CIMM#59: Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and Obtaining Facts from Senator McPhedran

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator, for being here today.

I just want to get some facts on the record. Could you tell the committee how many facilitation letters were sent out from your office?

Marilou McPhedranSenator, Manitoba, not affiliated

I need to clarify—when you say my office—the process that happened. The template we were given by George Young was shared with a number of trusted advocates in different countries who then facilitated, as best they could, people hopefully being accepted by soldiers into the airport.

You asked me for a specific number, but I wasn't keeping track of the numbers. It was about getting as many people, as many women, as possible out.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP

I'm sorry. I understand that the letter was shared with organizations and trusted advocates so they could distribute letters, but did you not keep track of how many facilitation letters came out of your office?

Marilou McPhedran, Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

I did not keep close track, no. It was about giving the template to trusted advocates and helping to get the names to create the letters that could be used.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP

Let me clarify, then. I'm understanding that your office did not send out any facilitation letters to individuals, but rather sent out these facilitation letters to organizations for distribution.

Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2023
Evidence of meeting #59 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session.
 

4:55 p.m.

 

The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you. The time is up.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes. Please begin.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator, for being here today.

I just want to get some facts on the record. Could you tell the committee how many facilitation letters were sent out from your office?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

I need to clarify—when you say my office—the process that happened. The template we were given by George Young was shared with a number of trusted advocates in different countries who then facilitated, as best they could, people hopefully being accepted by soldiers into the airport.

You asked me for a specific number, but I wasn't keeping track of the numbers. It was about getting as many people, as many women, as possible out.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I'm sorry. I understand that the letter was shared with organizations and trusted advocates so they could distribute letters, but did you not keep track of how many facilitation letters came out of your office?

 

 

I did not keep close track, no. It was about giving the template to trusted advocates and helping to get the names to create the letters that could be used.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Let me clarify, then. I'm understanding that your office did not send out any facilitation letters to individuals, but rather sent out these facilitation letters to organizations for distribution.

 

 

No, that's not correct. It's not an either-or situation, Ms. Kwan. I will give you a specific example of what I mean.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I'm sorry. Can I just get clarity? Is it the case that your office both sent out letters and shared those letters with trusted organizations?

 

They were advocates and organizations.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Okay. They were advocates and organizations.

Do you have a list of the advocates and organizations that received these facilitation letters from you that you can share with the committee?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

Yes. It's a small list. I can tell you right now.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I think we will ask you to submit that to the committee, because there might be groups involved that will be put in jeopardy. I don't want to do that.

What is your understanding of these facilitation letters? What were they supposed to do, from your understanding?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

They were supposed to help people get to the airport and, when they got to the airport, to then get access, through the soldiers guarding the airport, and be processed, hopefully, for evacuation. That's what the letter says.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

It was to get them through to the checkpoint and then, hopefully, onto a plane for evacuation.

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

There's some processing that must have gone on for getting through the line.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I assume so, yes. Ultimately, your understanding is that it would get them out of Afghanistan to safety.

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

It's evacuation.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Okay, got it.

Was this exchange with George Young that was copied to GAC—I think you said Mr. Jungic—done through your parliamentary email, or was it done through your private email?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

It was done through my parliamentary email.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

With regard to Mr. Jungic, who was engaged by GAC and was copied on this letter, do you know what his position was at the time?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

He sent an email to me introducing himself on August 24, and he said he was a policy adviser for Minister Garneau.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

With respect to the period in which this was done, do you know if the people you assisted were evacuated under Operation Safe Haven?

 

I do not.

They were evacuated in a number of ways. In truth, they were evacuated by a number of countries. We had situations where they got in with our assistance but the Australians helped them, or they ended up in the U.K.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

These were individuals who were seeking safety through the humanitarian stream and not through the stream where they served Canada. Do I understand that correctly, or is it both?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

It's both.

In terms of serving Canada, for the most part, these are women. These are women working in Canadian-funded non-governmental organizations, and some young activists, male and female, working in some of those organizations with funding from Canada.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

As to the people who received this letter, I read in the media that many of them are still stuck and unable, ultimately, to get to Canada for safety. What is their understanding of what that letter meant? Do you know?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

I can't speak to their understanding. I can certainly note for you that there is an application for a judicial review of IRCC and the Government of Canada by five Afghans at extreme risk, whose lawyers are arguing that the letter—

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Got it. Yes, I am aware.

In your testimony, you indicated that the former defence minister, Minister Sajjan, was copied on the correspondence. Can you explain clearly what he was copied on and what he was advised on?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

I could table it. It's a lot of emails. I have copies.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I think it would be very helpful to table it.

Since you received this authorization and believe you had authorization to act accordingly, who within government knew, who within government ministries knew and which ministers, more to the point? I don't believe that chiefs of staff act on their own without the authorization of their political master.

If you have correspondence to indicate that ministers were aware and knew this was all going on at the same time, that would be a pertinent piece of documentation we need to have—

 

The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kwan, but your time is up.

We will now proceed to Ms. Rempel Garner for five minutes.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please begin.

 

5:15 p.m.

 

The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I'm sorry for interrupting, Senator. The time is up for Mr. Simard.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have two and a half minutes. Please begin.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

Senator, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that former minister Maryam Monsef's staff and another colleague were aware of these facilitation letters. Can you advise us who this other colleague is?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

It's Laura Robinson.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Got it. Okay. Thank you. I thought so, but I wanted to be sure.

Now, given the current situation, there are many Afghans who have been left behind, including the ones you've been trying to assist. There are those who need a humanitarian stream, and then there are those who served Canada. In fact, people who served Canada through the military, through NATO and through various other activities to help Canada complete its mission did not even get their applications processed.

The government came in with a limit of 40,000, an arbitrary number that came from I don't know where. Do you think the government should be lifting that arbitrary limit of 40,000?

 

Marilou McPhedran
Senator, Manitoba, not affiliated

Absolutely. This is essentially a promise. The minister's mandate letter says “at least 40,000”. It does not say, “Stop at 40,000.”

You've made some very powerful points on this, and I agree with you completely.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Okay.

Some of these applications came into the system in an email in which the government told people to indicate their intention to try to get to safety through...back in August, in the summer. By the way, I'm still getting emails and family members contacting me who have not even gotten an acknowledgement or a response from the government. What do you think the government should be doing about bringing individuals to safety, particularly those who are in crisis and being persecuted by the Taliban, those who served Canada and their family members?

 

First of all, I think the recommendations made by the Special Committee on Afghanistan identify a number of the actual practical steps that need to be implemented, but in addition to that, I have to say that when Mursal Nabizada was murdered on January 15, I actually thought that we were going to see an acceleration. I thought we were going to see at least women parliamentarians trapped in Afghanistan made a priority, and that has not happened. I and others have been working—for example, with the Inter-Parliamentary Union—with specific lists of women parliamentarians. It hasn't happened.

 

The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I'm sorry for interrupting, but time is up for Ms. Kwan.

We will now proceed to Ms. Rempel Garner for five minutes.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you can please begin.

 

https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/59/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 MayDirector 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 GreenwoodGlobal 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 HewittSenior 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.

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates