Report to Parliament on the Super Visa Income Requirement, and the Appeal Process and Special Circumstances for all Temporary Resident Visas

Table of Contents

• Executive summary
  1. Introduction: Bill C-242
  2. Overview of the Family Reunification Program
  3. Super Visa
     • 3.1. Minimum income requirement for Super Visa
     • 3.2. Super Visa: facts and figures
     • 3.3. Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus)
     • 3.4. Impacts of the Super Visa
       • 3.4.1. Familial emotional support and cohesion
       • 3.4.2. Social and cultural contributions
       • 3.4.3. Economic contributions
       • 3.4.4. Potential negative impacts and risks
     • 3.5. Potential changes to the income requirement
  4. Establishing an appeal process for all temporary resident visa applications
     • 4.1. Overview of Temporary Resident Visa Program
     • 4.2. Temporary Resident Visa: refusal facts and figures
     • 4.3. Establishing an appeals process: Considerations
       • 4.3.1. Resource implications
       • 4.3.2. Infrastructure requirements
       • 4.3.3. International comparison
       • 4.3.4. Existing commitments and initiatives
  5. Prescribing special circumstances for all temporary resident visa applications
     • 5.1. Overview of existing mechanisms
       • 5.1.1. Mechanisms available to decision-makers
       • 5.1.2. Mechanisms available to the Minister
     • 5.2. The benefits of flexibility
  6. Conclusions
  7. Bibliography
  8. Annex 1: Bill C-242 text

Executive summary

Bill C-242, the Reuniting Families Act, received Royal Assent on June 22, 2023. The Bill enacted changes to the Super Visa for parents and grandparents, including extending the length of stay to 5 years (previously up to 2); and allowing the purchase of medical insurance from foreign companies (previously allowed only from Canadian companies). In addition to these changes, Bill C-242 required that the Government prepare and table a report within one year of Royal Assent. The purpose of this report is to deliver upon this requirement and, as directed by the Bill, examine the following:

1. the impacts of possible changes to the income requirement for the Super Visa program intended for parents and grandparents visiting Canada;
2. the introduction of an appeal process for all temporary resident visas; and
3. consideration of special circumstances for all temporary resident visa applications.

Income requirement for Super Visa. This report analyzes the benefits and potential risks associated with lowering the income requirement for the Super Visa, taking into consideration both economic and social-cultural factors. It was found that, on the whole, visiting parents and grandparents have a positive effect on the well-being of the family, including contributions such as language transmission, cultural heritage preservation, and emotional support. Their assistance with household tasks and childcare are seen among the most important contributions and also constitute the main (indirect) economic benefits, as it allows hosts, especially immigrant women, to seek or increase employment or education to improve economic outcomes. Lowering the income requirement for the Super Visa would allow more Canadian citizens and permanent residents to reunite with their families, especially those with lower income who face the greatest barriers to meet the income requirement for the Super Visa, and could benefit the most. Some risks were identified, such as the likely surge in applications or the financial onus on the host family to support the visiting parent or grandparent, especially for lower income potential hosts that would now meet the requirement. This is turn could lead to over-reliance on social assistance, working without authorization, or potentially fraud. It was found that there are already mitigating measures to manage these risks (e.g. certain application requirements), and more could be explored. The report concludes that lowering the income requirement for the Super Visa could align with the main goal of family reunification, including temporary resident visas such as the Super Visa, to facilitate family reunification, which helps Canada attract, retain and integrate permanent residents who contribute to the success of our country.

Introduction of a new appeals process. This report explores some key considerations for introducing an internal appeal process for all refused temporary resident visa applications, 4 of which includes the Super Visa. It begins by examining the basis upon which temporary resident visas are refused and the existing mechanisms for recourse available to applicants. It also points to the tension between current resources and intake levels, which would be exacerbated if the Department were to introduce a new appeals process. Additionally, it notes the need for a functional feedback system to efficiently and effectively receive, analyze and triage requests for appeals, without which the overall benefit to clients would be limited if timelines were longer than submitting a new application. An international comparison with Migration 5 countries demonstrates that like-minded countries offer recourse mechanisms with limited scope, if at all, and that the anticipated benefits to clients can be minimal. The report establishes that creating a new appeal process for refused temporary resident visa applicants would require significant investment to avoid creating a prohibitively costly appeal application that not only risks having long processing times, but also increasing processing times for other lines of business. Finally, it provides an overview of existing Departmental commitments and work in progress aimed at increasing transparency and improving client communications and experiences, and thus improved outcomes for genuine clients.

Prescribing special circumstances. This report also explores the possibility of regulating special circumstances that officers must consider in their assessment of all temporary resident visa applications. It finds that the Department already has mechanisms and procedures available to decision-makers and the Minister that permit the flexibility to properly address client needs, be it on a case-by-case basis or through broader instruction, should it be deemed necessary. The report underlines the importance of flexibility in the assessment of special circumstances to meet the individual needs of clients and their unique circumstances. Furthermore, it highlights how such a change may also raise questions of inequity if only the special circumstances of temporary resident visa applicants are enshrined in legislation, while those of clients applying under other programs are not.

1. Introduction: Bill C-242

The Super Visa is a multiple-entry temporary resident visa for parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens or permanent residents, with a duration of up to 10 years; when introduced in 2011, each stay could last up to 2 years (now 5 years per stay), with the possibility of extension. Both the host and the Super Visa applicant must meet a series of requirements, among which a demonstrated minimum income for the host and proof of medical insurance for at least one year for the applicant.

In 2021, Member of Parliament Kyle Seeback (Conservative Party) tabled Bill C-242 seeking to: allow visiting parents and grandparents stays of 5 years (previously up to 2); allow the purchase of medical insurance from foreign companies (previously allowed only from Canadian companies); and require the Government to prepare and table a report on reducing the minimum income requirement that a Canadian citizen or permanent resident must meet to have their parents or grandparents visit them for an extended period. The Bill received extensive support during the parliamentary debates, including support from Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). In 2022 IRCC introduced Ministerial Instructions to implement many of the changes proposed by Bill C-242, including an increase in the length of each stay from up to 2 years to up to 5 years per stay, still with the possibility of extension, as well as a commitment to designate a framework for accepting medical insurance coverage from overseas companies. When the Bill received Royal Assent on June 22, 2023, the provisions regarding the health insurance policy and the extended period of stay took effect. The Ministerial Instructions were then amended on September 15, 2023 to ensure clarity to officers and processing consistency.

The present report addresses the remaining provision of the Bill, namely to table a report in Parliament within one year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent to provide analysis on (a) the reduction to the minimum income requirement that a Super Visa host must meet; (b) a review process for decisions made on temporary resident visa applications; and (c) special circumstances to be considered in processing temporary resident visa applications. The latter two items for consideration were amendments made to the original language of the Bill and pertain to all temporary resident visa applications. While the analysis is not about Super Visa applicants specifically, as Super Visas are a subtype of temporary resident visa, the considerations are relevant to them and thus outlined in this report.

2. Overview of the Family Reunification Program

General Scope, intent, general requirements : Family reunification is a key objective and one of the pillars of the Canadian immigration system, seeking to ensure that Canadian and immigrant families are reunited in Canada. As well, the Family Reunification Program complements other immigration streams. For example, an economic immigrant may later sponsor a spouse or parent. The program can help attract highly skilled economic immigrants who may want to sponsor their family. To reflect Canada’s commitment to this objective, immigration under the Family Reunification Program features as a separate category in the Annual Immigration Levels Plan, in response to the demand and need of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to reunite with their families overseas.

Immigration under the Family Reunification Program includes spouses, common-law partners, biological and adopted children, parents and grandparents, and, in special circumstances, other relatives of Canadian citizens or permanent residents. While applicants in this program seek permanent residence, different pathways are open to those seeking to reunite with their families temporarily, such as the Parents and Grandparents Super Visa. The main driver of the Family Reunification Program is not economic, but social: to facilitate for Canadian citizens and permanent residents access to the stability, support, and cultural enrichment their family can provide. When coming to Canada, immigrants often leave families and networks behind and can feel uprooted and isolated from their usual environment and social safety net, which highlight the importance of reuniting with their family. The key criterion for the Family Reunification Program is the genuineness of the family relationship.

Parents and Grandparents Permanent Residence Sponsorship - scope, intent, general requirements : Canadian citizens or permanent residents may sponsor their parents or grandparents for permanent residence.

Eligibility:

• In order to sponsor a parent or grandparent, an individual must be at least 18 years old, be a Canadian permanent resident or citizen, reside in Canada, and meet the income requirement.
• The income requirement is minimum necessary income (MNI) plus 30% for 3 consecutive years preceding the date of the application. MNI is derived from the Statistics Canada Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) and takes into account the sponsor's and the applicant’s family size (plus every other person and their family members for whom the sponsor or co-sponsor has given or co-signed an existing undertakings) on a year-by-year basis.
• Sponsors must also sign an undertaking to promise to support their sponsored family members for 20 years.
• In order to be sponsored, the principal applicant must be the parent or grandparent of the sponsor and be admissible to Canada. The applicant’s spouse/common-law partner as well as any dependent children (up to 22 years old) can also be included on the application and accompany the principal applicant.

Application Intake

• Given the socio-economic benefits of bringing family to Canada, demand for Parent and Grandparent sponsorship is significantly greater than available levels space in the Immigration Levels Plan. As a result, IRCC manages demand by receiving a target number of applications each year. This annual intake process is authorized through Ministerial Instructions.
• The intake process is typically conducted over two stages. First, those interested in sponsorship submit an expression of interest to IRCC during a designated period. Second, from this pool of submissions, the Department invites a pre-determined number to submit an application. Since 2020, IRCC has used a random selection model to invite sponsors to apply. This approach ensures all interested sponsors have an equal opportunity of being selected to submit an application.

General statistics of the Permanent Residence Program: In 2023, the Family Reunification Program represented 23% of all permanent residence admissions. It comprised 109,625 admissions, with 68.6% spouses and partners, 4.9% sponsored children, 25.8% parents and grandparents, and 0.7% other relatives.

Chart 1: Permanent Residence and Family Reunification Admissions, 2023

3. Super Visa

Why was Super Visa introduced : In 2011, due to a large and increasing inventory of applications, the Government paused the Parents and Grandparents Program, and introduced the Super Visa for Parents and Grandparents. The Super Visa was part of the Phase I of the Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification. It was intended as an alternative pathway to allow parents and grandparents to visit their child or grandchild in Canada for extended periods time (i.e. more than a regular temporary resident visa (up to six months), provided that both the visitors and the hosts meet a set of criteria, similar in nature but more permissive than the requirements for the Permanent Residence sponsorship under the Parents and Grandparents Program.

What is Super Visa, and comparison with regular temporary resident visa,. The Super Visa is a multiple-entry temporary resident visa valid for up to 10 years, allowing stays of 5 years at a time. While in Canada and before their authorized period of stay expires, a Super Visa holder can apply for an extension of up to 2 years. Because of the longer periods of stay, there are additional requirements intended to ensure clients are supported while in Canada:

Applicant:

• proof of the family relationship with the host,
• an invitation from the host (including a promise of financial support),
• passing an immigration medical exam, and
• proof of sufficient health insurance for one year, in addition to
• other requirements for all temporary resident visas, such as translated documents, biometrics and police certificates as needed

Host:

• the main requirement is to provide proof of meeting the Minimum Necessary Income, currently established in Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) as the Low Income Cut-Off level for a household living in a city of 500,000 inhabitants or more (please see section 3.1 for more information).

Unlike the Parent and Grandparent sponsorship program for permanent residence, the Super Visa is a temporary resident visa. A typical temporary resident visa (visitor visa) could be single or multiple-entry, have a validity period of up to 10 years, and allow stays of up to 6 months, with the possibility of extension if certain conditions are met. Applicants for a regular visitor visa do not require an invitation from a Canadian host, and must provide evidence of sufficient funds to sustain themselves for the duration of their stay in Canada, along with other required documents to support their application.

Table 1: Comparison of sponsorship, Super Visa, and regular temporary resident visa

Data extracted March 22, 2024.

3.1. Minimum income requirement for Super Visa

The income requirement for the Super Visa plays a crucial role in ensuring that hosts can adequately support their visiting parents or grandparents during their stay in Canada.

The minimum income requirement is established on the basis of the LICO threshold, which is established annually by Statistics Canada, and is defined as the “income threshold below which a family will devote a much larger share of its income than the average family on the necessities of food, shelter, and clothing”. There are different thresholds, depending on the family size and community size. For multiple lines of business, including the Super Visa, IRCC takes into account the LICO for a community size of 500,000 inhabitants or more. For 2023 the thresholds were as follows:

Table 2: Low-Income Cut-Off thresholds, 2023

For the Super Visa, the family size is calculated by including the host in Canada, their spouse or common-law partner, their dependent children, the visiting parents/grandparents, and sponsored persons for whom an undertaking is still in effect and any person hosted under a Super Visa still in effect.

Example 1: A Canadian host with no spouse/partner, no dependent children, and no previous undertaking in effect, invites one parent on a Super Visa. The application must meet the income requirement for a family size of 2 (host and visiting parent).

Example 2: A Canadian host invites two grandparents to visit on a Super Visa. The host has a spouse and a dependent child, and has sponsored one parent through the Parent and Grandparent Program with the 20-year undertaking still in effect. The application must meet the income requirement for a family size of 6. Note that spouses and common-law partners may co-sign the invitation, thus pooling the family resources.

Example 3: A Canadian host with no spouse/partner, two dependent children, and no previous undertaking, invites one parent to visit on a Super Visa. The application must meet the income requirement for a family size of 4.

Super Visa holders are not eligible for social assistance. If the host cannot provide adequate support for the Super Visa holder, this can put a strain on the host family, who may be driven to apply for social assistance themselves or even attempt fraud to obtain social assistance for their parent or grandparent. Thus, the Canadian social assistance programs could be at increased risk of overburden.

From the examples above, it can be seen that some clients may face greater difficulty meeting the requirement, especially lower-income single parents, who could benefit greatly from the assistance of a parent or grandparent. While the minimum income requirement aims to minimize the likelihood of visitors and their families becoming dependent on social assistance during their stay in Canada, the government must strike a balance in the context of fostering familial ties and recognizing the significant contributions of visiting parents and grandparents to Canadian society.

3.2. Super Visa: facts and figures

The Super Visa at a Glance:

Since its introduction in 2011, more than 267,000 Super Visas have been issued. On average, the department has approved around 20,600 applications for the Super Visa per year, with around 17,000 per annum before 2020. The years during the COVID-19 pandemic saw a marked drop in applications, due to safety concerns and travel restrictions. In the past two years there has been a significant increase in applications: 2022 saw an increase to around 49,000 Super Visas issued, almost triple the usual number, and in 2023 more than 73,000 Super Visas were issued, almost double from the previous year and more than 4 times the typical number. This increase can be explained partly due to a facilitative measure to extend the length of each stay to 5 years, up from 2 years. Another factor is the post-pandemic lifting of travel restrictions around the world and a return to processing capacity by the Department. The current processing time for a Super Visa is 81 days for 80% of the cases (as of December 2023).

Table 3: Rates of approval and refusal since 2011

Data extracted March 22, 2024.

Although relatively few applications are refused because the host does not meet the income requirement, this cannot be seen as an indication of the number of potential applicants who don’t meet the requirement. Before applying, potential hosts can determine fairly easily on IRCC’s website whether they meet the income requirement, therefore, IRCC has incomplete data on the extent to which the requirement poses a barrier. According to internal data, refusals are primarily due to not providing the required documentation, such as the host not demonstrating that they meet the necessary income requirements, not holding the required health insurance policy, and not being able to demonstrate an intent to leave Canada at the end of an authorized stay. Due to several reasons, including the fact that often multiple reasons for refusal are recorded in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) (IRCC's integrated and worldwide system used internally to process applications for citizenship, passport, and immigration services), precise numbers of refusal grounds are difficult to obtain. In a typical year, 1-2% of submitted applications are withdrawn. Of the top 5 source countries, 3 have an approval rate close to the average:

Table 4: Top 5 Source countries for Super Visa holders

Based on applications received between 2011 and 2023.

International comparison:

Among like-minded Migration 5 countries, there are in general special visas to allow parents and grandparents to visit their families for longer periods, with different requirements. To conduct a thorough comparison, the provisions for temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents should be seen in conjunction with policies regarding permanent immigration available for each country, as well as policies regarding regular temporary resident visas. The table below summarizes the income/other financial requirement for Migration 5 countries:

Table 5: Migration 5 comparison of visiting options for parents and grandparents

Exchange rates extracted from Bank of Canada as of May 27, 2024

Refusals, extensions, and applications for other immigration streams (2011-2023) :

• Of the 61,930 refused applicants for Super Visa, 18,186 reapplied and of those 22.5% were granted a Super Visa.
• There were 50,539 applications received to extend the stay on a Super Visa, and of those 95.5% were approved.
• The total number of Super Visa holders who had previously had a regular temporary resident visa: 91,828.
• Total number of temporary resident visa applications approved, who were previously refused a Super Visa: 14,658.
• Total number of Super Visa holders who have a Parent or Grandparent sponsorship in progress: 17,620
• Total number of permanent residence applicants who had previously applied for a Super Visa: 40,319; of these, 35,345 applied in the Family Class, 3,549 in the humanitarian and compassionate stream, 1,857 as protected persons, and 183 in the economic class.
• Total Super Visa holders who apply for a work permit from within Canada: 4,789; of these, 4,006 were approved.

3.3. Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus)

Generally, more women than men apply for the Super Visa (64% vs. 36%). The proportion is largely maintained in the number of Super Visas issued (63% women vs. 37% men). Correspondingly, the approval rates for women and men are not significantly different (78% vs. 79% respectively).

Table 6: Super Visa applications, by gender and decision, 2011-2023

Data extracted March 22, 2024.

In terms of the applicants’ age groups, a great majority of Super Visa applicants are aged under 65 (over 69%). More specifically, 41.4% of all applicants are aged 56-64, followed by those aged 55 or less (28%) and those aged 65-74 (24.4%). The remaining 6% are applicants aged 75 or more. Within these age groups, the approval rates are close to the average for most groups, though slightly higher for applicants aged 56-64. For applicants aged 75 or more, the approval rate is 5 percentage points lower than the average of 78% (note that this is the mathematical average that equally counts the outlying and special circumstance years). There could be different explanations for this result: the relatively lower numbers in this age group (which could affect statistical significance), or the more advanced years, often associated with more health issues (which could affect eligibility on medical grounds).

Table 7: Super Visa applications, by age and decision, 2011-2023

Data extracted March 22, 2024.

The Family Reunification Program Evaluation, completed earlier in 2024^{Footnote 1}, highlights key findings from the period 2014-2019, and includes survey results on the perceived contributions of parents and grandparents, both to the family and to Canadian society. Note: These results are based on data extracted in the Parent and Grandparent sponsorship permanent resident program, and extrapolated here as it involves a similar client base and a similar motivation for applying (reunification with parents and grandparents, for periods longer than the 6-month regular visitor visa). For the Parent and Grandparent program surveys, analysis was based on responses from 5,613 clients who immigrated through the Parent and Grandparent program and 8,441 individuals who sponsored their parents or grandparents that arrived in Canada between 2014 and 2019.

In the sponsor survey, it was found that 98% of the sponsors were themselves immigrants to Canada, mostly in the economic stream (67%). It would be reasonable to extrapolate a similar proportion among potential hosts of Super Visa holders.

As will be seen in the following sections, immigrant households are more likely to experience lower incomes, higher incidence of loneliness, and higher incidence of poverty among one-parent families, especially where the parent is a woman.

Low income and poverty rates. According to Statistics Canada^{Footnote 2}, in 2021, 23% of the Canadian population (8.3 million people) were born outside the country and immigrated to Canada. Though poverty rates decreased across the board compared to 2016, immigrants in general have higher poverty rates (9.1%) than the Canadian-born population (6.6%), with refugees and recent immigrants most vulnerable to poverty (13.8% and 16.1% respectively). Over time, the poverty rate for immigrants decreases, but a gap with Canadian-born population remains. In 2021, one-parent immigrant families headed by a woman with a child aged 0-5 had the highest poverty rate (33.8%) among all family types in Canada. Among racialized groups, one-parent families headed by an Arab or Chinese immigrant had the highest percentage of low income (36.0-38.6% if the lone parent is female or non-binary and 30.4-33.1% if the lone parent is male or non-binary)^{Footnote 3}.

Families with a lone female parent are also more likely to experience food insecurity (41%, compared to 18% for all Canadian families)^{Footnote 4}. About one in four (26%) recently immigrated families reported food insecurity, compared to 20% for established immigrants and 17% for families with a Canadian-born major income earner. It is to be expected that food insecurity is associated with lower incomes, but the relationship between incomes and food insecurity can be much more complex. In the context of the Super Visa, hosts are expected to be able to provide for their parent, including, at its most basic level, shelter and sustenance. In this context, income levels may not be the most adequate or complete metrics to determine the ability of the host to support their parent or grandparent. According to the same study, more than one third (35%) of the families living below the poverty line experienced food insecurity, but among those with food insecurity, a large majority (78%) was living above the poverty line. Thus, even if potential hosts meet the income requirement, they may still experience food insecurity and face difficulties in providing for visiting parents or grandparents as well as their family in Canada.

Employment gaps. In the period between 2001 and 2021, many immigrant workers have practically backfilled lower-skilled jobs^{Footnote 5}, gradually replacing Canadian-born workers who moved toward technical and professional occupations (lower-skilled jobs are those requiring high-school education or job-specific training, such as nurse aides, transport truck drivers, food and beverage servers, and retail salespersons). In this 20-year period, the number of Canadian-born workers in lower-skilled jobs dropped by 830,000, while for immigrants it increased by 213,000. Typically, low-skilled jobs are associated with lower wages, less employment security, and lower job satisfaction.

Gender employment gaps. Between 2007 and 2021, full-time employment rates increased among women, except for long-term immigrant women who had been in Canada for more than 10 years^{Footnote 6}. Among women with a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrant women were much less likely to be employed full-time (62-73%, depending on time of arrival in Canada) than their Canadian-born counterparts, including Indigenous women (79-80%), especially for recent immigrants (62%) and especially if the degree was earned outside Canada (59-66%, depending on time of arrival in Canada). Furthermore, it was found that being a mother and in a relationship were associated with lower rates of full-time employment for immigrant women, but not for Canadian-born women, including Indigenous.

Employment income gaps. Data from the 2021 Census^{Footnote 7} reveals that the average employment income in Canada was $55,150, with men earning an average of $63,800 and women $45,880. The same gender disparity remains within the immigrant and the non-immigrant earner groups, immigrant women having the lowest average income from employment, at $44,860. Overall, non-immigrants earned on average $56,350, while immigrants earned $54,000. Recent immigrants had lower average earnings, increasing over time spent in Canada. Women immigrants who had arrived in the previous 10 years had average earnings of $36,160, while immigrant men who had arrived in the same period had earned on average $54,450.

Gender pay gaps. According to one Statistics Canada study^{Footnote 8}, immigrants arriving in Canada as adults (the most likely group to invite their parent or grandparent on a Super Visa) have the largest gender gaps in average hourly wage, compared with immigrants landed as children, and Indigenous and Canadian-born counterparts. Moreover, since 2007 the gender gap has narrowed the least for immigrant women of both categories, compared to Indigenous and Canadian-born employees. Though the gender pay gap has narrowed for all categories since 2007, it remains highest for immigrant women landing as adults and for Indigenous women, when compared to Canadian-born men.

Chart 2: Gender pay gap relative to Canadian-born men, 2007-2022

The lowest pay gap in 2021-2022, when compared to Canadian-born men, was for immigrant men who landed as adults.

Chart 3: Pay gap relative to Canadian-born men, comparison 2007-2008 and 2021-2022

This finding is significant when coupled with the reported contributions of immigrant parents and grandparent, most of which are centered around household and child rearing assistance, activities traditionally performed by women (see section 3.4.3). Thus, it is immigrant women who landed as adults who would most benefit from having a visiting parent or grandparent, and it is also the group that potentially faces most barriers in meeting the income requirements to obtain this much-needed help. Immigrant families led by a single parent of any gender, and especially those from some racialized groups, are particularly vulnerable to poverty, and it is clear that they would face larger barriers to meeting the income requirement, while potentially benefitting the most from the support of another adult in the family.

Limitations of research

The literature and statistical data specifically on Super Visa are limited. There are some similarities with the Parents and Grandparents sponsorship program, namely the same age groups, the same familial relation, largely the same motivation for immigration (reunification), which means that some of the research on Parent and Grandparent permanent residence sponsorship, still limited but somewhat more ample, can be extrapolated to draw conclusions about Super Visa holders and hosts. But there are also significant differences that preclude analogy, for example the permanent status for Parent and Grandparent sponsorship versus the temporary status for Super Visa; the eligibility versus the non-eligibility for certain social program, notably the healthcare system, the different application requirements, process and length, as well as different expectations for participation in society and the economy. Thus, many of the arguments that are focused on economic outcomes or social assistance costs of sponsored Parents and Grandparents are not applicable to Super Visa holders, as they do not qualify for either. Such costs and benefits will have to be considered at family-and community- level, which then indirectly affect the society at large and the Canadian economy.

3.4. Impacts of the Super Visa

Most of the extant research on immigrant parents and grandparents is based on the Parent and Grandparent sponsorship for permanent residence, with few data on the temporary Super Visa, and much of it based on qualitative or anecdotal testimonies. These testimonies are valuable in an assessment of the impacts of the Super Visa on multiple fronts, especially since most of the contributions and costs are on a personal or familial level, and often difficult or impossible to quantify. The discourse on immigrant parents and grandparents generally gravitates towards one of two loci: either emphasizing the economic burden of immigrant elders who drain the resources of the family and the Canadian economy and society at large, or else highlighting the social, familial, and indirect economic benefits of immigrant elders who provide support to the family and enhance the cultural fabric of Canada. In shaping immigration policies, both types of considerations must be weighed, in light of the duty to spend public funds responsibly, but also in light of the main objective for this immigration category, which is to enhance the well-being and productivity of immigrant families and to foster a rich, multicultural societal tapestry.

The recent Program Evaluation highlighted the importance of immigrant and visiting parents and grandparents to immigrant families and the Canadian society at large. During the parliamentary process of Bill C-242 these contributions were a focus point. Academic research on the impact of immigrant parents and grandparents in Canadian families also showcases several key findings, emphasizing significant contributions of immigrant parents and grandparents to familial dynamics, societal integration, and the Canadian economy.

3.4.1. Familial emotional support and cohesion

In the Family Reunification Program Evaluation surveys, when asked to identify the main reasons for undertaking the sponsorship application, 74% of surveyed sponsors reported wanting to see their parent or grandparent more often. This was in alignment with surveyed sponsored Parents and Grandparents, of which 71% identified seeing their sponsor more often as the main reason for moving to Canada. Additionally, 42% of surveyed sponsors wanted to give the sponsored parent or grandparent emotional or social support, and 33% reported that they wanted to improve their family’s quality of life. A vast majority (91%) of surveyed sponsored parents and grandparents reported sometimes or often providing emotional support to their families.

A Statistics Canada study from 2020^{Footnote 9} revealed that immigrants in general are less likely to self-report high levels of mental health than the Canadian-born population (70.7% vs. 72.1%), with recent immigrants self-reporting high mental health well-being in a significantly higher proportion (74.3%) while established immigrants in a lower proportion (68.1%). In 2023^{Footnote 10}, half of all Canadians reported high life satisfaction, with immigrants in lower proportion (46%) as opposed to non-immigrants (53%), and racialized persons in lower proportion (42%) compared to non-Indigenous, non-racialized persons (54%).

 A recent qualitative study^{Footnote 11} performed semi-structured interviews with Super Visa holders and their hosts, specifically in the Chinese community in the Greater Toronto Area (19 participants from 9 families). With regard to the income requirement, only one participant stated that there should be no requirement, noting that “those with low income need more help from their parents; if their parents can come to help them to take care of kids, they will have more time to work” (p.484). Four participants strongly believed the income requirement is necessary, and that the threshold is adequate: “It is reasonable to have the income requirement because if you even cannot support yourself, how can you support parents? Family from outside will be a burden on the Canadian society” (p. 484). Other respondents agreed that there should be an income requirement, but noted that it should not be too high. Most respondents considered the Super Visa a beneficial, necessary option to visit family in Canada. The Canadian hosts also saw many benefits to having their parents and grandparents visit. One noted: “If there were no Super Visa, my mother would not have come when I was sick last year, and no one would have taken care of me” (p. 486). One host commented on the emotional support provided by immigrant parents: “When you are alone and away from family for so long, it is a very sweet thing to have your mom nearby. […]. It is even more effective than medicine. I cannot put into words what a big help she was to me during this time” (p. 487).

Another study, this time focused on the Parent and Grandparent sponsorship program^{Footnote 12}, indicates that the presence of sponsored parents helped the sponsors integrate into Canadian society, and inculcated in the younger generation a sense of identity, stability, and belonging to Canada.

3.4.2. Social and cultural contributions

One of the most important contributions of immigrant parents and grandparents is to preserve heritage, to transmit culture and to foster a strong sense of identity across generations. Their influence extends beyond family support, to community cohesion and enhancement of cultural diversity.

The Family Reunification Program Evaluation highlights the crucial role played by immigrant parents and grandparents in the transmission of language, continuity of cultural traditions, and participation in community work. The Evaluation found that many interviewees expressed that the biggest cultural benefit of Parent and Grandparent reunification was the knowledge transfer that happens between grandparents and their grandchildren. In particular, interviewees highlighted grandparents transmit cultural knowledge and practices, as well as language skills outside of English and French to their grandchildren.

Chart 4: Cultural contributions of sponsored parents and grandparents, 2014-2019

Source: Family Reunification Program Evaluation, 2024. Parent and Grandparent survey

Bringing and sharing diverse experiences were highlighted as an intercultural bridge between a parent’s and grandparent’s culture or origin and their new Canadian home. The impact of immigrant grandparents varies across cultural backgrounds, influencing family dynamics and societal integration differently. Immigrant parents and grandparents play a significant role in transmitting cultural values. 78% of second-generation immigrants reported a strong connection to their heritage due to interactions with their elder relatives.

Language transmission. According to a study on multilingualism by Statistics Canada, immigrant children (second-generation) represented nearly one third (31.5%) of all Canadian children under 15 in 2021. Half of all multigenerational households were multilingual. The study states: “Living in a household where certain languages are spoken necessarily exposes its members to those languages. The languages spoken in the household are the ones likely to be transmitted to children by parents and other household members. In turn, they contribute to the vitality of different communities, be it Indigenous communities, official language communities or immigrant communities, by ensuring that language skills are transmitted to the children”^{Footnote 13}.

3.4.3 Economic contributions

The Family Reunification Program Evaluation reveals the many direct and indirect economic contributions of immigrant parents and grandparents. These contributions include unpaid work in the maintenance of the households, which in turn allows other members of the family to take up employment, work extra hours, or pursue education for more employment opportunities. 

Direct and indirect economic benefits were reported by surveyed Parent and Grandparent sponsorship clients, who said they contributed “often” or “sometimes” to the household activities, through work, including meal preparation (85%), child care (79%), home cleaning, garden care (67%), laundry and clothing care (66%) and running errands (56%).

Through the evaluation, 33% of Parent and Grandparent surveyed sponsors reported being able to work full-time because they had their parent or grandparent in Canada, 20% reported being able to work more hours, 11% reported they were able to attend school/study, and 10% reported being able to return to work.

Chart 5: Household contributions of sponsored parents and grandparents, 2014-2019, self-reported

Source: Family Reunification Program Evaluation, 2024. Parent and Grandparent survey

Academic research shows that the economic contributions of immigrant parents and grandparents, often through unpaid caregiving, provide support not only to their own families but also to the Canadian economy and society. Moreover, it was found^{Footnote 14} that the contributions increase over time and that the non-economic contributions are heavily gendered, with female immigrant parents and grandparents providing more non-economic support than their male counterparts and other similarly aged immigrants in other classes.

A recent study^{Footnote 15} explores the monetary value of unpaid family care work in Canada, across generations and across provinces, based on data from the 2018 General Social Survey. Findings estimate that it would cost between $97.1 and $112.7 billion every year (4.2-4.9% of Canada’s annual GDP) to replace unpaid care work with paid care. The study also found that certain groups make disproportionately higher contributions, including co-residents, older generations (the Great Depression and Baby Boomer generation in particular), lower income individuals and women caregivers. Even though the study does not explore the immigration variable, the findings highlight the “magnitude of the economic contributions family caregivers make to the care economy”(p. 237), while also revealing “ the extent and nature of social injustice in the way in which responsibility for care work is distributed” (p.246). As was seen from the previous sections, immigrant parents and grandparents, as well as their hosts, have many points of intersectionality with all of the groups highlighted in the study as the biggest contributors to family care work.

Other studies^{Footnote 16} highlight the many contributions of immigrant parents and grandparents to the economy of the household, by providing help with housework, childcare, and cooking, thus freeing up time and resources for working-age family members to seek employment, more work, or to further their education for better economic outcomes. Their findings emphasize that the support given by immigrant parents and grandparents benefit in particular immigrant women, who traditionally take on domestic and childcare duties and who may face the greatest challenges in meeting the income requirement, due to lower pay and lower employment incidence.

In the qualitative study on Super Visa^{Footnote 17} a host stated: “My mom took care of my second kid during the first year of her life. Because my mom was here, I returned to work. I quit my job when my mom went back. When my mom came again during the summer, I returned to work” (p.487). The visiting participants reported keeping busy while in Canada, mostly with child care, cooking, housework, and building community connections.

The Family Reunification Program Evaluation concludes: “According to studies from across the world, intergenerational co-residence or close geographical proximity to parents and/or in-laws increases the probability that a woman (particularly a mother) will engage in paid work. According to multiple studies, much of this is attributable to the childcare role played by grandparents. A woman’s ability to share the burden of housework with co-residing parents was also found to increase labour supply”(p.14).

3.4.4. Potential negative impacts and risks

Different stakeholders expressed concern at the cost of caring for immigrant parents and grandparents, their economic dependence on their family, and the drain of resources on Canada. As will be seen later in this section, some academic research also found that the familial dynamic can be negatively affected by the presence of an immigrant parent or grandparent, leading to slower integration into Canada and creating confusion and social isolation in Canadian-born children of the household.

Lowering the income requirement for the Super Visa could potentially lead to an increase in applications and an increase in the number of Super Visa holders. One immediate consequence would be the processing volumes, which could contribute to an increase in wait times. Super Visas are processed relatively fast (81 days as of December 2023), which for many clients is a great benefit and an incentive to apply.

Another often cited impact of the Super Visa is the perceived drain on resources for the host family and the Canadian economy^{Footnote 18}, an effect which would be increased if the income requirement is reduced and more lower-income families qualify for the Super Visa. It should be noted, however, that these studies are focused on Parent and Grandparent sponsorship, with the caveats discussed above. In addition, strictly economic considerations are inadequate in certain immigration streams, such as the Super Visa. The main objective of family immigration, including permanent and temporary family reunification, is not direct economic benefit. It is to provide Canadian citizens and permanent residents, who chose Canada as their home and who contribute to Canada’s economy, with all the tools they need to succeed, such as the company, support and comfort of their families. If immigrants are to live full, productive lives in Canada, they could benefit from some of the same comforts and supports that their Canadian-born counterparts enjoy, especially given the inequalities and hardships immigrants face.

Super Visa holders do not qualify for provincial health insurance or federal social assistance. They must pass a medical exam prior to arrival, to ensure they are healthy when they arrive. They must provide proof of valid health insurance for at least one year from the date of entry, and every time they arrive in Canada or apply for extension of their stay^{Footnote 19}. Their hosts must commit to support them for the duration of their stay, and show they have the means to do so. All of these measures are put in place precisely to mitigate the potential costs that visiting parents and grandparents may place on the Canadian and provincial and territorial resources. Nonetheless, there are still some risks: the hosts may overestimate their financial situation, thus leading to hardship within the family, and potentially to social assistance applications; and, as with any line of business, there is a risk of fraud. Additionally, if the host is not able to afford to maintain health insurance (potentially over the course of 5 years) then the health care system may be obligated to absorb the cost of emergency medical care.

Financial vulnerability. In 2019, one in seven Canadians (14%) and almost one in four recent immigrants (24%) lived in families with incomes in the bottom quintile^{Footnote 20}. The bottom income quintile is marked by financial vulnerability. The percentage of people who are very concerned with meeting everyday expenses steadily decreases with higher income: 63% for bottom quintile, 58% for the next quintile, down to 19% for the top quintile. The median after-tax family income for the bottom quintile was $21,000, compared to the overall median of $62,900. Additionally, the income sources for the bottom quintile are largely from government transfers (62% as opposed to 19.8% overall) and less from wages and salaries (26.6% compared with 59.7% overall). An argument could be made that if the income requirement for Super Visa is reduced, some of these families would qualify for Super Visa. If they invite their parent or grandparent without being able to support the costs, that could increase their financial vulnerability and reliance on social assistance. Another argument could equally be made that access to the Super Visa would give these families the support they need to increase employment or pursue training, potentially leading to better economic outcomes.

Family dynamics. While grandparents often provide essential support, cultural differences may sometimes lead to conflicts or misunderstandings, impacting family dynamics and societal integration. Intergenerational relationships may also face challenges due to cultural and generational differences and potentially affecting family cohesion. Again, there is a scarcity of evidence specific to Parent and Grandparent sponsorship and even more so to the Super Visa, and family dynamics is one area where difference with the Parent and Grandparent sponsorship may be sufficiently significant. Some studies^{Footnote 21} suggest that co-residence with immigrant parents or grandparents may affect negatively both the parental immigrant and the host or sponsor. It was found that immigrant parents, particularly women, suffer from increased dependence, isolation, conflict, and feelings of obligation to perform household duties. Other studies claim^{Footnote 22} that the presence of older generations from the origin culture can impede or delay integration and a sense of belonging to Canada for the host, and can create confusion or resentment in Canadian-raised children of the next generation.

As noted, these claims could be less relevant in the context of temporary visits from parents and grandparents. Furthermore, intergenerational dynamics are not examined in the context of the general Canadian population, comparing co-resident multigenerational households in immigrant vs. Canadian-born families. Additionally, an overall balance of benefits vs. conflicts has not been examined in these studies. Finally, it was seen in the previous section that testimonies in other studies were found to support the opposite conclusion, that the presence of immigrant parents and grandparents benefits both the visitors and the hosts, helping the family settle in Canada.

Perception of the elderly. One source notes^{Footnote 23} that a discourse that focuses on the lower economic outputs of immigrant parents and grandparents, at the expense of their contributions within the family and the community, may engender negative feelings about the elderly and particularly the immigrant elderly. The public may come to see them as a drain on common resources, with little to contribute and this, in turn, may enhance antagonistic attitudes toward their hosts and sponsors, typically immigrant families. Furthermore, arguments that focus on the economic impacts of immigrant parents and grandparents typically focus on the costs to the healthcare system and social assistance. As noted before, in the case of the Super Visa such potential costs and risks are mitigated by their ineligibility for these services. Thus, the discussion is best centered on impacts at the personal, familial, and community level. Indeed, if the family becomes unable to support their visiting parent or grandparent, the situation is generally expected to be resolved within the family. Even if there is some risk of reliance on social assistance or fraud, there is no in-built eligibility for social assistance from the government.

3.5. Potential changes to the income requirement

In effecting any changes to the income requirement for the Super Visa, IRCC must take into consideration a multitude of important factors: impact on the families, impact on Canadian society, potential impact on the healthcare system, impact on the Department due to the surge in applications (potentially affecting processing times for this and other lines of business, or otherwise requiring funds from the Government to obtain the necessary resources to mitigate these impacts).

The previous sections of this report looked at the many contributions of visiting parents and grandparents, as well as potential costs and risks of lowering the income requirement so that more Canadian families can be eligible to host. If the income requirement is reduced, it does not have to be a simple lowering of the threshold, but it can take many forms. For example, IRCC can look at the number of family members to be included in the calculation of the LICO; it can take into account the size of the town in which the family lives, since the cost of living varies and currently the threshold is based on the largest dwelling size; it can count the parent’s or grandparent’s own income in the calculation, since in many cases (though not all) visiting parents contribute to the household expenses; it can adjust the period of time when the income is calculated, thus accounting for temporary drops in income; it can allow siblings or other household or family members to co-host and pool their income resources, since in many cultures the family unit and its resources extend beyond the nuclear family. These avenues are, of course, only a sample of possibilities. More research will be required to determine the optimal balance between facilitation, risk mitigation, and responsible stewardship of public funds and details of how this can be implemented will be provided once this analysis has been undertaken.

4. Establishing an appeal process for all temporary resident visa applications

4.1. Overview of Temporary Resident Visa Program

Under Canadian immigration law, all foreign nationals require a temporary resident visa to travel to Canada, except where an exemption has been made. Currently, Canada employs a largely citizenship-based approach to its visa policy. The Visa Policy Framework sets out criteria designed to assess the risks and benefits of relaxing visa requirements for a country’s citizens. 

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires that visitors must meet the foundational component of temporary residence: that is, that these individuals will respect the conditions of their stays as visitors, namely that they will leave Canada by the end of their authorized stay. This requirement is the key criterion that sets visitors apart from permanent residents.

The requirement to satisfy an officer that the intending temporary resident will leave at the end of their authorized stay can be found throughout the IRPR. It covers all stages of the travel continuum from pre-departure to post-arrival. To ensure that these clients meet the requirements to become a temporary resident, their applications are assessed prior to arrival at Canada's borders. Applicable provisions include:

• s. 179 An officer shall issue a temporary resident visa to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that the foreign national;
  • (b) will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2;

In determining eligibility for a temporary resident visa, officers apply a holistic approach in their assessment; namely, one that weighs, on balance, the probability that an applicant will leave at the end of their authorized period of stay. In their assessment an officer will leverage various pieces of information, including, but not limited to:

• employment;
• family ties in the home country vs. any family ties in Canada;
• financial means; and
• the purpose of travel to Canada.

In addition to meeting the eligibility conditions, applicants must also demonstrate that they are not inadmissible for reasons such as security, criminality, health grounds, or financial risk.

When an individual applies for a temporary resident visa, the officer’s decision is informed by their assessment of the information and documents submitted by the applicant as it relates to these factors. In an effort to provide timely decisions, officers rely on the information provided at the time of submission. Requesting additional information inevitably leads to longer processing times. What is more, not all temporary resident visa applications can result in approval. Refusals in and of themselves are an important part of a balanced immigration program, as illustrated by the increases in asylum claims by temporary resident visa holders in Canada and in-transit to Canada in recent years. Applicants who feel that there has been an error in the way their application was processed can leverage existing avenues for recourse.

4.2. Temporary Resident Visa: refusal facts and figures

In 2023, IRCC processed roughly 3.3 Million temporary resident visa applications, with approximately 1.2 Million (40%) ending in refusals. Applicants may be refused for a variety of reasons; ranging from failing to enroll their biometrics, to having insufficient funds to support their stay, to previous criminality. The most common reason for refusal is a negative assessment that a foreign national will indeed leave at the end of their authorized period of stay. Applicants may, however, be found ineligible or inadmissible for several reasons at once depending on the information submitted at the time of application.

Following a refusal, clients have two options for recourse: they may submit an application for leave and for judicial review, or they may request reconsideration on the decision made by the officer. Alternatively, they also may choose to simply reapply and submit new information to overcome their previous refusal.

Judicial Review: If the client is of the opinion there was an error in the processing of their application they can apply for leave and for judicial review to the Federal Court of Canada. Clients must file the ALJR within 15 to 60 days of the refusal being communicated depending on whether the matter arose in Canada or not. The application costs the applicant minimum $50 to file, as well as other fees should the applicant hire private counsel.^{Footnote 24Footnote 25} ALJRs may take over a year in some cases, depending on the volumes the court is seeing, at what stage it is resolved and whether it is taken to an oral hearing or not. Between 2018 and 2022, the Federal Court of Canada received 28,420 non-refugee-related immigration applications for leave and processed 23,844 applications.^{Footnote 26} Given these figures represent all immigration applications for leave and judicial review, in comparison to the approximately 1.2 million temporary resident visa applications refused in 2023 alone, the data suggests that a very small percentage of refused temporary resident visa applicants pursue the judicial review recourse.

Request for Reconsideration: Clients may also submit a request for reconsideration. This is an informal recourse mechanism that exists at IRCC whereby applicants contact the Department and request it to reconsider the decision made on their application. Requests are submitted by email or mail directly to the visa office, or by online webform. When considering the request, the decision-maker may exercise their discretion in determining whether the circumstances justify reopening the previous decision. Some examples of circumstances that justify a reconsideration may include whether or not the decision-maker failed to comply with the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness, or to correct a clerical error. An applicant’s dissatisfaction or disagreement with the decision does not by itself qualify as a reason to reconsider.

The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the officer that reconsideration is justified. Given the informal and ad hoc nature of this recourse mechanism, and the various means by which requests can be submitted, data is limited on the number of requests the Department receives and the subsequent outcomes. Anecdotally, however, a large portion of reconsideration requests are refused, as the reasons for the initial refusal are often not resolved. The importance of providing a complete application in order to avoid delays or refusals is clearly communicated to clients. The Department’s ability to meet service standards is contingent on receiving complete applications at the time of submission; the need to request additional information from clients increases processing times. Further, jurisprudence supports that the onus is on applicants to provide complete information and that an officer is not required to revert back to applicants if their application is missing necessary information - an officer can make a decision on what is before them.

As there is no fee associated with requests for reconsideration, the Department absorbs the costs and impacts on processing. The reconsideration process would not be feasible on a larger scale given the operational impacts and limitations if all refused temporary resident visa applicants (~1.2 Million) requested reconsideration. Doing so would be tantamount to re-reviewing every refused application after triaging and assessing whether reconsideration is justified, thereby more than doubling that caseload and negatively impacting processing times.

Even where an applicant requests reconsideration, should they wish to protect their appeal right, they must still file an application for leave and for judicial review within the prescribed time; otherwise they will be precluded from challenging the original substantive temporary resident visa decision and will only be able to challenge the reconsideration decision in Federal Court.

Submitting a New Application: As is outlined in the refusal letter, applicants can reapply for a temporary resident visa at any time.^{Footnote 27} Applicants may be approved upon reapplication if they respond to the reasons that led to the initial refusal and can demonstrate that they meet requirements. Clients must pay the usual fee of $100 if they choose to submit a new application. From January 1 2018 to December 31, 2023, approximately 40% of clients who reapplied within 12 months of being refused were subsequently approved as they were able to respond to the previous reason(s) for refusal.^{Footnote 28}

Taking into account costs, processing times and outcomes, reapplying is the most efficient mechanism available to clients to overcome refusals.

4.3. Establishing an appeals process: Considerations

4.3.1. Resource implications

In recent years, IRCC has undertaken extraordinary efforts in numerous areas to meet evolving mandate commitments; achieve higher immigration levels targets for permanent residents; process increasing volumes of temporary residents; continue to implement a modernization agenda; and meet targets and service standards. In an increasingly complex, high volume and fast-paced operating environment, IRCC resources are spread thin trying to meet the seemingly ever-growing demands placed upon it.

IRCC is funded to process approximately 4.66 million temporary resident (TR) applications^{Footnote 29} per year from 2022-23 to 2027-28; however current forecasts show that TR application intake could reach over 12.8 million by 2027-28. In line with these projections, temporary resident visa intake was 134% higher in 2022-2023 than the previous fiscal year, and is expected to increase by another 58% in 2023-2024.

In response to the exponential increase in temporary resident applications and subsequent arrivals, in March 2024, Minister Miller announced that IRCC will include temporary residents for the first time when it sets immigration levels in the fall. This change is driven by the need “to make the system more efficient and sustainable.”^{Footnote 30} While this cap is currently only envisioned for study permit and work permit applications, not standalone temporary resident visa applications, it highlights the need to manage intake in light of unsustainable growth.

When taking into account the high volume of temporary resident visa applications received annually, and an average refusal rate of 34% between 2019 and 2023, if the Department were to introduce a new appeals program, it would require considerable resources to meet this additional processing burden. Failure to allocate sufficient resources to assess these applications would result in an unresponsive appeal process and hinder the Department’s ongoing efforts to reduce application inventories and processing times. What is more, the benefit to clients would be negligible compared to reapplying unless the process is adequately funded and staffed to meet demand and return decisions in a timely manner (e.g. to attend a wedding). Prioritization and effective triaging of the caseload would be imperative to return decisions in less time than submitting a new application. Otherwise, submitting a new application would remain the most efficient mechanism to overcome refusals.

In light of the complexity and scale of establishing a timely review process for temporary resident visas, further analysis would be required by the Government to determine all implications and costing details, which may include the need to establish a fee in accordance with the Service Fees Act.

The creation of a dedicated appeals process for refused temporary resident visa applications could also introduce equity concerns if a similar process were not implemented across all temporary resident lines of business. The perception of inequity could thereby generate a need to expand implementation further, representing an average of approximately 6 million temporary resident applications received annually, and an average of nearly 950,000 refused temporary resident applications annually. Doing so would further compound operational pressures on processing networks and the need for adequate funding to deliver and meet client needs.

4.3.2. Infrastructure requirements

Similarly to an appeals process, and in response to a recommendation made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM), IRCC tabled a report in 2023 exploring the feasibility of establishing an Ombuds office to “review the Department’s policies, receive and review complaints, review regular reports on racism and training procedures; and that the office be empowered to take appropriate enforcement measures in relation to these activities.”^{Footnote 31} The report found that IRCC had taken several steps to address the concerns raised and that the introduction of an Ombuds office would not directly address these issues, but rather provide transparency and oversight.

When exploring the feasibility of implementing an Ombuds office, the Department studied other organizations and jurisdictions with client-facing Ombuds offices and large numbers of applications, including United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and Canada Revenue Agency’s Taxpayer Ombudsman, for lessons. The report highlighted that these offices benefited from a functional feedback system with a robust complaints analysis and triaging system, noting that such systems are a pre-requisite to a functioning Ombuds office.

Given IRCC does not have a functional feedback system, it determined that it was neither feasible nor viable to implement a Ombuds office at this time. Instead, the report recommended delaying the creation of an external Ombuds to such a time as an effective and suitable feedback system is in place.

Similarly, the Department currently does not have a way to efficiently and effectively receive, analyze and triage appeal applications. If the Department were to introduce an appeal process, there would be significant upfront and ongoing costs related to the development, implementation and maintenance of an intake and triage system, in addition to the resource implications of processing appeals applications.

4.3.3. International comparison

Based on a review of public-facing web content, among Canada’s Migration 5 partner countries, only Australia and New Zealand provide appeal rights to temporary resident visa-equivalent applicants, and, in general, only those lawfully present in the country benefit from these recourse mechanisms. In Australia, if eligible applicants submit an appeal to a third party tribunal within 28 days of the refusal being communicated,^{Footnote 32} they will consider the application afresh and have the power to overturn a previous decision.^{Footnote 33} In New Zealand, eligible applicants can submit a request within 14 days of a decision being rendered^{Footnote 34} to have their application be reconsidered by a different immigration officer.^{Footnote 35} In short, there currently is no recourse model open to all temporary resident visa applicants among like-minded countries; rather, where one exists, the appeal mechanism is only available to those in the country whose status is at stake. Those ineligible to challenge the previous decision can simply reapply at any time if they feel they have overcome the reasons for their previous refusal.

In addition to the limited scope, international comparisons show that appeals processes can be costly and lengthy. In Australia, it costs $3374 AUD to submit an appeal request,^{Footnote 36} and in the last 6 months, 95% of visitor visa appeals applications were finalized in 476 days,^{Footnote 37} while 90% of visitor visa applications were processed within 24 days.^{Footnote 38} In New Zealand, it costs $250 NZD to lodge a request for reconsideration, and it has taken 11 weeks to process 80% of reconsideration requests,^{Footnote 39} compared to current visitor visa processing times of about 2 weeks.^{Footnote 40} In comparison to submitting a new application, these lengthy processes and high costs may not benefit clients who are seeking to travel for a defined date in the near future, such as to attend a family event.

Compared to Migration 5 countries, Canada’s existing mechanisms do not place limits on access or eligibility. What is more, re-application is the simplest and most inexpensive option for clients. To that end, IRCC is actively working towards improving communication on the reasons for refusals; one of the anticipated outcomes of this work is an increase in approvals when clients re-apply. Unless the new appeals process were adequately funded and staffed, there would be limited benefits to clients: the costs to the Department would translate to higher costs for the client, and the additional demand on resources would result in lengthy processing times for clients submitting appeals applications, as well as for applications under other lines of business. Additionally, there is no guarantee that an appeal process would result in a favourable outcome for the client.

4.3.4. Existing commitments and initiatives

IRCC is actively advancing work aimed at eliminating potential bias in decision making and improving communications with clients, including providing more fulsome reasons for a refusal. The Department has launched several initiatives in the last three years which aim to address a number of the issues raised in the 2023 CIMM reports, as well as to bolster transparency and communication to clients.

Increasing Transparency in Refusals

In response to a recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics,^{Footnote 41} departmental Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) modernization efforts, as well as Strategic Immigration Review findings to improve communications with clients, IRCC launched an Officer Decision Note (ODN) pilot in February 2022. The purpose of the pilot was to proactively release officer decision notes for some temporary resident visa applicants. These notes provide clients with detailed information on why their application was refused, including a breakdown of the officer’s rationale when recording their decision. Preliminary findings indicate that proactively providing applicants with ODNs on refused temporary resident visa applications led to a 57% reduction in ATIP requests. The pilot’s findings also demonstrated that there was no increase in client enquiries, reconsideration requests or litigation requests for those applications. Options to expand this initiative to all temporary resident visa applications are currently being explored. While the intent of the pilot is to reduce ATIP requests, increasing transparency on the reasons for a refusal also makes it easier for clients to reapply for a temporary resident visa and overcome the initial grounds for refusal, without needing to turn to recourse alternatives or ATIP requests.

Improving Communications

The Department is actively also looking into how it communicates with clients and how to make it easier to navigate the IRCC website, which in turn will help clients provide relevant information in their applications.^{Footnote 42} In order to improve communication with clients, a new team called the Client Correspondence Unit (CCU) has been created. The CCU has assumed a leadership role over the client correspondence engagement project, and it aims to provide clients with clear and concise written correspondences, which will ensure that clients better understand the requirements and status of their applications.

Digital Platform Modernization

In addition to improving the clarity and accessibility of information on its website, IRCC is undertaking an important digital platform modernization project. The redesigned and optimized business processes, along with the enhanced digital platform, ultimately mean that clients will see improved processing times; experience reliable, user-friendly and seamless online services; and have access to timely and relevant information about their application status in a single location.

An important part of this project is the creation of the new client experience platform which will allow applicants to access all of IRCC’s programs and services and to interact with the Department in a centralized location. It will offer a more positive, centralized and personalized experience to clients looking for information, applying for programs and services, and checking for updates on the status of their application(s). Under the new client experience platform, IRCC will also begin rolling out a digital portal that will allow applicants and their representatives to send IRCC updated information about themselves or to respond to requests from officers for additional information or documents.

The first application intake release is expected to launch in 2024 to a subset of temporary resident visa clients. It is being built with dynamic questions and clear document requirements based on the responses a client provides. The new portal will also integrate a number of IRCC forms that previously needed to be completed and uploaded separately. This will help simplify the application process for clients and increase the number of complete applications clients send to the Department. 

GBA Plus and Anti-Racism

To follow through on its public commitment to anti-racism, IRCC created anti-racism action plans specific to each business area, added race or racism questions to various IRCC surveys to identify barriers and inform policy changes, and developed a disaggregated data and analytics framework to support evidence-based policy and enhanced service delivery.^{Footnote 43} IRCC has also introduced a suite of new GBA Plus and anti-racism-specific tools aimed at improving IRCC staff’s ability to conduct systematic and intersectional analysis, resulting in initiatives that are more responsive, inclusive and reflective of diverse experiences. These tools include step-by-step guides to GBA Plus, and a pilot Racial Impact Assessment Tool for Policy, tailored to IRCC’s business context. They are intended to support teams across IRCC to put into action commitments on anti-racism.

While these efforts may not lead to a direct impact on the number of requests for reconsideration or applications for leave and for judicial review, the efforts taken by the Department to ensure clients’ intersectionality is considered in decision-making at all levels should help address clients’ concerns regarding potential biases that inform the decisions taken on their application.

5. Prescribing special circumstances for all temporary resident visa applications

5.1. Overview of existing mechanisms

After a temporary resident visa application is submitted, when assessing whether the client meets the requirements of the IRPA and the IRPR, an officer has the discretion, under the IRPA, to take into account an applicant’s unique circumstances within applicable legislative parameters. Flexibility is already implied by the "balance of probabilities" standard of decision making. All applications are considered on a case-by-case basis and all relevant circumstances are taken into account by the decision-maker.

In addition to officer discretion, adequate coverage exists to enable various actors across the Department to provide direction to front-line staff to ensure that applicants’ special circumstances are taken into consideration, be it on a case-by-case basis or through broader instruction, should it be deemed necessary.

The Department has a number of existing mechanisms at its disposal which are much more nimble than enacting a legislative amendment that prescribes a list of special circumstances that officers should take into account when processing temporary resident visa applications.

5.1.1. Mechanisms available to decision-makers

Operational guidance: Officer decision-making is bolstered by various forms of guidance, namely program delivery instructions, and documents outlining official policies and procedures for citizenship and immigration processing. Program delivery instructions provide officers with the most up-to-date guidance for processing applications, ensure consistent processing and program delivery, and help officers properly interpret applicable legislation and regulations.

As such, if it were deemed necessary to encourage officers to take into consideration certain specific circumstances, program delivery instructions could be amended to clarify that officers have the discretion to assess certain requirements in a more facilitative manner in cases where an applicant faces one or more of the prescribed circumstances. This could mean, for instance, that officers should take into account whether the Canadian citizen or permanent resident host was on maternity leave when assessing if they meet the minimum necessary income requirement based on the LICO set out in the Ministerial Instructions for a Super Visa.

Temporary Resident Permit Issuance: If an officer is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of the IRPA or the IRPR for a temporary resident visa – for example, the applicant is accompanied by a family member who is inadmissible – the officer has authority to issue a Temporary Resident Permit to facilitate the applicant’s travel and entry to Canada as a temporary resident should they deem that circumstances justify it.

5.1.2. Mechanisms available to the Minister

In addition to the mechanisms available to officers, there are a number of actions the Minister can take to direct officers to consider applicants’ special circumstances when processing temporary resident visa applications.

Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds: If the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the IRPA grants the Minister or their delegate the authority to grant exemptions to applicants who would not otherwise meet eligibility or admissibility requirements of IRPA or IRPR. This can only be exercised on a case-by-case basis.

Public Policy and Ministerial Instructions: Should the Minister feel the need to instruct officers to take into account special considerations on a larger scale, they have the authority to enact public policies or provide Ministerial Instructions.

For example, the current Super Visa Ministerial Instructions could be amended to instruct officers that the Super Visa requirements, such as the application of the minimum necessary income requirement, should be applied flexibly if the applicant meets specific criteria. The instructions to officers must be clear or they could be interpreted and applied inconsistently. This could ultimately lead to different outcomes for clients, creating a new client irritant. That said, should there be a need, Ministerial Instructions and public policies can be amended or clarified more quickly than the legislation or regulations.

As the above demonstrates, there are several mechanisms in place to address the different circumstances faced by clients; introducing additional authorities above those currently in place would therefore be redundant, and could introduce unnecessary complexity in the decision-making process and lead to slower processing times.

5.2. The benefits of flexibility

Regulating a prescribed list of special circumstances that must be considered by officers when processing temporary resident visa applications removes the flexibility that is often required for decision-makers to overcome unique circumstances, which the current authorities already provide. By listing the special circumstances that officers should consider when processing temporary resident visa applications, the discretionary power to account for any other special circumstances that applicants might face risks being restricted to only those listed. This would work in direct opposition to the intended goal of facilitating clients who are facing circumstances that would otherwise impact their eligibility to travel to Canada.

In addition to potentially creating an inflexible approach to processing, making legislative changes can be quite a rigid and unresponsive process. This does not make it the most suitable option when attempting to address the everchanging circumstances faced by applicants. This is particularly true given the availability of other, more nimble, mechanisms that only take between a few days and a few months to implement. If a list of prescribed special circumstances for officer consideration were enshrined in the IRPA and the government wished to make amendments, be it to add scenarios for officers to consider or to address unintended consequences, there is a risk that such changes could experience long delays until another opportunity to amend the IRPA presented itself, as well as sufficient political will to prioritize the changes.

Enshrining special considerations officers should account for when processing temporary resident visa applications could also lead to inequitable treatment for clients applying under other programs if officers are not also compelled through the IRPA to do so for other lines of business. This could lead to an increase in calls on the Department to address this perceived gap or inequitable treatment of applicants.

6. Conclusions

Regarding the income requirement for the Super Visa for parents and grandparents, this Report has found that there are many benefits to reducing the income requirement, even though certain risks remain, such as a surge in applications, or the potential financial hardships and possible over-reliance on social assistance. Increasing access to host a parent or grandparent on a temporary basis can provide socio-cultural, emotional, and economic support to families who need it most. Furthermore, there are measures in place to mitigate potential risks, such as non-eligibility conditions for visiting parents and grandparents to access provincially subsidized health care or social assistance programs while they visit Canada on a Super Visa.

With respect to the introduction of a new appeal process, this Report has demonstrated that refused temporary resident visa applicants do have recourse mechanisms available to them; they can apply for leave and for judicial review to the Federal Court, they can request reconsideration or, alternatively, they can submit a new application that responds to the reasons for refusal. The introduction of a new appeal process risks exacerbating the existing tension between temporary resident funding that is outpaced by demand. Further, as was determined when considering the implementation of an Ombuds office, the Department does not have the infrastructure in place to ensure the efficient triaging and processing of appeals applications. The international comparison demonstrates that like-minded countries offer recourse mechanisms with limited scope, if at all. It also points to how lengthy and costly it can be to seek recourse, in comparison to submitting a new application. The introduction of a new appeal process would thus require significant funding and staffing to maintain a reasonable fee and processing times in an effort to not only ensure there is a material benefit to clients, but also avoid negative impacts on the processing times of other lines of business.

With regards to prescribing special circumstances for temporary visa applicants, this Report has found that there are sufficient existing mechanisms to enable various actors across the Department to provide direction to front-line staff to ensure that applicants’ special circumstances are taken into consideration, be it on a case-by-case basis or through broader instruction, should it be deemed necessary. Prescribing special circumstances for officer review may, in fact, remove the flexibility that is often needed to overcome unique circumstances, which the current breadth of provisions provides. Such a change also risks creating inequitable treatment for clients applying under other programs if officers are not also compelled through legislation to do so for other lines of business.

Bibliography

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Australia), 2024. Fees. https://www.aat.gov.au/apply-for-a-review/migration-and-refugee/migration/fees

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Australia), 2024. Migration and Refugee Division processing times. https://www.aat.gov.au/resources/migration-and-refugee-division-processing-times

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Australia), 2024. Migration review process. https://www.aat.gov.au/fact-sheets/migration-and-refugee-review-fact-sheets/migration-review-process

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Australia), 2024. Time limits. https://www.aat.gov.au/apply-for-a-review/migration-and-refugee/character-related-and-other-visa-decisions/time-limits

Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, 2024. Global visa processing times. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/global-visa-processing-times

Avila-Yipton, C. (2017). The Economic and Social Costs and Contributions of Parent and Grandparent Immigration. Directed Research Project. University of Ottawa.

Bragg, B. (2014). Families together/families apart: The social and economic impacts of family separation and the changes to the family reunification program in Canada. Calgary, AB: Ethno-Cultural Council of Calgary.

Bragg, B., & Wong, L. L. (2016). “Cancelled dreams”: Family reunification and shifting Canadian immigration Policy. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 14(1), 46-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2015.1011364.

Collacott, M. (2013). Canadian family class immigration: The parent and grandparent component under review. Vancouver, CA: Fraser Institute.

Family Reunification Program Evaluation (forthcoming) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations.html

Fast, J., Duncan, K. A., Keating, N. C., & Kim, C. (2023). Valuing the contributions of family caregivers to the care economy. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-023-09899-8.

Federal Court, 2019. Statistics (December 31, 2018). https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/reports-and-statistics/statistics-december-31-2018

Federal Court. Statistics, 2020. (December 31, 2019). https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/reports-and-statistics/statistics-december-31-2019

Federal Court, 2022. Statistics (December 31, 2020). https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/reports-and-statistics/statistics-december-31-2020

Federal Court, 2022. Statistics (December 31, 2021). https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/reports-and-statistics/statistics-december-31-2021

Federal Court, 2023. Statistics (December 31, 2022). https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/reports-and-statistics/statistics-december-31-2022

Federal Court, 2021. Court and Registry Fees. https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/law-and-practice/court-costs/court-and-registry-fees

Federal Court, 2022. How to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial review (Immigration). https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages//representing-yourself/practice-guides/how-to-file-an-application-for-leave-and-for-judicial-review-immigration#cont

Government of Canada, 2023. An Immigration System for Canada’s Future: A plan to get us there. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/campaigns/canada-future-immigration-system/plan.html

Government of Canada, 2022. IRCC’s Anti-Racism Value Statement. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/anti-racism-strategy/value.html

Government of Canada, 2021. Speaking notes for the Honourable Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship: Announcement related to Temporary Residents. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2024/03/speaking-notes-for-the-honourable-marc-miller-minister-of-immigration-refugees-and-citizenship-announcement-related-to-temporary-residents.html

Grady, P. (2012). The Parent and Grandparent Immigration Program in Canada: Costs and Proposed Changes. Global Economics Working Paper No. 2012-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2003488.

House of Commons, Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics,2023, 44^th Parliament, 1^st Session. The State of Canada’s Access to Information System. https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/ETHI/report-9/

House of Commons, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, 2022, 44^th Parliament, 1^st Session. Differential Treatment in Recruitment and Acceptance Rates of Foreign Students in Quebec and in the Rest of Canada.https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-8/page-24

Immigration New Zealand, 2024. Appealing against a decision to refuse a visa. https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/appealing-against-a-decision-to-refuse-a-visa

Immigration New Zealand, 2024. Fees, decision times and where to apply. https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/preparing-a-visa-application/the-application-process/office-and-fees-finder

Immigration New Zealand, 2024. How to get a temporary visa decision reviewed. https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/preparing-a-visa-application/the-application-process/details-page/nonvisa/how-to-get-a-temporary-visa-decision-reviewed

Li, Y., Guruge, S., & Lee, C. (2023). Canada’s Super Visa Program: Opportunities, Challenges and Social Justice Implications. Studies in Social Justice, 17(3), 477-494.

McLaren, A. T. (2006). Parental sponsorship-- whose problematic? Canadian Electronic Library. Canada. https://canadacommons.ca/artifacts/1190057/parental-sponsorship-whose-problematic/1743182/.

Statistics Canada. (2020). The mental health of immigrants and refugees: Canadian evidence for a nationally-linked database. https://www.doi.org/10.25318/82-003-x202000800001-eng.

Statistics Canada. (2022). Disaggregated trends in poverty from the 2021 Census of Population. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021009/98-200-X2021009-eng.cfm.

Statistics Canada. (2022). Women’s full time employment in Canada, 2007 to 2021. Infographic. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2022058-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2023). Drolet, M., & Mardare Amini, M. Intersectional Perspective on the Canadian Gender Wage Gap, Studies on Gender and Intersecting Identities. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-20-0002/452000022023002-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2023). Financial vulnerability of Canadians with the lowest incomes. Infographic. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2023009-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2023). Multilingualism of Canadian households. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021014/98-200-X2021014-eng.cfm.

Statistics Canada. (2023). Uppal, S. Food Insecurity among Canadian families. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2023001/article/00013-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2023). Table 98-10-0597-01. Employment income statistics by industry sectors, highest level of education, immigrant status and period of immigration, work activity during the reference year, age and gender: Canada, provinces and territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations with parts. https://doi.org/10.25318/9810059701-eng.

Statistics Canada. (2024). Life satisfaction in Canada, 2023. Infographic. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024002-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2024). Low income among persons in one-parent families headed by an immigrant parent. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024014-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2024). Picot, G., & Hou, F. Immigration and the shifting occupational distribution in Canada, 2001 to 2021. https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202400300006-eng.

Vanderplaat, Madine, et al. (2013). What do Sponsored Parents and Grandparents Contribute? Canadian Ethnic Studies, 44(3), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1353/ces.2013.0006.

Zhou, Y. (2013). Toward transnational care interdependence: Rethinking the relationship between care, immigration and social policy. Global Social Policy, 13(3), 280-298. doi:10.1177/1468018113499573.

Annex 1: Bill C-242 text

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Reuniting Families Act.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

2 TheImmigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by adding the following after section 15:

Health insurance policy

15.1A health insurance policy purchased from an insurance company outside Canada that is approved by the Minister satisfies any requirement in an instruction given under subsection 15(4) that a foreign national who applies for a temporary resident visa in order to visit their Canadian citizen or permanent resident child or grandchild for an extended period must have private health insurance.

3 Section 29 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Extended period

(3) In the case of a temporary resident who is authorized to enter and remain in Canada for an extended period in order to visit a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who is their child or grandchild, the period referred to in subsection (2) is five years .

Report to Parliament

Report

4 (1) The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must prepare a report in respect of a reduction to the minimum income requirement that the child or grandchild of a foreign national must meet in order for the foreign national to be able to enter and remain in Canada for an extended period to visit that child or grandchild, including in respect of any special circumstances to be taken into account in the processing of temporary resident visa applications and a review process for the decisions made in relation to those applications.

Tabling

(2) The Minister must cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament no later than one year after this Act receives royal assent or, if either House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting.

Publication

(3) The Minister must publish the report on the website of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration within 10 days after the day on which it is tabled in a House of Parliament.

Explanation

5 If, within two years after this Act receives royal assent, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not provide for a reduction to the minimum income requirement that the child or grandchild of a foreign national must meet in order for the foreign national to be able to enter and remain in Canada for an extended period to visit that child or grandchild or the circumstances or review process referred to in subsection 4(1), the Minister must table in each House of Parliament a statement of the reasons for not doing so.