Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Ms. Hewitt.

[Laura Hewitt]

Yes, we must comply with the rules and regulations, but we are actively helping our clients. We continue to proactively give them information and are there to support them, ensuring they have access, whether that's when they hit retirement age, at 65—again, it's a retirement scheme, so it's there for them in their later years—or in cases where they are early unlocking.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I wanted a yes or no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, MP Kwan. You had seven minutes and 32 seconds.

We will now go to Mr. Kmiec for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I wonder why you are making them sign a statutory declaration that says they're staying permanently in Canada with no intentions of returning, if you say an application for PR is not good enough. Is that your requirement, or is that a requirement of the MPFA?

Ms. Hewitt.

[Laura Hewitt]

That is one of three criteria set by the MPFA. The statutory declaration is part one. Part two is the proof of permanent ability to reside outside of Hong Kong. Part three is that they haven't used the permanent departure stream before.

Those are the three criteria set by the regulator.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Chair, I would submit to the two witnesses that this is the perfect example. Some of the numbers Ms. Kwan just reported back.... The government is going to cut, by more than half, the agency applications it obtains. I said at the beginning that there are tens of thousands of Hong Kongers on one of the two pathways to Canada. They're looking at six, seven or eight years, at current levels, for processing, which means none of them are able to access their MPF funds. There is no knowing whether new MPFA rules would be introduced.

Do you have any concern about your clients in Canada, that being the case?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

As we discussed a bit earlier, there are 291 Manulife customers in Canada who weren't able to provide evidence of permanent departure. We work with them. When their evidence becomes available, they can reapply and we can process it.

By the way, we're required to—and we do—process it within 30 days. Once you meet the requirement, it's fast.

Otherwise, your money is protected until you reach the age of 65 or retire. That's what it's all about.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Chair, I want to thank the witnesses for those answers. I'm not satisfied, but they provide more clarity about where some of the problems are coming from.

I have a motion I want to move. It is related to the international student study this committee is going to be undertaking. My motion has been on notice since September 13.

It says:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee request the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship to provide an unredacted version of the “Memorandum to the Minister: Updating the policy regarding the financial requirement for study permit eligibility for international students”, submitted in response to the February 28, 2024, Motion for Production of Papers; and that any redactions applied under section 14 and 21 of the Access to Information Act be removed, while respecting exclusions under section 19, 23, 69, as the current redactions hinder the committee's ability to discharge its duty of proper oversight and scrutiny.

So the public understands, committees of Parliament have an unlimited right of access to documentation.

I've gone through the briefing note. These are the three areas I am okay with being redacted. Section 19 is on personal information. I counted zero in the briefing note. Section 23 is on solicitor-client privilege, which means the lawyers of the Government of Canada. There are three of them. I'm okay with that not being shown to us. There's one reference to section 69 in the briefing note. The other ones, though, are much more substantive. Section 14 is on federal-provincial affairs. There are 11 redactions. For section 21, on the operations of government, there are 40 redactions.

We have a right—especially on the opposition side—to know what is going on. This is an expansive briefing note. We're going to be doing an international student study, and we have a right to know what is behind this, unless they have something to hide. I hope they don't. We'll see how the vote comes out.

That's why I moved this motion. I want the document unredacted, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The motion is on the floor.

Is there any debate?

MP Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I fully support the motion. The production of documents is something that I believe I advanced in a previous meeting. I was astounded when the documents came back with so many blank pages.

Mr. Chair, I fully support the motion that was put on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there any other discussion?

[An hon. member]

Can we suspend for a minute so that we can have a discussion about this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay, we're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

Go ahead, Mr. Chiang.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I take it that both of our witnesses have already left. I cannot thank them. Did you thank them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I already thanked them, so you don't need to worry about that.

Let's focus on the motion brought forward by Mr. Kmiec.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Kmiec for bringing this motion forward.

About redaction, I want to emphasize why information is redacted and certain criteria for redaction. My background is policing. There's always freedom of information in any public office where government offers this freedom of information request. Most of the information or all of the information that we disclose to the public is redacted. Every report that goes out is redacted, and there's a reason for that. The reason for redaction is protecting privacy and protecting sensitive information on the report itself so that it doesn't get out to the public where it jeopardizes people's safety or jeopardizes other things.

This is in the policing realm. It would be different here in a federal government matter, but in policing we redact information so that it does not jeopardize people's safety and the sensitivity of the investigation itself.

In saying that, I hope that the information Mr. Kmiec is asking for is used in a proper manner instead of using it for a frivolous matter. I'm hoping for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Go ahead, MP Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to amend the motion by stipulating that we need to get this information within 30 days. I think that's fairly standard, and 30 days is ample time for the department to produce the documents. Otherwise, I fear that we might never see them at the rate that things are going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Now we have the amendment on the floor by Ms. Kwan that the information be provided by the department within 30 days.

We're speaking on the amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I wonder if it should say “calendar days”, just so we are ultimately super clear on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You want 30 calendar days. Thank you.

Is there any more discussion on the amendment brought forward by MP Kwan?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to on division)

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.