Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to get some clarity. If the issue is about national security, Madam Damoff's amendment suggests that we seek government officials to confirm that national security could be put in jeopardy if this were provided to us. If, in fact, that is confirmed and that is the case, NSICOP would be the appropriate place to send this to, because that committee was established to deal with such matters.
It is my understanding, and perhaps the clerk can confirm, that we have a member of Parliament from each party represented at that committee. Is that not the case? If that's the case, we have to have some faith in our colleagues on that committee to do the due diligence on the work there.
If the issue is not around national security and that was not confirmed by the officials, then there is a real question about it being sent to NSICOP. I would think that's not the appropriate thing to do and we should have the document sent to this committee, having gone through the regular process of redaction, although I note that in the original motion there is no call for redaction of any sort. There is none of the language that normally shows up on cabinet confidentiality, national security issues or privacy redactions that should be vetted by the law clerk. The original motion does not provide for that either.
Given that the amendment is saying it will be subject to confirmation that national security is at issue, that is an important piece. If that confirmation does not come about on Monday, then it puts this issue in a different place, and we should have further discussion about it.
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.