Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Because I think this is an important issue, and I think we're on the same page of wanting to address it, instead of rushing through to see whether or not this amendment would actually address the issue properly and we have the right witnesses before us, I'd like to suggest that we table this—not to get to get rid of it, but to actually really work through it to make sure we have the issue properly addressed.
My understanding is that the issue here is not that Hong Kongers are violating the rule, because the rule is such that if they're leaving Hong Kong permanently, they are allowed to legally withdraw their savings once they prove they have departed Hong Kong permanently with no intention of returning. In fact, I would assume that it is the PR card that says that it is the BNO exit that, in and of itself, is the cause for the funding to be withheld. As long as they show that their intention is to permanently leave Hong Kong, they should be able to withdraw the funds. That is the law, so why are the financial institutions not allowing people to withdraw that funding? That is, in my mind, the crux of the issue, but we can work through this.
What I'm going to move is for us to table this, Mr. Chair, for the time being so that we can work through all of the nuance details and make sure we have the right language and the right people so that we can find a path to properly address this issue.