Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If everybody is in agreement, then we can.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm sorry. I just need clarification because it is the practice of this committee to invite the minister. We have been inviting the minister. If the minister chooses not to attend, that is the reality of what this committee is faced with.

To move this motion, of course, is stating the obvious because it is the practice of this committee to have the minister attend for supplementary estimates.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I would like to say that it's not a necessity, but it's usually been the practice here to have a motion brought forward. I would say that the motion is in order and I'm going to go to debate.

If there's no debate, I'm going to take a vote.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I just want to make a final comment.

I'm not going to oppose the motion. It's a redundant motion. That is my point. The point is that it is a standing practice of this committee to have the minister show up for supplementary estimates in a timely fashion.

The fact that the minister doesn't is not because of this committee's lack of action, but rather the minister's refusal to show up.

I just want to state that on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Is there any more debate? Otherwise, we can take a vote.

Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I'll second what Ms. Kwan is saying. That is exactly the case. The minister has a responsibility to show up here. It's not a motion that can be voted up or down. He has a responsibility to show up here to present his estimates to this committee, so they can be forwarded to the House of Commons.

I don't know why we have a redundant motion here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. McLean.

I will go to MP Zahid and then Mr. Chiang.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, it has been the practice that the minister comes, but we have always passed a motion.

Once the motion is passed, then the clerk sends out the invite and finds out the date on which the minister can appear before the committee. For the last nine years, that's the procedure we have followed. We have to pass a motion so that the clerk can send the request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

MP Chiang, do you want to add something?

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

No, I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You're good. Everybody's good, so we can take a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

Your time is up, Mr. Chiang.

Now, we are going to my dear friend, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, for six minutes.

Before I start the watch, I know it's a French-French conversation sometimes, but there are English speakers here, too. They need interpretation, so I will make sure I keep your time in mind.

Please, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's always good to have your recommendations.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

I want to file a notice of motion. The clerk will obviously send it to our interpreters and colleagues. The motion isn't translated. However, since it's tabled as a notice, it will be translated subsequently.

The motion reads as follows:That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the implications for Canada of the measures announced by Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential campaign regarding the deportation of persons who are in the United States illegally, as well as on the Canadian federal government's plan to ensure border security and compliance with federal immigration statutes and policies;

That the committee invite the following witnesses to appear: 1. for two hours each, accompanied by senior officials from their respective departments: (a) Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration and Citizenship; and (b) Dominic Leblanc, Minister of Public Safety; 2. for one hour each: (a) Kirsten Hillman, Canadian Ambassador to the United States; and (b) David L. Cohen, U.S. Ambassador to Canada; 3. as well as any other witnesses the committee considers necessary, in accordance with the usual practices of the committee; and

That the committee prioritize this study and report its findings to the House.

I hope that everyone will give this motion the attention that it deserves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You have four minutes.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

On June 3, 2024, Aileen Calverley, co‑founder and chair of Hong Kong Watch, told this committee that some Hong Kongers in Canada had been prevented from accessing their own retirement savings in the mandatory provident fund, or MPF.

Ms. Calverley told us that research carried out by her organization shows that over 80% of Hong Kongers surveyed who moved permanently to the United Kingdom and Canada and who applied to withdraw from the MPF had their applications rejected.

Yet, according to Sun Life data, between 2021 and the first quarter of 2024, the company rejected 1.2% of the 14,590 applications received from Hong Kongers around the world for failure to meet criteria or for minor administrative reasons.

Mr. McNamee, does your department have the figures for MPF withdrawals? If so, what prompted the rejection of the applications?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. McNamee.

[James McNamee]

We don't really have the figures for the rejection rate. The data belongs to the organizations that handle this process, meaning Sun Life and the other insurance company.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Honourable member, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Are you in contact with these insurance companies?

[James McNamee]

We're in contact with them, but indirectly. We've been in touch a few times to find out the reasons for this situation. As my finance colleague said, according to these companies, the process is managed by the legislation in place in the applicants' country of origin. The companies are forced to reject these applications.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Honourable member, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McNamee, another question comes to mind on this topic.

You told me that you didn't have these figures, so you didn't necessarily know the reasons for the rejections. However, you also told me later that you had been in contact, but indirectly. So contact has been established.

Did it ever occur to you to ask the insurance companies for these figures and the reasons for the rejections, since you just said that you were in contact with them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. McNamee, go ahead.

[James McNamee]

I want to thank the member for the question.

I think that we contacted these companies to find out the reasons for this situation. However, we haven't really delved into all the details of the rejected applications. The data is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McNamee, you have been in contact with these insurance companies. You tried to understand why the applications had been rejected, but you didn't go any further.

It's hard for us to understand. We're dealing with people who are experiencing outright transnational repression. Hong Kong has set up criteria to prevent these people from withdrawing their funds. Hong Kong indirectly uses the criteria established by both insurance companies and by your department. You're indirectly involved.

I know that this isn't intentional. However, do you realize that you're participating in transnational repression by failing to adapt your criteria and to ask the insurance companies to do the same?