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

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?

Yes, I understand that it's not within your authority. However, given that you just said yourself—both of you—that you are client-centred, that you're there to support the clients, and knowing that this is the reason that people can't access their funds, even though they have every intention, as declared in their declaration, to leave Hong Kong permanently, then wouldn't it be incumbent upon your organization to express that point of view and ask the regulator to consider allowing these individuals to access their funds?

Now, on the flip side, would you, as an organization, be willing to write to the Canadian government to indicate the number of applicants in your system who have applied and are unable to access their pension funds because they have not been able to prove permanent residency because they only have a study permit or a work permit? Is that something you'd be willing to do? Just give a quick yes or no.

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.