Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I now understand, and I apologize.

I don't think it's sufficient to acknowledge receipt of an application. You actually have to have the permanent residency designation. I would be happy to double-check that. My understanding is that you have to actually have the residency document.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

As I understand it, the request will be automatically rejected, if such evidence is presented. Normally, your company would understand that the person is in the process of obtaining permanent residency.

Does the company then offer support to people whose application for permanent residency is being processed at IRCC?

If not, might there not be an opportunity here for you to change your approach and offer support during the processing of this type of application, in these circumstances?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

If by support you mean information about the process, the answer is yes. If you mean unlocking their pension early when they haven't yet met the criteria, unfortunately that is not something we're able to do, according to the laws and statutes by which we have to abide.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for your answer, which was very honest.

Normally, anyone leaving Hong Kong permanently has the right to withdraw money from the Mandatory Provident Fund.

However, in response to the opening of the British National Overseas visa program, or BNO visa, in January 2021, the Hong Kong government unilaterally declared that it no longer recognized the BNO identity, and blocked access to this visa for hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers.

In addition, companies like yours, which are based in North America and Europe, agree to apply the Hong Kong government's directives.

I'll ask the question again.

In your opinion, isn't this a striking example of transnational repression organized by a government using companies that, themselves, are not headquartered in that country?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

The way I would answer that is to say that we have been able to process the vast majority of the applications. One statistic that I haven't provided you yet, but I'll provide it to you now, is that from 2020 to 2024, the early withdrawals that we were able to process and release globally—accounting for some exchange rate differences—were worth $1.639 billion.

The vast majority of applicants have received their funds early. I would also hasten to add that for the people who haven't been able to receive their funds, either because they haven't applied or because they didn't have the documentation, their funds are protected for them. We are trustees of their funds.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt. Unfortunately, I don't have much speaking time.

The question is very simple. Do you realize that your company is being used, albeit unwittingly on your part, for transnational repression, because the Hong Kong government has decided not to recognize the BNO identity?

It may not be your fault, but unfortunately, Ms. Greenwood and Ms. Hewitt, we're forced to recognize today that Hong Kong's decision not to recognize the BNO identity forces you, as a company, not to help these people. We know full well that they won't return to Hong Kong, but they can't access their funds, because you have to follow Hong Kong rules.

So what you have to understand is that your companies are participating, albeit unwittingly, in a transnational crackdown.

Am I wrong?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I'm happy to start, and Ms. Hewitt can join in.

We are seeking to do what is best for our customers around the world, and we will always do that. The Indo-Pacific region has over four billion people and accounts for $47 trillion in economic activity. Canadian companies, including ours, have been operating in this region for over 100 years—

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm very sorry to interrupt the witness. I don't mean to be rude.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to know if the witness can give me a yes or no answer.

Is she unwittingly participating in transnational repression?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, please follow my guidelines if you can. I will not take your time away, but this creates problems for the interpreters, and even for me.

I have stopped the clock, and now I will give you the time.

Please go ahead.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Ms. Greenwood, the question is simple. I don't blame you. You have the right to denounce things on your own. What is happening is that your company is being used through legislation established by an authoritarian regime. Your company is being used to repress opponents of the Hong Kong regime, who have left Hong Kong and ended up in Canada or Britain.

I'm not saying it's your fault. I'm not blaming you. What I'm saying is that you have to be aware, given the situation, that your company is being used by the Hong Kong government to carry out transnational repression because that country no longer recognizes the BNO identity.

That's simply what I want to say to you. I'm not blaming you, but I'm asking you to realize what's going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That was six minutes and 24 seconds.

We will now go to MP Kwan for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the two witnesses for coming back to the committee.

Ms. Greenwood, you mentioned that one of the eligibility requirements is that the applicant would have to fill out a declaration, and in that declaration they would have to indicate that they have no intention of returning to Hong Kong or that they have every intention of leaving Hong Kong permanently.

Can you advise whether...? Who sets the requirement that this declaration, in and of itself, is insufficient to be utilized as proof that they do not intend to return to Hong Kong—that is to say, that they intend to leave Hong Kong permanently?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

The criteria in every jurisdiction in the world are set forth by the local jurisdiction. The criteria that are required in Hong Kong are not only the declaration that you intend to leave and not return, but also the proof that you have permission, if you will, to reside in another jurisdiction. It's two criteria that you have to meet.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

You say that it's the Hong Kong government that requires proof of permanent residency or citizenship in a different country in conjunction with the declaration in order for you to then process the application. Is that correct?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

It is the regulator of the mandatory provident fund, which is in Hong Kong.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's the regulator in Hong Kong. Who sets the rules for the regulator? Is it the Hong Kong government?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

Yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, and that's the same for Sun Life. Is that correct?

[Laura Hewitt]

Yes, we follow the rules from the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, the MPFA. That's the regulator.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

All right. Thank you.

Hence, we have this problem. You have the Canadian government, which created this lifeboat scheme for Hong Kongers who are fleeing persecution in Hong Kong as a result of the national security law. The government, in its wisdom or lack thereof, created this lifeboat scheme that only provides for temporary residence by way of a work permit or a study permit. Then these people have to go to the queue to make an application for permanent residence, and we know that there is a huge backlog and delay in processing.

In the beginning, there was swift action, but as time has passed, it's been lengthened by way of the delay, to the point where the former minister even made an announcement to further extend people's work permits and study permits for another three years. That is to say, a person could be here for six years—as long as six years—under this current scheme without getting permanent residence. This is because the minister anticipated that people would not be able to swiftly get their permanent resident status. That is the reality.

As a result of that, people are not able to provide proof of permanent residence, because the application is in process. To make it even worse, the government—the minister—just made an announcement about the levels plan, cutting levels to the tune of 105,000 permanent resident status applications.

You can imagine how long the wait-list is for Hong Kongers as they continue to wait. Now, these Hong Kongers have zero intention of returning to Hong Kong, because they know that they would be persecuted if they did. People know that. I think the Canadian government knows that.

This is my question, then, to you as the manager of their pension, which, because of this rule, they're unable to access: Would your organization be willing to write to the regulator to ask for consideration for these applicants who are in a prolonged period of waiting for permanent resident status, to ask that their declaration indicating that they do not intend to return to Hong Kong be accepted as proof that they intend to leave Hong Kong permanently so that they can access their pensions? Is that something that your organization would consider doing?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I think I understand the question.

The basic premise of your question has to do with the period of time it takes for the Government of Canada to determine and provide permanent residency or citizenship. It seems to me that this is a function of the Government of Canada, as opposed to a regulated entity. That's how I would answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Ms. Hewitt, do you want to contribute?

[Laura Hewitt]

Yes. I would say that it's not within our authority to change the criteria.

However, our numbers show that once that permanent residency does come through, we're able to process the applications and approve Canadian permanent residents.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I understand that it's not within your authority. However, given that you just said yourself—both of you—that you are client-centred, that you're there to support the clients, and knowing that this is the reason that people can't access their funds, even though they have every intention, as declared in their declaration, to leave Hong Kong permanently, then wouldn't it be incumbent upon your organization to express that point of view and ask the regulator to consider allowing these individuals to access their funds?

Now, on the flip side, would you, as an organization, be willing to write to the Canadian government to indicate the number of applicants in your system who have applied and are unable to access their pension funds because they have not been able to prove permanent residency because they only have a study permit or a work permit? Is that something you'd be willing to do? Just give a quick yes or no.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

We provide clear answers about what the constraints are and what the opportunities are. Our focus is our customers; you're right about that. We're highly regulated, so we operate under the regulations that are provided to us.