Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 17th, 2021

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations.

I want to build on the issue around VFS Global.

Given what we now know—that the subcontractor is basically owned by the Beijing police with VFS Global—what do you think the government should do? Should the government cancel that contract now and bring all of that service back in-house? What are the risks that would be posed for the people who might be wanting to make an application?

The question is for Ms. Siu and then Mr. Law, please.

[Joey Siu]

I think the most apparent risks of subcontracting the visa application centre contract to a Beijing police force-owned company would be that all the personal information—not only of the Chinese citizens, but also of other citizens who are trying to apply for a visa to come to Canada—will obviously be obtained by the Chinese Communist Party.

That will hinder people from applying for a visa to come to Canada, because when they are aware that when they make the application all their personal information would be obtained, they will also know that the Chinese Communist Party would be aware of their possible mobility. That would hinder people from coming to Canada to seek asylum or for other purposes.

I think the most reasonable way to tackle the problem would be to suspend the contract with any kind of state-owned enterprises by the Chinese Communist Party. That would be the best way to do it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Go ahead, Mr. Law, very quickly.

[Nathan Law]

I'm fully on board with abolishing the contract, because it's very important that we understand the nature of the Chinese Communist Party. They will abuse every source of information and every power that they have to get access to this information, because it means they could specifically target those people who want to leave Hong Kong for political reasons.

I think it is a necessary step that we have a very high scrutiny of any co-operation with any China firms or state-owned companies.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

For the people who are trying to get to safety, you touched on some of the measures that need to be brought into place still. On the issue of asylum, basically we don't have an asylum measure, because unless they're in Canada, people cannot apply for asylum.

What do you think the Canadian government should do in terms of bringing in asylum measures for people who are still in Hong Kong at this moment?

This for Mr. Law and then Ms. Tung.

[Nathan Law]

Thank you for the question.

I'm an asylum seeker. I'm seeking asylum in London. I understand how lost you will be in the system. I think it's important for now, for us, that we provide certain gateways for people in Hong Kong that they could apply for, or at least have a preliminary assessment of the asylum-seeking procedure for Canada in Hong Kong. That really relates to whether that information will be consumed by the Chinese authority. That's something we can do first, and then try to make the asylum-seeking procedure more convenient to the people on the ground.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Ms. Siu.

[Joey Siu]

It is very important for the Canada government to consider adopting new initiatives that will allow Hong Kongers to file asylum applications outside of Hong Kong and outside of Canada at the local embassies in a third country.

For example, for the U.S., there are a pair of programs provided for Cuban medical professionals that allow them to file asylum applications in a third country outside of the U.S., and also outside of Cuba. I think some of the measures have been adopted in the rainbow refugee assistance pilot scheme in Canada, and that should also be considered to be implemented for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Siu, I'm sorry for interrupting, but your time is up.

With that, our first panel comes to an end. On behalf of all members, I will take this opportunity to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the committee today and providing their important input.

I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow the witnesses for our second panel to log in.

Thank you once again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order and welcome our witnesses.

In this panel, we are joined by Mr. Alex Neve, who is a senior fellow at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa. We are also joined by Mr. Charles Burton, who is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute's centre for advancing Canada’s interests abroad. We have another witness, Mr. Ted Hui Chi-fung, who I see is with us now. Welcome.

All our witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks.

Mr. Neve, you can please start.

[Alex Neve, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you so very much, Madam Chair.

Good evening to all the committee members.

Good afternoon to Ms. Kwan and any other colleagues out west.

At the heart of today's hearing, of course, is the unrelenting deterioration of the human rights situation in Hong Kong, culminating with the imposition of the new security law last year. That law has been used widely to target students, political opponents, critics and journalists and, of greatest concern, to curtail fundamental rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and peaceful protest.

A growing number of individuals have been arrested, and in the face of remarkable courage and resilience on the part of Hong Kongers, this situation nonetheless continues to worsen.

As with any human rights crisis, pressing refugee concerns have arisen, and there are unique aspects to this refugee situation that merit specific and innovative responses.

First, of course, is the simple geographic reality. In almost all other refugee situations around the world, people have the possibility of making it to the closest land border—even if the journey may be dangerous—crossing that border, and accessing international protection through the UNHCR and other agencies. That's obviously not an option here.

Second are the strong Canadian connections. There are likely well over 300,000 Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, many with dual nationality, whose situations are very vulnerable with increasing reports of officials refusing to recognize their Canadian citizenship, as well as recent concerns about a proposal to give immigration officials “unfettered power” to stop anyone from leaving Hong Kong. Many of those Canadians have close family who are not Canadian citizens but who cannot be left behind. This means protecting Canadian citizens and also permanent residents facing threats, challenges and restrictions akin to refugees. That's a very unique situation.

It was encouraging to see the special immigration measures announced in November. More is urgently needed, however, and I'd like to quickly make five general recommendations.

First, the special measures should be strengthened. You've heard thoughtful testimony from advocates such as Avvy Go, Cherie Wong and Gloria Fung, who have highlighted ways in which the new open work permit privileges wealth and high levels of education but may not be accessible for others, including young activists, at greatest risk. The criteria should be revised to be more responsive to those facing the greatest need.

Second, possibilities for family sponsorship need to be expanded. While the option of parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens applying for super visas is rightly being promoted, close family at risk is broader than that, including brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews. Canadians who may need to escape Hong Kong should not be forced to leave close family members behind.

Third, while it is not legally possible to formally provide refugee status to Hong Kongers still present in Hong Kong, refugee and refugee-like measures are nonetheless needed, rather than relying primarily on immigration avenues. Some Hong Kongers have been able to flee to other countries, including Taiwan. Beyond noting that refugee resettlement may be an option for such individuals, Canada should devote more resources to actively facilitate resettlement on an expedited basis. As for individuals trapped in Hong Kong who need a quick means of escape, Canada should make greater use of humanitarian avenues for granting status through temporary resident permits and travel documents, if necessary—in other words, refugee protection in all but name.

Fourth, there's an urgent need for strategies for facilitating travel in the face of repressive security measures in Hong Kong and the constraints of COVID-19 travel restrictions. Staying abreast of security barriers that impede departure from Hong Kong requires close collaboration with other governments. I would certainly echo the concerns about possible security problems associated with visa applications being processed by VFS Global. The Prime Minister has asked Minister Mendicino and Minister Anand to look into this. It would be advisable to ask the Privacy Commissioner to get involved to review this urgently as well.

Fifth, let me highlight two bigger-picture and longer-term points. The first is that this situation highlights the limitations of protecting individuals at risk in their countries who cannot cross a border to apply for refugee resettlement. Canada has had previous programs that offered urgent protection to people unable to cross that international border, most recently the source country program, which was repealed in 2011. The government should look at restoring options for people in those situations.

Finally, let me reiterate the obvious. The best solution to address the grave—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Neve. Your time is up.

We will now move on to Mr. Burton.

Mr. Burton, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. You can proceed, please.

[Dr. Charles Burton, Senior Fellow, Centre for Advancing Canada's Interests Abroad, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've read the evidence given by the highly articulate and insightful witnesses at the first part of this meeting and at the previous two meetings. I have read the three briefs that were given to the committee by Alliance Canada Hong Kong, Canada-Hong Kong Link, and the very reverend Richard Soo.

It's pretty clear that the government's current proposal to address the immigration and refugee implications for Canada of the current crisis in Hong Kong is too restrictive to meet the challenge of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Hong Kong.

This is a matter of considerable urgency. There are strong indications that the Hong Kong government is on the way to restricting exit from Hong Kong. There is also the ongoing issue of the Hong Kong authorities seizing the passports of persons in Hong Kong, many of whom should be allowed to seek refuge in Canada with their families. Our subcontracting of immigration application processing to outside agencies with murky links to the PRC regime is very troubling. Moreover, our lack of flexibility in processing applications from Hong Kong persons at risk who are still in Hong Kong, and for those who have been able to flee to Canada and other jurisdictions, is troubling.

Certainly, there are very strong humanitarian, compassionate reasons why the Government of Canada should adopt exceptional measures to facilitate persons in Hong Kong who are at risk of severe sanctions under the draconian national security law and the other provisions getting to safety in our country.

I understand that the function of this committee is to determine what policy approach in response to the ongoing crisis in Hong Kong best serves Canada's national interest. Of course, we have to look at this in terms of the larger picture of Canada-China relations. For example, if we take strong and meaningful action in response to PRC suppression of the rights of citizens of Hong Kong and harsh detention of those who dare to speak out for democracy and the independent rule of law there, will it impact Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, or will it lead to economic retaliation by the PRC regime against Canada that will damage our economic interests?

I judge, though, that the kinds of half measures the government is currently proposing, supplemented by simple lip service to Canada's commitment to democracy and freedom in Hong Kong, signal to the Government of China that its policies of hostage diplomacy and threats of economic coercion through arbitrary imposition of non-tariff barriers to Canadian trade and investment are, in fact, working well in terms of China's geostrategic agenda for Canada.

Our policies of appeasement to China by not making the officials of the PRC regime accountable for their flouting of the rules-based international order with regard to Hong Kong, or for that matter the Uighur genocide or arbitrary detention of Canadians in China, only embolden the Chinese regime to intensify these assaults against Canadian security and sovereignty.

Frankly, as a Canadian of European origin, I feel ashamed at Canada's weakness in response to the grave concerns of Canadians of Hong Kong origin who are urging this committee to implement a much better and stronger immigration and refugee policy towards people at risk in Hong Kong, and that includes our need to abrogate the contract with VFS with the shortest possible delay.

Let's face it. Canada endorsed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in Hong Kong at the request of the British and Chinese governments when it was lodged with the United Nations all those years ago. That endorsement has imposed an international obligation on Canada to respond to protect the people of Hong Kong who have been betrayed by the Government of China's disavowal of its international commitment to the one country, two systems policy and 50 years of no change when the sovereignty of Hong Kong transferred from Britain to China in 1997. That obligation on Canada did not come with an expiry date.

Moreover, Canada's relationship with Hong Kong is extraordinarily profound. With half a million Canadians who identify as of Hong Kong origin resident in our country, and over 300,000 Canadian citizens living in Hong Kong, our government should take the concerns of our Hong Kong Canadians much more seriously than we have done up to now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Burton.

We will now move on to Mr. Chi-fung.

Mr. Chi-fung, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Ted Hui Chi-fung, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am Ted Hui, actually, Mr. Hui. I'm a former legislator, having served the Hong Kong legislature for the past four years. I left Hong Kong and went into exile two months ago to continue speaking for Hong Kong's freedom without being forced into jail.

Police brutality and political persecutions in Hong Kong are unequivocal and undeniable. I experienced them myself first-hand: tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed and pinned down to the ground, and prosecuted in court for ridiculous reasons. Under the new national security law, Hong Kongers and dissidents' fundamental rights are further compromised as the Hong Kong administration interferes in court proceedings and bail arrangements.

It is imminent for many young individuals and family units who are under threat from the Hong Kong CCP regime to flee on humanitarian grounds from persecution. I'm grateful that the Canadian government and parliamentarians are already taking stronger stands against human rights violations in Hong Kong. Levels plans schemes are also under way for young protestors who are being persecuted; however, they might be quite inadequate as well, and might not launch soon enough in terms of providing a safe haven.

I will refer to the new open work permits beginning on February 8 that allow Hong Kongers to work in Canada. Under that scheme, Hong Kongers must have graduated with a Canadian post-secondary diploma or degree in the last five years, which is very limiting. I'll take myself as an example. I finished high school and attended university here in Canada 18 years ago. My qualifications would be obsolete for the scheme, even though I'm still considered to be fairly young—in my thirties. Many young protesters who now urgently need a safe place away from Hong Kong are in their twenties and thirties, just like me. They'll be barred from the scheme totally, even with having Canadian qualifications. After all, the scheme will be beneficial only to a small number of those who are already onshore, but not to those who are about to go to jail in Hong Kong.

I note two other pathways to permanent residence for young Hong Kongers, which will be available later this year. I'm also grateful for that. However, they might come too late for those who need to flee, as the Hong Kong regime is introducing “Immigration (Amendment) Bill 2020”, under which the Hong Kong administration can ban anyone from boarding an aircraft, a boat or any other means of transportation—without the need to give any reasons. It means that the Hong Kong regime will have full power to impose direct exit restrictions on any Hong Kong resident.

This piece of law is expected to be passed in our legislature, which is now without any opposition, in two or three months' time. In extreme cases, the regime can bar all Hong Kongers who apply for Canadian work visas or permanent residency from leaving Hong Kong. Time is of the essence, and for the pathways for Hong Kongers to be effective, they must be launched fairly soon.

Finally, on the point of asylum, I understand that it is on a case-by-case basis, but I urge the Canadian government to go for a lenient approach towards young Hong Kong protesters. Give them privileges and see them as convention refugees under international law—as the Sino-British Joint Declaration between the U.K. and China is breached and fundamental rights of Hong Kongers are under attack—providing for offshore protection visa routes so that they know there will be a safe place for them to stay for a longer term before they land in Canada.

Hong Kong people have high hopes in the Canadians. I hope the Canadian government and parliamentarians can join hands with the free world to fight for freedom and to speak up for freedom for Hong Kong, be it by Magnitsky-style sanctions or other types of economic sanctions. I'm personally all for the boycotting of international events, sports events and institutional events, or other kinds of boycotting and isolation towards Beijing.

Thank you so much, committee members, for listening to me and to other Hong Kongers.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you for your opening remarks.

We will now move to our first round of questioning. We will have one round of questioning for six minutes each. We will start with Mr. Genuis.

You have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please proceed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Chi-fung and Professor Burton. It seems to me that the immigration measures that the government has announced oddly create an economic track for a problem that's not so much driven by economics but by a political situation. It's as if we've looked at this situation and said, “Hey, this is a great opportunity for us to attract university-educated young people from Hong Kong who already have a certain level of capacity”, which is great, but we're not targeting, in our offer of support, people who are politically vulnerable. We're leaving out people who may not have those qualifications or that economic position but who have been charged or who are vulnerable to political pressure.

It's completely wrong to think about the issue in economic terms as opposed to political and human rights terms. That's how I see it. I'd love to hear your feedback. Am I correct in my perception? Is there something I'm missing? Do you agree? Do you want to add to that?

[Dr. Charles Burton]

Yes, I quite agree with you. I was looking at a video of 82-year-old Martin Lee, a hero of Hong Kong democracy for many decades, walking from a Hong Kong court. Can we not get Mr. Lee here to safety in Canada? He has such a close connection to our country and to the Hong Kong community here. There are the younger people who, at the beginning of their life, are facing imprisonment and possible transmission to jail hell in China, comparable to what we know about with Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

The fact that they don't meet our immigration priorities in terms of the ability to contribute to Canada or their ability to communicate in English or French I don't think should be the criteria under which we determine whether our Canadian values are compatible with giving refuge to these people, who are simply asking for the right to live in a democratic society with the rule of law.

Unfortunately, they're endangered in Hong Kong. I think they would make exemplary new Canadians here in Canada. I hope we can bring in as many as possible on as flexible criteria as possible, particularly taking into account their political stance, not their ability to contribute immediately to the Canadian economy.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

I would just add that I think a program that focused on human rights defenders really does dramatically contribute to the fabric of our country, as long as we don't think in too narrowly economic terms.

Mr. Chi-fung, do you want to add to that briefly? Then I have a question for Mr. Neve as well.

[Ted Hui Chi-fung]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Genuis.

I share quite the same view as you and the feelings that many young protesters are excluded from the existing schemes the Canadian government is providing. We spoke of Martin Lee, who worked with me continuously over the past 10 years, who will be excluded from these schemes as well.

I also speak for those young protesters who participated in front-line protests, being shot by the police, tear-gassed and personally injured. They would also be excluded from the schemes, only because they are secondary school students or they have obsolete qualifications or those unsuitable to Canadian ones. I believe it's only humanitarian to expand all these schemes and visa routes to include those people who are now not included in the schemes. I hope Canadians can really do that to join hands with the Hong Kong people.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Neve, you have done extensive work on the issue of threats and intimidation targeting Canadians in Canada who are perhaps recent immigrants or members of diaspora communities involved in human rights issues. This is something that I think we should be concerned about, that people who flee here from Hong Kong would be subject to ongoing violence, threats and intimidation of family members.

I've put forward motion 55 that calls on the government to offer better support to victims of foreign state-backed interference.

I wonder if you can share what key takeaways this committee needs to think about in terms of dealing with the safety and security of newcomers once they get here.

[Alex Neve]

I think it's really important to draw that connection. As you know, Amnesty International, on behalf of the Canadian Coalition on Human Rights in China, did extensive research documenting the pattern you're describing. It's been going on and worsening for many years.

I think there's every reason to be concerned that as new arrivals in Canada who may have recently been active in opposition activities and are strong human rights defenders in Hong Kong arrive in Canada, the likelihood that they will be targeted—even here, in their place of safety—is very serious. It's been disappointing to see the failure on the part of the federal government so far, and this goes back many years, to take some concerted action to deal with this concern—not necessarily to solve it, as it isn't an easy situation to solve overnight, but there are a lot of concrete measures that need to be taken. I think the Hong Kong situation highlights how urgent that is.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

In light of the time, I wonder if you can provide—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Genuis, your time is up.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair—