Canada-China Relations Committee on Nov. 16th, 2020

[Natasha Kim]

The permanent resident pathways are expected in 2021. We're aiming to have the open work permit temporary pathway in place by the end of the year.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I see.

The government website states this:

Hong Kong residents at risk of persecution who have fled to another country may also be eligible under Canada's existing resettlement programs, including the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program and the Government-Assisted Refugees Program.

I asked the minister this question. Does that include the Five Eyes countries?

[Natasha Kim]

As the minister stated, each case would be assessed on its merits, and we would follow the legal framework that's in place for Canada, which is based on the international definition, which is grounded in there not being another durable solution available.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

So that means it does not include the Five Eyes countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kwan.

We'll go on now to the second round. We have Mr. Williamson for five minutes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to return to some of my colleague Mr. Chong's questions to the minister, which involved revoking student visas of individuals from abroad who harass, intimidate or threaten others in this country. The minister was not prepared to discuss specific cases, for privacy reasons, but could you talk about the process? How does your department track that? How is it recorded? What is the process by which someone who is here as a visitor could be expelled for actions that Canada deems to be unacceptable?

[Natasha Kim]

I can start, Mr. Chair. My colleague, Dr. Giles, may wish to expand on this.

In terms of the general framework, as the minister stated, these would definitely be matters that are handled on a case-by-case basis, and there would certainly be due process involved throughout that process to ensure that we have the right evidence.

I'll hand it over to my colleague for expansion.

[Dr. Nicole Giles]

If indeed there is conviction for criminality, at that point there is an assessment done in terms of whether the visas should be revoked. There is also the due process, as my colleague indicated, prior to removal taking place, ensuring as well that if an individual is removed from the country they won't come into harm's way once they are returned to their home country.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

That's interesting. So there has to be a conviction. It's a very high threshold. Is that correct? The department doesn't do its own investigation to determine that individuals were behaving in a threatening or intimidating or perhaps violent fashion. A police conviction is required.

[Natasha Kim]

In general, conviction would be clear evidence of inadmissibility that would apply in a case like this. Perhaps I'll clarify as well that IRCC does not have investigative powers.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Okay. So there is no reporting mechanism within the department. It would become a police matter, and then it would be picked up.

I'm trying to understand the process that an individual could go through. Perhaps I'll bring it down to a micro level. If there is a Hong Kong citizen in Canada today at school, and this person is threatened or harassed by others, what would the process be? Could this person approach your department, or is it a police matter?

[Natasha Kim]

Mr. Chair, perhaps we can return to the committee with some clearer details on this. I can speak in general terms.

Any criminal issue would be a matter for the police of local jurisdiction. In terms of the admissibility and the validity of that student permit, there would be both terms and conditions attached to that permit. That would fall under IRCC's mandate. In addition, there would be admissibility concerns that we could also look at.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

If you could provide the committee with some more background, I'd appreciate it. The minister certainly left the impression that he was not able to talk about the procedures because of privacy issues. Now I'm left with the belief that perhaps the department is just not in the business of examining behaviour that we wouldn't expect or we wouldn't want visitors to this country to engage in with regard to threatening or intimidating others who are here for studies or for any other reasons.

I think I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I'm out of time. I know you like to keep a firm watch on that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you for your assistance in that, Mr. Williamson.

Now we'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos for five minutes, please.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

I'm very interested in the extent to which multilateral approaches can be of assistance here in terms of Canada's approach to China generally but also specifically the matter and challenge of Hong Kong. My question is with respect to the recent policy announcement that's been made and explained here tonight. To what extent did the government consult with and reach out to like-minded allies, whether at the United Nations, our Five Eyes partners, or both? Can you speak about that international coordination, if there was any, and what it looked like?

[Natasha Kim]

In terms of Canada's co-operation with other Five Eyes countries in particular, there is regular and in-depth consultation with them on a range of immigration matters. In terms of our Five Eyes partners, we have a group called the Migration Five. We regularly discuss different immigration matters of interest.

In terms of these particular measures, certainly we were aware of what other partners were doing in this space. Canada announced its measures in a fashion that was complementary to what was being done.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

But specifically on this particular matter, to what extent did discussions take place? I think it's important to push on this, simply because we've heard witness after witness emphasize the importance of multilateral engagements between countries on the matter. When the idea of doing something...in terms of what we've ultimately seen materialize with respect to asylum issues and the like, were we engaged with Britain? Were we engaged with like-minded allies like New Zealand, Australia and so on? Can you shed any light on that?

[Natasha Kim]

Yes. As mentioned, we regularly engage with all of those Five Eyes partners: Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., as well as the U.K. As you know, the U.K. and Australia had announced measures in the space of migration. Certainly we were following that closely. In developing these measures, we were then mindful of what existed in those other countries.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Looking at it from a domestic perspective, in terms of the overall policy construction of what materialized, how did the policy come together? Obviously, there's COVID-19 on the one hand. We're experiencing COVID-19. It makes things challenging in any policy-making environment. Can you speak at all to how these different policy decisions were arrived at—for example, consultation, engagement with experts, or anything along those lines? How did it all come together?

[Natasha Kim]

As noted, certainly we had conversations with allies and like-minded allies in terms of what was developing in their initiatives. We looked at other contexts around the world. Obviously, there were some consultations with stakeholders on the ground as well, and looking at what measure could be put in place to complement what already exists in Canada's immigration system—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but when you say “on the ground”, Ms. Kim, are you speaking domestically, as in here in Canada?

[Natasha Kim]

Yes, as well as abroad.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Okay.

[Natasha Kim]

Certainly, these measures were intended to complement what we already have. As noted, we have a broad suite, an array of pathways available. These ones were very much targeted to be facilitated for the best and the brightest population and to complement our levels plan as well.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a final question, Mr. Chair.

In recent days, The Globe and Mail has published a few articles that have taken some by surprise and are of great concern. I'm speaking specifically about CSIS's recent statement making clear that Chinese state officials have been engaged covertly in a campaign of intimidation against either real or perceived Chinese dissidents here in Canada. Certainly, I would expect that would include Hong Kongers as well.

To what extent is IRCC involved in vetting individuals who could be engaged in this activity?

Well, let me rephrase that—