AFGN#13: Humanitarian Assistance for the Afghan people

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Thank you. In the instance where biometrics could not be obtained for obvious reasons.... The government is saying that people have to go to the Taliban office to get a passport. You can imagine what that will be like. There will absolutely be a bull's eye put on them. They will not be able to get those passports, and without those passports, they cannot get to a third country. Without getting to a third country, they cannot get to safety.
From that perspective, if we've exhausted all of these options, given that people's lives hang in the balance, should the government then waive the biometrics and other documentation requirements until the Afghans are safely here in Canada? Once they're safe on Canadian soil, we can then go through the process and do all of that work.

Warda Meighen, Partner, Landings LLP
Yes. I think that's something we've done in other contexts. We've done that in the context of Kosovo, for example, with onshore processing. Absolutely we should look at that if biometrics in Afghanistan is just not working. To the extent that we have inadmissible individuals who are found on Canadian soil, we have the provisions in our immigration regime to deal with that. We shouldn't look at that as a failure of the system. It's actually the system working. We have mechanisms in the immigration regime to take care of inadmissible persons when they're found within the biometrics process, I'm sure.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Thank you. Dr. Powell, right now the referral agencies that the government is accepting for Afghans are very limited. Why do you think it is important for the minister to expand the referral organizations for resettlement to other qualified and established civil society organizations that are connected to vulnerable refugees such as members from the LGBTQ2+ communities?

Dr. Kimahli Powell, Executive Director, Rainbow Railroad
Thank you for the question. You know, as I said in my remarks, the government clearly identified vulnerable populations. For the LGBTQI+ community, there are specific vulnerabilities and barriers to adequately identifying those persons. There was a clear expectation set on August 13 when those vulnerable populations were announced. We have a rare ability, having demonstrated expertise in evacuating persons, to provide assistance to fulfill the government's promise to resettle those persons. A referring partnership is the tool to allow us to do that.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
You are also calling on the government to immediately resettle 300 at-risk LGBTQ2+ Afghan refugees. Should the government do this as a special immigration measure in addition to the 40,000 Afghan refugees they have already announced as their measure? The reason I ask this is that those numbers are actually filling up really fast now, and there aren't that many spots left. I fear that people will be left behind.

Dr. Kimahli Powell, Executive Director, Rainbow Railroad
This is a specific ask in addition to the 40,000 committed, because at this stage we do not know if they're going to meet that target. So the answer is yes.

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

Afghanistan Committee on May 20th, 2022
Evidence of meeting #13 for Afghanistan in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session

2:55 p.m.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you very much, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. I'm sorry but time is up.

Mr. Hotak, could you please follow the instructions on your screen and accept it?

Now we'll go to Madam Kwan for six minutes.

Please go ahead, Madam Kwan.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations.

I had to give a speech in the House, so I missed the presentations, but I think I heard, as I was coming in, Ms. Meighen commenting that there should be a special sort of operation within government to continue the operation of bringing Afghans to safety. To that end, I wonder if you can comment on this. Do you think the government should request that the Department of National Defence lead a mission to help bring more Afghans to safety and to work in collaboration with allied countries to address the biometrics issues and other issues in an effort to bring more Afghans to safety?

Warda Meighen
Partner, Landings LLP

We would very much welcome that. Yes.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

In the instance where biometrics could not be obtained for obvious reasons.... The government is saying that people have to go to the Taliban office to get a passport. You can imagine what that will be like. There will absolutely be a bull's eye put on them. They will not be able to get those passports, and without those passports, they cannot get to a third country. Without getting to a third country, they cannot get to safety.

From that perspective, if we've exhausted all of these options, given that people's lives hang in the balance, should the government then waive the biometrics and other documentation requirements until the Afghans are safely here in Canada? Once they're safe on Canadian soil, we can then go through the process and do all of that work.

Yes. I think that's something we've done in other contexts. We've done that in the context of Kosovo, for example, with onshore processing. Absolutely we should look at that if biometrics in Afghanistan is just not working.

To the extent that we have inadmissible individuals who are found on Canadian soil, we have the provisions in our immigration regime to deal with that. We shouldn't look at that as a failure of the system. It's actually the system working. We have mechanisms in the immigration regime to take care of inadmissible persons when they're found within the biometrics process, I'm sure.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

Dr. Powell, right now the referral agencies that the government is accepting for Afghans are very limited. Why do you think it is important for the minister to expand the referral organizations for resettlement to other qualified and established civil society organizations that are connected to vulnerable refugees such as members from the LGBTQ2+ communities?

Dr. Kimahli Powell
Executive Director, Rainbow Railroad

Thank you for the question.

You know, as I said in my remarks, the government clearly identified vulnerable populations. For the LGBTQI+ community, there are specific vulnerabilities and barriers to adequately identifying those persons. There was a clear expectation set on August 13 when those vulnerable populations were announced. We have a rare ability, having demonstrated expertise in evacuating persons, to provide assistance to fulfill the government's promise to resettle those persons. A referring partnership is the tool to allow us to do that.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

You are also calling on the government to immediately resettle 300 at-risk LGBTQ2+ Afghan refugees. Should the government do this as a special immigration measure in addition to the 40,000 Afghan refugees they have already announced as their measure?

The reason I ask this is that those numbers are actually filling up really fast now, and there aren't that many spots left. I fear that people will be left behind.

This is a specific ask in addition to the 40,000 committed, because at this stage we do not know if they're going to meet that target. So the answer is yes.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you very much, Madam Kwan. Your time is up.

This concludes our panel today. I want to thank the witnesses for being here on short notice.

We will now turn to committee business.

Mr. Ruff, you have a motion on the floor right now.

3:10 p.m.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you very much, Mr. El-Khoury.

We'll go to Madam Kwan, and then to Mr. Tony Van Bynen.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll be very quick. With respect to the request for these reports, it should be noted that officials presented at the committee to say that these reports have been completed, so they are available. All they have to do, really, is just make them available to the committee.

As well, I would point out that the committee members have made a number of undertakings for the officials in various departments, and many of those documents have not yet been presented to us, even though they are also ready. The reality is that officials can in fact table all of those undertakings, along with this report, for us to receive this. If they do that as soon as possible, we would then be able to utilize this work towards the completion of the report.

I would add that, without receiving that information, the truth is that they are already hampering the analysts in doing their work, because many of the undertakings were made prior to today and we still have not received them.

3:40 p.m.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order, please.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Madam Kwan, on a point of order, please go ahead.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to get some clarity on the amendment that's been put forward by Ms. Damoff, and perhaps the clerk can provide this information for all committee members' understanding.

The amendment calls for the elimination of the June 8 date and for the after-action reports not to be included in the report by this committee. However, when Ms. Damoff made those comments, her perspective was that it is not to impede, necessarily, the after-action reports and the undertaking from being included in our report to the House. Rather, in the event the documents do not make it in time—that is, before the drafting of the report—that would not delay the work of this committee. That was my understanding of her intention with her amendment.

Let's say, for example, the undertaking is put in. Because this committee ceases to exist on June 8, the documents must be referred to this committee before June 8. Let's say it's June 7. That's after June 6, when we will have completed our draft report, so would committee members still be able to receive these documents on June 7?

Could I get clarification on the understanding of this amendment and how it would work procedurally and practically, for this committee, please?

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you very much, Madam Kwan, for your intervention.

Madam Clerk, would you be able to respond? Please, go ahead.

The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Miriam Burke

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Special committees, of which we are one, cease to exist upon presentation of their report to the House.

The date stipulated in the motion creating this committee is six months after the adoption of the motion creating this committee, which brings us to June 8. Should the committee adopt and present the report in the House before that date, that is when the committee will cease to exist. Should you present in the House on June 8, that is when the committee will cease to exist.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Can I follow up with a further question, Mr. Chair?

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Madam Kwan, please go ahead.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

In that vein, with respect to undertakings made to departmental officials already—independent of this one, but perhaps if it goes through, it could be included as well—would the officials be required to provide the undertakings the committee has already requested before we complete our report? There is a whole bunch of undertakings that we still have not received. The one I was referring to earlier, which is pertinent to this report, is about the files that have been referred from GAC to IRCC and the files that have been referred from the Department of National Defence to IRCC. We still haven't received that information yet, which I think is pertinent to this report.

What will happen if the officials don't provide that information to this committee before we table our report? Are they obliged to do so? Could I get some understanding on that?

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

I think Madam Kwan is talking about the information that we asked for about a week ago.

Madam Clerk, do you have anything to add in reference to the comments made by Madam Kwan? No. Okay, thank you.

Madam Kwan, as you know, we have a hard deadline of June 8. If we receive those documents by then, that's well and good, but after that we're not going to have the committee anymore. I hope that answers you.

Now the floor is back to Mr. Baker.

Mr.—

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but I have one more question, just so that I understand the entire process as well.

The officials are not required to provide those undertakings to this committee, even though it impedes our ability to complete our report. From that perspective, would that be a violation of our privilege as committee members?

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Madam Kwan, I will come back to you on your answers, because the point of order....

We're going into discussion. I gave you the floor to ask many questions out of your turn. I see Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe is shaking his head as well, because he is waiting for his turn to speak. I will get back to you on this one ASAP, Ms. Kwan.

Let me go to Mr. Baker.

Mr. Baker, please keep your discussion focused on the motion as amended.

Go ahead, please. The floor is yours.

https://openparliament.ca/committees/afghanistan-s/44-1/13/jenny-kwan-1/

Latest posts

CIMM#115: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I would say that's generally the case. If the work permit they obtained was originally connected to the public policy, that's correct. I don't know if that's the situation in all cases. In some cases, applicants may have had an LMIA-based work permit to begin with.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
That's right. However, under the special immigration measure, the LMIA is not required. I have a list of applicants in those circumstances. Their work permit renewal application was rejected. They were asked to submit an LMIA, which makes no sense. I want to flag that as a deep concern now emerging for people whose open work permits are being rejected as they wait for their permanent resident status. At this rate, given the immigration levels plan numbers and the processing delays happening, and with the number of applicants in place, you can imagine that it's going to take something like eight years to get through the backlog of people getting their PR status. This means that if they are trying to get their pension, they will not be able to do so for eight years, because they are required to provide proof of permanent residence.
I want to flag this as a major concern. I hope the department will take action to fix the error being applied to applicants whose open work permits are being rejected under this stream. Can I get a confirmation from officials that this will be undertaken?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that issue has been raised with the department already, and we're looking into it to see what exactly happened in those situations.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Okay. Officials are aware of it, and yet it's still happening. I have cases coming to me that are happening. I'm about to prepare a giant pile of this stuff for the minister, so I hope the officials will fix that. The other thing related to the pension, of course, is lengthy delays for people to get their permanent status. Based on the immigration levels plan and the number of applicants in place, is it the officials' anticipation that it will take about eight years to get those applications processed?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We have looked at that possibility. Certainly, it will take longer than we had previously indicated to the committee. I would note that the first year of the levels plan is the fixed year. The years that follow, in this case, 2026 and 2027, are flexible. There are opportunities to adjust those numbers in the future, and that could affect that timeline. It's hard to say whether eight years will be the timeline, but it will be longer than had been originally predicted because the numbers have gone down.

CIMM#114: Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Aside from looking at patterns of potential violators—the groups and organizations taking advantage of students with these fraudulent letters of acceptance—will you be including in the analysis what types of institutions are being utilized for these fraudulent letters? In other words, is it private institutions versus public institutions, colleges versus universities and so on? Will that be part of the analysis?

Bronwyn May, Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's not always the case that a letter originates from an institution. We would need to look at various possible sources.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Maybe I can reframe that.
Obviously, as these are fraudulent letters of acceptance, they wouldn't be issued by the institutions. However, regarding the list of institutions being used for the purpose of these fraudulent letters, I would be interested in obtaining information to determine what percentage are private institutions and public institutions, how many of them are colleges, how many of them are universities and so on. That will tell us very specific information that I think is important when trying to tackle fraudulent activities.

Bronwyn May, Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I completely agree. That's a very important line of analysis.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
I will make the further request to make sure you share this information with the committee. I'll argue that this information should not be kept secret. It should be public and transparent—shared with all Canadians—so that we're aware of what the landscape is and of how international students are being taken advantage of. With respect to that analysis, will there be information and data on what countries are being targeted?

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

CIMM#113: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers

Jenny Kwan 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, Global Head, Government Relations, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
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.

Laura Hewitt, Senior Vice-President and Head, Global Government Affairs and Public Policy, Sun Life Financial Services of Canada Inc.
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.

AFGN#13: Humanitarian Assistance for the Afghan people

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

https://openparliament.ca/committees/afghanistan-s/44-1/13/jenny-kwan-1/

Latest posts

CIMM#115: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

CIMM#114: Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

CIMM#113: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers

Are you ready to take action?

Vancouver Constituency Office

Ottawa Parliamentary Office