quick search to see that this kind of insurance coverage is extremely expensive. For a young person in their forties with no known health issues, it can cost between $1,000 and $1,500. For people slightly older or with any health problems, insurance coverage can cost up to $6,000 or even $7,000 a year. For parents or grandparents, it can cost about $10,000 annually. This does not include all the costs associated with the immigration process. As I said, yes, these people do have resources, but that is no reason to stop them from shopping around for insurance. Just because they have resources does not mean that they should not be able to shop around. The bill requires that foreign insurance companies be accredited by the minister, which ensures that the company is legitimate and that its coverage is compatible with our health care systems. By opening up the market to competition, we take away Canadian companies' monopoly on this type of insurance coverage. I am not an economist, but I have friends who are, and they confirm that I am right to believe this is a basic way to reduce the cost of coverage. It will also allow some foreign nationals to combine this insurance coverage with a policy they already have for their home or vehicle. People might be able to save money, which, I imagine, could be used to settle here, buy goods and contribute to the economy. What is more, Bill C‑242 extends the period of time a person can stay in Canada without having to renew the document from two years to five years. This would help minimize several current irritants. The super visa is a multiple-entry visa, and it is valid for a maximum of 10 years. The number of round trips that parents and grandparents have to make between Canada and their country of origin increases airfare costs. This measure alone would be significantly reduce those costs. As well, renewing the permit every two years very often requires a medical exam for the insurance premium. It is obvious that, over a total span of 10 years, the grandparents’ health could change, which could result in higher premiums and, more importantly, add some unpredictability to their stay in the country. Going back to what I was saying, it is clear to me that as long as these people do not pose a financial risk to taxpayers, we should try to make life easier for them and their children who are hosting and taking care of them. I mentioned earlier that these children, who are permanent residents or outright citizens, must have a minimum of financial means. Bill C-242 does not propose to reduce or abolish the requirement to prove that someone has the financial means to look after their parents or grandparents. Instead, the bill proposes that the minister review the need to maintain the income requirement or threshold. Thanks to my colleague from Saint-Jean, I have learned that many people are talking about repealing it altogether. If the minister decides in the next two years to maintain this low income cut-off at its current level, he will have to explain why he wishes to keep it in place. This bill is therefore not very compelling for parliamentarians. It seeks a review of the relevance of a legislative measure, something that I think is ultimately reasonable and commonly done. When it comes to spousal sponsorships, Quebec does not even assess the spouses' financial capacity, and it nevertheless works very well. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has already looked into something similar and made a recommendation regarding the sponsorship of parents and grandparents. The study on this aspect could help determine whether this threshold is appropriate in different places across Canada. The cost of living is not the same everywhere, as we know. Could there be different sponsors depending on where the individuals will be living? I think this would be a positive thing. It would also acknowledge the fact that many families see a positive financial impact when parents and grandparents come to stay with them, since it allows them to rejoin the job market. I could go on at length, but as parliamentarians we have a duty to set partisanship aside and address our constituents' problems. I want to reiterate that what happened today in the House of Commons with respect to the motion the member for Saint‑Jean tried to move is unacceptable and shameful for this Parliament. It just reinforced my belief that Canada is not my country. My country is Quebec.

1451 words

All Topics

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.)

May/3/22 6:15:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-242

Mr. Speaker, I am quite delighted to rise today to speak to this very important issue of Bill C-242: the reuniting families act. This bill proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow a parent or grandparent who applies for a temporary resident visa as a visitor to purchase private health insurance outside Canada, and to stay in Canada for a period of five years. I am hoping that we can bring this bill into committee to study this very good idea more, and really understand the implications of this idea and how it would impact constituents in my riding and across Canada. One of the main issues that I face in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, with over 50% of the population being first-generation immigrants, and a population of professionals and double-income households, is the issue of child care and raising kids within Mississauga—Erin Mills and the impact of grandparents. I immigrated to Canada when I was 12 years old, and one of the most beneficial things I was able to experience in my childhood was spending my summers with my grandparents from both my mom's side and my dad's side. I learned a lot from them. I learned the value of family from them. This is what I hear a lot from my constituents who are first-generation immigrants and who want their kids, born in Canada, to have that same experience. The importance of having family here in Canada is paramount not just in building strong communities and strong families, but also in terms of our economic prosperity. As I mentioned, we have double-income households in my riding. One of the main issues that my constituents face is child care. I do not just mean having somebody to look over kids throughout the day, but having quality child care with family values and that all-encompassing upbringing that our kids deserve. Grandparents really fulfill that role. Over the past seven years that I have been serving as the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills, this has been one of the top issues that my constituents have raised. They apply for the super visa, as we call it, so that their parents can come and go as they please to make sure that they are well connected with their grandkids and with their kids, who are living meaningful lives here in Canada. Often, especially over the past two years, I have seen that there is a huge delay in how these super visas are being processed, wherever in the world they are being processed, and there is an impact on families. I have a constituent who recently went through a major surgery and she wanted her mom be here with her, but her visa had expired. She had applied for another super visa and waited and waited. The surgery came and the surgery went, and she still did not have a decision on her super visa. That issue of private health insurance is a really big one. When and if we move this private member's bill into committee to study this issue further, I think we could really help constituents such as mine to be able to support their families here in Canada and be able to get the support they need, not only in terms of how they are operating but also how they are raising their kids, how they are doing their jobs and how they are taking care of their health and their well-being and also the health and well-being of their parents, who are trying to come to visit Canada on occasion. It is really important to have the blessings, in my opinion, of our parents as we continue to grow, to evolve and to set down roots as first-generation immigrants here in Canada. Exploring how this bill can impact how we do that is important. I am hoping that we can explore this issue further in committee. I am hoping that we can explore the issue of how private health insurance, especially international private health insurance, would impact the whole regime, the whole scheme of super visas here in Canada. I am hoping we can explore how and what the impact of extending the time of the expiry of a super visa would have on constituents like mine in Mississauga—Erin Mills. I am also really hoping that we can explore and understand how delays happen and what the economic impacts and social impacts of those delays are on families in ridings like mine in Mississauga—Erin Mills. I am hoping we can explore how we can really expand, for example, the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, to make sure that Canadian families have the support that they need, not just in fulfilling the well-being of a family in a riding like mine but also understanding how important the social aspect of it really is. I am a big believer in family. I know and understand and have benefited from having grandparents around as I grew up. I know my nephew and my niece benefit from having my parents around in how they are raised, and I can tell members that they are a lot sharper for it. I am hoping that we can continue to improve our immigration system here in Canada to ensure the well-being of families in ridings like mine of Mississauga—Erin Mills, that we are raising our kids right, that we are providing that support that young families need in order to thrive and to survive as they go about their double-income households trying to manage life events such as unfortunate health instances. we need to try to ensure that we are finding that balance between the economy and society and making sure that our families are being raised right. I am really hoping that the committee really digs deep into how we can really improve not only the temporary resident visa process but also the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, and I am hoping that the committee will hear from experts on the direct and indirect impact and how we can continue to improve that process. Over the past number of years, we have been really digging deep into this question about parents and grandparents and the role that they play in Canadian families. Over the past year, we have had 10,000 people come and visit Canada through the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, despite COVID. The demand has never been higher. In my riding, it is a conversation that I have almost on a daily basis, regarding young families who want their parents to come and have that positive impact on the families they are raising here in Canada. I think there is so much we can do with this. I think that there is so much that we can expand on, that we can tweak and fix, to ensure that families here in Canada are being well-protected and are being raised effectively while we fix the parents and grandparents sponsorship program and also the super visa program, which Bill C-242 would ensures. I am really looking forward to continuing to watch this study of Bill C-242 and seeing how it will impact Canadian families, especially those in Mississauga—Erin Mills and first generation Canadians.

1239 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

May/3/22 6:24:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-242

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to hear that both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will be supporting this bill when it comes to a vote tomorrow. I am disappointed to hear the parliamentary secretary indicate that she is not supportive of the legislation, especially for the reasons why the Liberals are saying they are not supportive. We just heard they are looking forward to having this bill studied. Family reunification was extensively studied at the immigration committee in 2016. The committee delivered a report, which included a report on the super visa. Witness after witness came to the committee and talked about the problems with the super visa. They said that, one, the time to stay should be extended from two years to five years, and two, the low-income test is disenfranchising so many Canadian families from reuniting. I was moved to hear the member talk about how important it was for her to have her grandparents around when she newly came to Canada. Why are we disenfranchising so many other Canadians? In fact, the Canadians who most need the support of their family, in my humble estimation, are Canadians who have just newly come to this country, because they are in a new country and they are trying to make their way. What better way to do that than with the support of their family, which would include their parents and their grandparents. The low-income cut-off disenfranchises so many of those hard-working Canadians. They come here and take lots of jobs, sometimes working two or three jobs to make ends meet. Then the government says, “Well, sorry, you do not have enough income in order for your parents to come and stay with you.” All the evidence shows that when a parent or a grandparent comes to stay with a family here in Canada, it adds to their economic success. Maybe it lets them take an extra shift at work. It actually allows them to have some extra child care. It is an economic boon to the family, which is an economic boon to the country. Why the government does not realize this, I really do not understand. With respect to insurance, I cannot imagine that the government cannot figure out if there is a reputable insurance company in India or in the Philippines or in Burkina Faso. My point is that there are reputable insurance companies all across the world that could offer health insurance. All the government has to do is figure out which ones they are. I do not think it would take a complicated program, as the parliamentary secretary has suggested. There are large multinational insurance companies operating all over the world. It would create competition, which would lower the cost of health care. One of the biggest impediments for families is the low-income cut-off, but even if they meet that, there is the cost of having their parents come, such as air tickets, and there is the very expensive cost of private health insurance. I am not saying no health insurance. All I am saying is, let us expand the suite of health insurance so that maybe it would be more affordable for Canadians, and therefore more families would take advantage of the super visa and more families would have those wonderful experiences, like the member just talked about. To me, this is a bill that everyone should support. I am shocked to hear that this is something that may not be supportable. The thing I found most shocking was the parliamentary secretary saying that the Liberals were concerned about taxpayers and the effect it would have on taxpayers. The only time I have heard them mention being concerned about taxpayers or the effect on taxpayers is with respect to immigration and new Canadians. They do not worry about it in any other thing. I find that shocking. This is a bill that would be fantastic news for families from coast to coast to coast. I am so proud that this is a bill that is going to do that. I am so proud that members of the Bloc Québécois and members of the NDP recognize it. I look forward to their supporting this bill tomorrow when it comes to a vote. I am hopeful that some Liberals would stand up, remove themselves from the whip, and vote for a bill that would be great for Canadian families, especially new Canadian families.

755 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/3/22 6:29:29 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:29 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

63 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

May/3/22 6:30:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a recorded division.

10 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/3/22 6:30:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-242

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 4, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for in Oral Questions.

29 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/3/22 6:30:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand again to speak to the critical issues surrounding support for a just transition for workers in Canada's fisheries. Over the past year, we have seen the devastating impacts of the climate emergency. In my home of British Columbia, in just the past year we have seen a devastating heat dome, wildfires and flooding. The waters keep warming, and the impacts on our communities are increasingly severe. These are all terrible reminders that, both in Canada and around the world, we have failed to act to prevent the climate emergency. It is vital that alongside bold emissions reduction targets, we set out to build a more sustainable economy for the future. Creating a viable fishery that prioritizes the conservation of our marine ecosystems is a key pillar of this plan. This is all the more important because we have seen such drastic declines in the fish populations and consistent failures by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments to protect our marine ecosystems and successfully rebuild stocks. Last year, almost 60% of British Columbia's salmon fisheries were closed as part of the Pacific salmon strategy initiative, also known as the PSSI, to try to help protect incredibly depleted stocks. While the program includes a voluntary licence buyback program, it falls short of the robust transition supports individuals in the industry require. In order to move forward, first nations, fishers, local organizations and coastal communities are asking the federal government to work more collaboratively. Those on the water and along our coasts understand best what is happening. They need to be part of the plan. There are examples we can turn to. Forestry and agriculture workers in British Columbia, for example, saw a dedicated transition plan and financial supports from the B.C. NDP. These are the types of proactive solutions we need to see in the fishing sector to ensure that workers have a future as our economy continues to shift. All workers deserve assurance that they will not be left behind. UFAWU-Unifor president James Lawson said it well when he remarked: While our pleas for support...for displaced fish harvesters continue to go unanswered, forestry and agriculture workers are being rescued by exactly the kind of funding programs our Industry so desperately needs. We know that fishers have ample transferable skills to take on related work including marine transport, coastal and marine tourism and countless other careers. It is time for the government to implement a clear plan that supports all those impacted, including those who are looking to start a new career or to retire with dignity. This year's budget makes it clear that the protection and prioritization of our marine environment, coastal communities and all those impacted are an afterthought for the government. It is also worth highlighting that in the almost 13 months since the PSSI was announced, we still have not seen any plan to rebuild wild salmon stocks. It is not good enough just to close our commercial fisheries and hope that fish populations bounce back. Fishers, coastal communities and all Canadians want to believe that there is a bright future for Canada's marine ecosystems and our fishing sector, but that future is not possible until key funding commitments and a plan are delivered. The longer we wait, the more dire the situation will get and marine ecosystems, coastal communities and fishers' livelihoods will be lost to government mismanagement. People are desperate to know: When will the government deliver a real plan that supports all those in the fishing sector, first nations, coastal communities and our marine environment?

604 words

Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.)

May/3/22 6:34:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the question from the member. I serve on the fisheries committee with her and have a great deal of respect for her. Our department is focused on improving the status of some of Canada's most important fish stocks to allow them to regenerate to provide sustainable fishing opportunities now and for years to come. The department takes a science-based approach to fisheries management. Science advice continues to indicate that some fish stocks are indeed in trouble, and some have been in trouble quite some time despite progressive management measures employed to date. To support these difficult fisheries management decisions, my department has policies in place that guide management responses to changes in the status of fish stocks. The precautionary framework prescribes rebuilding plans for depleted stocks and also indicates that any harvest of fish from a depleted stock must be kept as low as possible to allow the stock the chance to recover. Rebuilding plans developed with indigenous groups and other fish stakeholders are a key tool to promote the growth of depleted stocks so they can come back to the abundant levels that they need to be. I recognize that fishing restrictions aimed at rebuilding fish stocks can have an economic impact during the rebuilding period. However, more significant impacts can result from delaying action or not taking sufficient action to promote the rebuilding of stocks. Healthy fish stocks support resilient ecosystems while improving the potential for economic returns in the long term. The protection and regeneration of our natural environment, particularly in the face of biodiversity loss and accelerated climate change, will be critical for the economic vitality of our fisheries. Commercial fishing is incredibly important to the local economies of Canada's coastal regions, like mine and like the member's, and to the well-being of indigenous and non-indigenous communities throughout this country. That is why we are working closely with stakeholders and communities in making decisions with regard to the protection of the resource. I am conscious of the fact that predictability is important for those who make their living from Canada's fisheries. Through advisory board processes, those who depend on the resource are engaged and informed regarding the potential impacts to stocks and regarding access to the very resource we are talking about today. The common goal of supporting the long-term health of the industry underpins these discussions. It is important to recognize that Canada's fishing industry has faced many challenges over many decades by the nature of the dependence on a natural resource. Changes in access to the resource to support both environmental and socio-economic objectives are not unprecedented. It is because of this that the department has supported the industry by adopting mitigation measures to better adapt to such changes. For example, most fishery licence-holders in Canada have access to multiple species that allow for diversification and avoid dependence on one particular fishery. Through setting the legislative and regulatory environment to support industry through adjustment periods and ensuring regular communication on science-based decisions, the department provides the necessary conditions for continued economic vitality and viability in Canada's fishing industry. In closing, in addition to working with Canada on a specific fisheries management decision, my department is taking a lead role in actively exploring and facilitating a transition to the future blue economy. Throughout the previous year, the department conducted numerous ministerial round tables and engagement processes to hear from Canadians, particularly in the fisheries and oceans sectors, with regard to the challenges that all of us may be facing with the responsible growth of the sector. A comprehensive blue economy strategy will outline the vision for our ocean-related sectors and help guide future government action that will enable long-term growth. As a government, we are super committed to science-based decision-making. It will ensure that fishing opportunities are sustainable now and for future generations of fishers.

663 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

May/3/22 6:38:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's response, but we are not seeing the urgency needed from the government to deliver a real transition plan for workers. This year, we have seen more talk about a blue ocean strategy to revitalize Canada's coastal economy. These types of initiatives should be exciting and hopeful, but based on the Liberal government's track record of failing to protect our marine ecosystems and workers, it just feels like a pipe dream. That is why it is so important that we get to work to implement stock rehabilitation programs and support the transition of our industries to a more sustainable model. Canadian workers should not have to fight their government for support. We know that Canada's response to the climate crisis will be stronger when we are all working toward a shared vision of a healthier economy and a clean-energy future, so I will ask a simple question: When will the Liberal government finally do the right thing and deliver a real plan?

173 words

Mr. Mike Kelloway

May/3/22 6:39:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our department is focused on improving the status of some of Canada's most important fish stocks. Again, I recognize that fishing restrictions aimed at rebuilding fish stocks can have an economic impact during the rebuilding period. I have seen it in my own community. However, more significant impacts can result from delaying action, as I mentioned, or not taking sufficient action to promote the rebuilding of stocks. Commercial fishing is incredibly important to so many coastal communities, if not all communities that have a fishery. That is why we are working closely with our stakeholders and communities at making decisions that protect this resource though things, as I mentioned earlier, such as board processes. Those that depend on the resource are engaged and informed on potential changes to certain stocks or access to the resource. As a government, we are committed to science-based decision-making. We are working to ensure the fishery opportunities are sustainable for future generations to come, and I look forward to working with the member to achieve those agendas.

177 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/3/22 6:40:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today on the Conservatives' ongoing push for the government to allow visa-free travel for Ukrainians. Up until now, unfortunately the government has opposed these efforts. In a constructive spirit, we are continuing to push hoping that the government will do the right thing to allow Ukrainians to come to Canada to flee the challenges they are facing right now as a result of this horrific invasion, and to find safety and security in Canada. I want to remind the House that right after the invasion, my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who is our lead on the immigration file, put forward a motion at the immigration committee. That motion supported visa-free travel. The motion was adopted because Conservatives were able to work constructively with members of the Bloc and the NDP, but that motion was, at the committee level, opposed by the government. This House subsequently voted in the majority to support visa-free travel for Ukrainians. Again, the entire Liberal caucus, without exception, opposed it. There were some members who were not present for that vote, but every member who was present voted against allowing visa-free travel for those coming from Ukraine. At this point, we have seen this shared view with the Conservatives leading and putting this issue forward, but having support from the other opposition parties, emphasizing how crucial it is for the Liberals, the government, to move on this. As of yet, the government has not been willing to implement the will of the House of Commons expressed through that concurrence vote. Why do we support visa-free travel for Ukrainians? At a basic level, we want to help those in need to find safety and security, and to be able to do so in Canada. Many people have stepped up. They want to offer support. They want to open their homes. However, the government has to get out of the way and allow them to offer that support. It is also important to acknowledge that many of those who are coming want to have security while the war is going on, but they also want to return. In many cases, we are talking about mothers and children and the father in the family is still in Ukraine and is participating in the defence of Ukraine. When we have some members of a family and not others looking for refuge, it is very clear that people are not planning on staying permanently. In general, and the government has acknowledged this, the intention of those who are coming here is to be safe until the war ends. Hopefully it will end soon, and people will then be able to return. Let us acknowledge that other countries are doing this. We want to share in that support, recognizing that countries in the region, such as Poland, the Baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as Romania, and countries throughout Europe, are doing a great job offering that visa-free support. It is a simplification of this system. The government has presented counter arguments. Some members of the government have said there is a security issue because we need to be able to do this review. Security precautions can be taken, and they can be taken as they have been in other countries. The minister has also said that time is an issue. He said that regulatory changes, and changes to IT systems and other things, would take 12 to 14 weeks to implement. I do not know why that would be the case since we are simply removing a requirement, but we are almost at the 12-week mark anyway, and people are still having problems accessing these visas. We have actually almost come to the completion of the timeframe the minister said would be in place. I want to share some really compelling stories from people in my riding. There is a case of two mothers who are friends and who have young children. They applied at the same time. One got a visa accepted and one is still waiting. They would like to travel together and have the security of being together. There is another case of a family with four children who all applied at the same time. One was asked for biometrics and nobody else in the family was asked for biometrics. There is another case of a mother and her children who applied on March 16, and they are still waiting for processing. Let us just get this visa-free system in place so we can get it done and stop the pain and suffering for those who are waiting.

783 words

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

May/3/22 6:45:12 p.m.
Watch

I am honoured to rise this evening to respond to the hon. member's question. I want to start by saying that Canada remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukrainian immigrants have helped build this country, and we will continue to stand with the courageous people of Ukraine in upholding the values that our countries share. More than 24,000 Ukrainians have arrived in Canada since January 1 of this year. As the hon. member knows, Ukraine shares borders with the European Union. IRCC has offices and visa application centres in neighbouring countries. We have implemented strong contingency plans to ensure that we can continue to support Canadians, permanent residents, their families and our clients. We continue to prioritize applications from Ukraine across our global processing network. As part of the Government of Canada's response to Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine, IRCC introduced the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel. This is a special, accelerated temporary residence pathway for Ukrainians who are seeking a safe haven while the war continues in their home country. With respect to the hon. member's suggestion regarding visa-free travel, I would say that our new program is the fastest, safest and most efficient way for Ukrainians to come to Canada. All Ukrainian nationals and their families can apply through this new pathway while waiting for the security check. The security check is how we confirm the identity of those seeking to come to Canada and how we protect the safety and security of Canadians. We have exponentially increased our biometrics collection capability. We have also exempted applicants under the age of 18 and over the age of 60, as well as those who have previously travelled to Canada and abided by our rules and laws. The vast majority of these three low-risk cohorts will no longer need to provide biometrics. Between March 17 and May 1, we received about 196,000 applications through this new program and approved over 85,000. I would also like to point out that we are meeting the 14-day processing target. We are committed to processing 80% of applications within 14 days, and we continue to meet this standard. All Ukrainians and their family members who come to Canada under this program can work immediately upon arrival, thanks to an open work permit that they apply for when they receive the authorization, allowing employers to quickly hire Ukrainian nationals. This would not be possible with visa-free travel. In addition to this program, the IRCC is also issuing open work permits and study permits to Ukrainian nationals and their families who are currently in Canada and who cannot safely return home. This will allow them to extend their stay in Canada for up to three years. We also know that Ukrainians will need support when they arrive. That is why we recently announced that Ukrainians will have access to hotel accommodation for a maximum of two weeks and income support for a maximum of six weeks. I would like to close by stating that we recently partnered with Air Canada, The Shapiro Foundation and Miles4Migrants to establish the Ukraine2Canada travel fund, which lets Canadians donate their Aeroplan points with the goal of providing at least 10,000 free plane tickets to Ukrainians who want to come to Canada. We will continue to do more, as quickly as possible, to welcome Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war and to take care of them upon their arrival.

587 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/3/22 6:49:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with great respect for the parliamentary secretary, I think that answer provides some obvious effort to distract and to say, “Look at some of these other things happening over here. Isn't it great that people have an opportunity to work when they come to Canada?” Yes: People should be able to work when they come to Canada, obviously, but the question was specifically about visa-free travel. This is the issue that was raised in this question. This is the issue that was raised when a majority in the House of Commons voted to have visa-free travel. It does not make sense at all to say that having the visa requirement in place is necessary for us to be able to do all of these other things over here. What we are saying is that there are other measures that are valuable, of course, for supporting Ukraine and supporting Ukrainians, but one of those measures is lifting the visa requirement. There is no reason that the government cannot proceed with, for instance, having an open work permit while also lifting the visa requirement. I would submit that it obviously would be easier and faster if the requirement for the issuance of the visa was no longer there. Why does the government not do this simple thing? It would make life easier, because it is not meeting its targets in many cases that I am hearing about from constituents. Let us lift the visa requirement.

250 words

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde

May/3/22 6:50:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I realize how much my colleague wants to make this happen, but the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel really is the fastest, safest and most efficient way for Ukrainians to come to Canada. I also want to point out to my colleague that we have approved over 85,000 applications under this special program, and we have welcomed 24,000 Ukrainians to Canada since the start of the year. Hundreds more are arriving every day. We have also worked closely with the provinces and territories, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, resettlement organizations and the business community to ensure not only that Ukrainians can come to Canada, but that they will be taken care of once they arrive. We have partnered with the Red Cross, and I have had the great pleasure of going to see the people. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the organization for helping us with this process.

159 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

May/3/22 6:51:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the last couple of years have been hard on Canadians across political stripes. Whenever I talk to somebody, there is something about the last two years that has caused them a trauma. I would argue that every person sitting in here right now has probably had a similar experience, but what worries me now is that after these two years I feel like we do not know how to talk to each other. I feel like we do not know to be kind to each other, and I feel like we do not know how to be human. That does not mean that we cannot passionately fight for our ideas or advance things, but what I worry about is that we are so focused on calcifying our beliefs, entrenching our beliefs and being convicted in our beliefs as opposed to trying to listen and do something to better the country, that I feel like Canadians are feeling like they have to resort to civil disobedience to be heard. This is on the right and on the left; it is across demographics, and it really bothers me. It is the thing that keeps me up most at night. I could use examples from any political party, but one example that sticks with me the most is calling a certain group of people who believe a certain thing racist and misogynist during the political campaign in 2021. I firmly believe vaccines had a major, incredibly positive impact on limiting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but there were people in Canada who had legitimate concerns or were vaccine hesitant. Instead of trying to listen to their concerns or address those concerns in a meaningful way, name calling was used, and I think that pushed civil disobedience. I am not justifying civil disobedience. There should be no room for that, but what I am trying to say, and we could use any example, is that maybe we need to do a better job of listening to each other on all sides. Even people who hold a certain belief should ask why this is happening and try to listen. I have not seen a lot of movement on our ability to listen or treat each other kindly, so tonight, to follow up on a question I asked several months ago, my question to the government is this: In the spirit of collaboration and in trying to actually fight for some dignity in this country, what is the federal government doing to lower the temperature on political rhetoric, to actually try to listen to Canadians and to bring us together after a significant event and a significant crisis in our country over the last two years?

456 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

May/3/22 6:54:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that Canadians are weary, and I am happy to speak tonight about lowering the rhetoric. I do not think the member will be surprised to find out that I agree with most of what she has said. I find that we Canadians have forgotten how to be kind to each other, and how to listen and how to disagree in a respectful way. The two of us were sent to this place from different provinces and with different priorities, but we were sent here with a shared calling. That calling prioritizes public service and collaboration. While it will surprise none of the hon. members in this place that we often disagree, it is really important that we disagree in a respectful and kind way. I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for always coming to this place in good faith with an eagerness to work with members of all parties and with a steadfast commitment to representing the interests of her constituents and Canadians. I know that, like me, the hon. member has been subjected to threats and harassment due to the rising rhetoric, and that is just wrong. The hon. member has told me before that our constituents have much more in common than they have differences, and she is right. It is why, on a day like today when news has broken about the United States rolling back a woman's right to abortion, it is important that members from all parties stand up proudly to affirm that Canadian women have the right to choice, and that when access to reproductive health care is rolled back we are telling women their health and safety is less important than men's health and safety. It is why I was happy to second the bill introduced by the member for Calgary Confederation to make it easier for all Canadians to become organ donors, and why I am happy to see that the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has reintroduced his bill that would ensure that Canadians who serve on a jury can speak about the trauma associated with the experience when seeking mental health care. All of us who have the honour of being elected to this place have a responsibility to treat it with the reverence that it deserves. We certainly saw things bubble to the surface in late January and early February, with protests in Ottawa, at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, in Coutts, Alberta, and eventually at crossings and other cities across the country. It is something that none of us wanted to see in Canada. It is critical that we continue to speak to each other in a respectful way. I agree with the hon. member that we need to be listening to each other and not just talking. I have had the pleasure of having conversations with the hon. member where we do disagree, and we disagree quite strongly. How do we lower the temperature and the rhetoric in Canada and restore faith in democratic institutions? We need to show Canadians that we can work together on shared priorities. We need to condemn what we know is wrong, and when we work together to accomplish a shared goal, we need to do a much better job of sharing credit and telling Canadians about how, together, we were able to pass laws that will make our country a better and fairer place to live.

580 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/3/22 6:58:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her thoughtful and kind response. There will be people who watched that response and will disagree with some of the things that she said in terms of policy, but I would hope they would agree in terms of the approach: When we disagree, we are disagreeing on something and we are not hating someone, and we are actually trying to build consensus on issues that we feel convicted about very strongly, one way or the other. I believe that our country has the capacity to do this. I believe that people in this place have the capacity to do this. With the time I have left, I would just like to ask my colleague what she thinks we need to do to show Canadians, by example, that this is something that we all need to do, starting here in this place and then across this country, for the betterment of the nation that we all serve and benefit from.

168 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

May/3/22 6:59:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that it is by having conversations such as we are having tonight in the House of Commons. It is by taking these conversations and applying the same principles when we leave this place. I see the good work that is done in committee, and I know that the hon. member has seen the same thing. Good things happen in this place; unfortunately, for some reason, the media do not talk about it, and we ourselves do not talk about it nearly enough when we do collaborate. I will give her my commitment right now, and I suspect she feels the same way. Maybe the two of us can work together to try to lower the temperature and show that it does not matter what political party people belong to: They can work together for the betterment of this country.

148 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 63