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.

Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024
Evidence of meeting #115 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session

4:05 p.m.

Paul Chiang Markham—Unionville, ON
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the motion, which I put on notice on Friday:

That, upon the tabling of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year 2024-25, the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to testify on the Supplementary Estimates (B) by no later than the end of the current supply period.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you.

We have the witnesses in place.

The motion is in order. We have to debate this.

MP Kwan, please go ahead.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we get into debate and all the next steps, perhaps you could clarify something for me.

Isn't it the practice of this committee to actually invite the minister for supplementary estimates? That is our regular practice. We have been inviting the minister.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

If everybody is in agreement, then we can.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

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 Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

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 Vancouver East, BC
NDP

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 Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you.

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

Mr. McLean.

Greg McLean Calgary Centre, AB
Conservative

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 Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. McLean.

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

Salma Zahid Scarborough Centre, ON
Liberal

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 Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you.

MP Chiang, do you want to add something?

Paul Chiang Markham—Unionville, ON
Liberal

No, I'm good.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

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.

4:20 p.m.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you very much.

Now, we will go to MP Kwan for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials for appearing before our committee today.

In an opening statement, it was said that the Government of Canada “stands...with the people of Hong Kong”. Special immigration measures have been implemented, part of which will extend temporary status for Hong Kongers.

Could the officials confirm that those who qualify under that program are provided with an open work permit, and therefore an LMIA is not required?

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Mr. McNamee, go ahead.

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?

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Mr. McNamee, go ahead.

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?

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Mr. McNamee, go ahead.

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.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

What's the projection of the officials for the timeline in which these applications would be processed based on what has been tabled by way of the immigration levels plan?

Overall, because we don't break down the specific targets for specific subgroups within the H and C and public policy categories, our estimates would be that it would take four years for those applications to be processed. That was our base estimate, but you're correct that, depending on where those numbers go, it could be longer or it could be less. I'm saying that only the first year of the plan is a fixed year, and plans can change and adjustments can be made.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much.

The government decided to table a rolling three-year immigration levels plan, so those are the numbers we're using, assuming that those are the numbers. Of course, in subsequent times, perhaps even a changing government may well adjust all of those things; we don't know. What we do know are the numbers that are before us, and based on my calculation, with the number of people who have applied, it's going to be at least eight years to get through the backlog. By the officials' calculation, it's at least four years.

For people who are desperate to actually get resources, is it reasonable that they won't be able to apply for their pension funds for at least four years?

We acknowledge that is a challenge, so we're looking at what we can do to help facilitate and expedite that process. The H and C category is oversubscribed. We have a lot of competing priorities, which include high priorities like other categories of people who we must process under the same space.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

You have 30 seconds, Ms. Kwan.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much.

Yes, there is a desperate need in the global context of people who are displaced and who are fleeing persecution, and Canada wants to claim that it's doing its part, but it's not doing it in an effective way for people. Is it feasible for people to be in limbo for years on end without knowing what their status is? Meanwhile, they run into problems with respect to applications for jobs. For students who are under student visas, their fees are at least five or six times those of a domestic student. People who are trying to get their pensions will not be able to do so for years on end.

Is that a feasible way, and is it a reasonable thing for the Canadian government to say that they stand with the people of Hong Kong?

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you. Your time is up, but I will give Mr. McNamee the opportunity to speak.

To that, I would say that the primary job of that public policy was to enable people to leave Hong Kong and find the safety of Canada, and I think, by and large, that has been achieved. People have been able to come here, obtain temporary status and benefit from the protection of Canada, so from that score, I think it's been successful in doing so.

Yes, there are challenges with the transition to permanent residence, but in light of what the purpose was originally, which was to take them away from a situation of risk, that has been delivered, for the most part.

4:40 p.m.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Now we will go to MP Kwan. She will be the last honourable member before we switch to the next panel.

MP Kwan, you have two and a half minutes.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

I want to get back to these letters that have been issued to tell people there's a deadline with their interim status. Will the officials be issuing a public statement to let people know that this is an error—it's an old template that has been used, where the processing time used to be more expeditious—so that they're now not caught out in this situation thinking that their implied status would actually be expiring towards the end of the year?

How will the officials fix this problem? I'm aware that when some people went to apply for jobs, and they could only tell the employer that their implied status would last for only a couple of years, they were declined an offer for the position. The damage is already done.

I will take that back to the department to see exactly how we're going to proceed.

As a first step, we are amending that letter—

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Sorry. I get it. You're amending it going forward. But the letters already went out. The damage is already there. What will the officials do to fix that problem for people? That's the question.

With regard to the letters that Mr. Kmiec has put on the record, I met with the Hong Kong young professional association folks during the break week. Literally scores of people came to tell me about the problems they are faced with. This is as a result of the government's failure to properly process their applications and to expeditiously process their PR applications. This interim measure has created further problems for them.

This has to be fixed. It has to be fixed expeditiously. Then there's a question about what work needs to be done and what action will be taken by the officials retroactively for the people who have already been negatively impacted as a result of this error.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

You have 15 seconds, Mr. McNamee.

I would say that we'll take this back to the department and come back to you on our approach going forward.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Mr. Chair, I would request officially that there be a formal response to the committee from the officials on this problem that we have identified, and that they outline exactly the timeline and what the steps will look like to rectify this problem.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you, MP Kwan. The time is up.

On behalf of the committee members, I want to thank the panel members for being here and sharing the information.

I wish you the very best.

With that, I will suspend to set up the next panel.

5:30 p.m.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you.

We will now go to MP Kwan. After MP Kwan, we will give two minutes to the Conservatives, two minutes to the Liberals, one minute to the Bloc and one minute to the NDP. Then that's it.

MP Kwan, please go ahead.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before our committee today.

My question is for Professor Emery.

In a podcast that came out around November 7, I think, you and your co-hosts made comments about the decision the government announced with respect to the immigration levels plan and the changes regarding international students. They were somewhere along the lines that they were more of a political response and that the government was doing things that are politically expedient in the short run to take the heat off of the current government.

I wonder if you could expand on that comment with respect to the decision on the changes regarding international students.

Prof. Herb Emery

Sure.

The challenge is.... Again, I should have been a bit more careful about inferring motive on the part of government. However, I will say that the lack of study and discussion prior, the speed with which those caps came in on the heels of crises like affordable housing and things like that, perception of bad actors in Ontario, growing intense pressure on Ontario universities and colleges for finances, the fact that it happened so quickly without study and without this kind of consultation prior.... To me, it seems as if there's been more discussion after about what the impacts have been. That was behind a lot of those comments.

It's also the case in the maritime region. A lot of the discussion around immigration numbers and the role of international students.... It wasn't being studied in terms of absorptive capacity or some of those factors like Professor Worswick has brought up. It was really just “We need more numbers.” This goes back to 2016 when the idea of just growing international students, immigration numbers in total, was also a politically expedient way to try to grow the regional economy, because there was no clear evidence that it was going to work in a small open economy. You need to stimulate labour demand to get population up; you can't push it by increasing labour supply.

We've had a period of at least 10 years where governments tend to study things after they make the policy decision instead of in advance. That's part of why I believe that a lot of these things are reactionary and that they tend to be changes made when things don't go as expected.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much. I really appreciate those comments.

This has been said already by others. They seem to indicate that the government's decision was, in fact, a political response to the housing crisis, which, by the way, was not necessarily caused by newcomers but by successive Liberal and Conservative governments that failed on the delivery of housing that people need. I won't expand on that now. I'll save that for another day.

People are also saying that they fear there will be unanticipated consequences as a result of these decisions and the announcement that the government has made. You touched on this in your podcast, saying, “We're about to see a lot of dominoes fall, like the financial crisis about to hit a lot of the Ontario post-secondary system, and this is going to have knock-on effects because firms aren't going to find workers, so we'll see plants starting to close or threatening to close.”

I wonder if you can share with the committee your thoughts on the broad economic impacts of the international student caps for different provinces and different regions, particularly rural regions or smaller communities.

Prof. Herb Emery

You have a Canadian economy that is increasingly urbanizing around a small number of very large cities and centres, and you have a large number of traditional industries like fishing and agriculture that are being hollowed out in terms of the traditional working-age population. They are aging more rapidly than the cities. Getting workers into those regions to maintain production in plants that are not investing in automating and remain highly dependent on labour, that's where, again, a lot of these decisions around immigration were coming through as a reaction to the lack of investment we see in Canada in advanced manufacturing and in automation. We were keeping the legacy plants going by finding a new supply of labour to replace the traditional younger Canadian labour supply that was no longer there.

The challenges in Ontario with its post-secondary system are different from the challenges we're facing, let's say, with labour supply needs in the Atlantic region. In Ontario, I don't know if they were planning to use the increase in college-educated personal service workers coming out to solve some of the health care problems like they were in Atlantic Canada, but with the direct ties in the college system in our region, we're looking at programs that would produce graduates who could go to work in, say, the care sector, so there was at least some thinking around how to find the care workers for the population that isn't getting access to the services they need. Again, there was no study in advance on whether that works. It was based on a belief that you'll train them, that the jobs will be there and they'll take the jobs.

It's a rambling answer, but the real reason I think we did a lot of this was the labour shortage narrative that came in. A lot of employers were struggling to make ends meet with a lot of the margins and labour market policies coming in. If you can't raise your wages, you need to find another supply of labour to keep the lights on. I think that's what was happening in a lot of places.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you. The time is up.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Can I make one quick comment?

In other words, to summarize that, it's bringing in cheap labour, and now that the government has another crisis, it wants to blame the people who were brought in to provide cheap labour for the crisis that the government itself created.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

Thank you, MP Kwan.

Now we will go to Mr. Redekopp for two minutes.

5:45 p.m.

The Chair Sukh Dhaliwal
Liberal

We'll go to MP Kwan for one minute.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to Dr. Emery.

I remember when the government announced the Atlantic provinces special immigration measure. Given that this is where we are now with this situation, do you have any recommendations for how the government should adjust their plans, especially in addressing the problems that you anticipate for rural and smaller communities?

Prof. Herb Emery

I think that the big missing discussion is a statement of the goals you're trying to achieve with this type of immigration policy.

In a lot of the discussion that even we've had this afternoon, it's been about numbers and absorptive capacity, but not so much about what we're trying to achieve. Is it innovation? Is it labour supply? Is it growing the high-skill population? If you don't know what goal you're trying to achieve, then I don't know what we can actually recommend. If the goals were to bring in lower-skill labour for the short term and to boost up some university finances, it was working well, and putting the cap in was probably a mistake. If the goals were long-run population development and skills development, it probably needed to be more tailored to where the labour market needs are and which innovation system you're trying to seed, but that's not the discussion we're having.

https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/115/the-chair-24/

Latest posts

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.

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

https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/115/the-chair-24/

Latest posts

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

CIMM#111: Closed Work Permits and Temporary Foreign Workers

Are you ready to take action?

Vancouver Constituency Office

Ottawa Parliamentary Office