In Parliament
In Committee
CIMM#49: Questioning Immigration Minister on Afghan file

CIMM#49: Questioning Immigration Minister on Afghan file

House of Commons Debate
Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 8th, 2023
Evidence of meeting #49 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session

5:05 p.m.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the minister and officials for coming to the committee today.

On the Afghan file, I would first like to touch on the issue around the cultural interpreters. They've been excluded from the program, and it requires legal counsel representing the families to take the matter to court. I think that, just before we started this meeting, one of the cultural advisers spoke with you about the lack of action from the government.

From that perspective, why is it that cultural advisers are excluded? I know there's work in place to try to include them, but there are still extended family members who are excluded, who are being targeted and hunted down by the Taliban because of their work for Canada.

Will the minister confirm that the extended family members of the cultural advisers will be brought to safety?

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

Ms. Kwan, thank you for your advocacy.

Obviously, there are people who are facing very vulnerable circumstances. I want to be careful commenting on any specific cases, particularly when there may be legal proceedings involved. I don't want to breach confidentiality and I want to protect the integrity of any legal proceedings that may be at issue with a specific—

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Maybe I can just interject here.

I am not asking about any specific case, but about a class of people. As you know, there is a class of people who are excluded and who are taking legal action against the government. It shouldn't have to come to that. I hope the minister realizes that.

Now that this issue is before us, the question here is, what is the minister going to do about it? Will you ensure that those family members are brought to safety, including their extended family members?

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

There are just a couple of things.

We made a decision on certain categories for bringing extended family members here. We've expanded the definition of “family” across many aspects of this program to recognize cultural differences whereby people who may not be a nuclear family still consider themselves to be a family unit.

We rely on referral partners to place people into our programs in most instances, based on their contribution to either the Department of National Defence or Global Affairs Canada. We accept their referrals, but people can be referred into the program based on vulnerability, through private sponsorship or government-assisted programs.

I see that you want to take this in a different direction.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Well, actually I want to get to the crux and to the answer, and not this background, which I already have. I have only six minutes. I don't have that much time to get to you on direct questions.

My question here is this: Going forward, will the minister take action to ensure that these family members come to safety?

In addition to that, you have a limit of 40,000. With that limit, the reality is that the maximum number has been reached, which means that a lot of the family members have not been processed through this system and are not going to be able to get to safety.

I have spreadsheet upon spreadsheet of people who served Canada, and their family members, who have been left behind and ignored. They are in hiding and being hunted down by the Taliban. Some of them are in Pakistan, where their visas have expired and the police are knocking on their doors because of the expiry of their visas.

This is very real. If you don't lift the 40,000-person quota that the government has set arbitrarily, which is preventing Afghans from getting to safety, you are handing them a death sentence. That's the reality. The only reason they are in danger is that they served Canada.

My question here is twofold: Will you help to bring those families to safety—change the policy if that's what's required—and will you lift the quota?

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

I want to be careful not to make guarantees to people whose files I may not be fully aware of, because people often hang on to every word I say.

I am open to flexibly applying definitions of “family”, as we have for other programs throughout this process, to bring more people here. We have made a commitment to welcome at least 40,000 Afghan refugees. I am always looking for ways to continue to do more to help more vulnerable people get here.

The reality of the situation is that I know there are people who are vulnerable because of their work with Canada. We've created these programs to try to bring more of them here. I am happy to work with you and others, and members who want to speak to me, including the gentleman who spoke before this meeting began, to understand the situation and how we can improve policies to support more vulnerable people.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Minister, I appreciate that. You've offered that before. I have raised these questions before. I have submitted letters to you. I've written to you. I've sent the spreadsheets to you. I have brought them to your staff for attention. Do you know what? They all just sit there, saying that there is nothing to move forward on. There is no progress and nothing has moved.

I have another situation, in which a family member of one brother was left behind. Supposedly they applied under the wrong stream, so that was being corrected. Since then, there has been no progress. We don't know what's happened to that family. I don't even know if they have been approved under a new stream.

You can understand the anxiety that the families feel. I feel the anxiety, and that's only one-thousandth of how they feel. That's the reality of what they are faced with.

I appreciate the offer, but the reality is that there is very little follow-up. What do we do with that?

What we're waiting for and what I would like to see is a policy change and a public announcement. It shouldn't be just one-offs that we're working with.

I think the situation that my colleague, Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner, raised might be exactly the problem. There is this situation whereby some people got preferential treatment. I don't know how it is that some people got facilitation letters and others didn't.

I also had spreadsheets of people who needed to get to safety and never got one. Nobody told me that there were these facilitation letters you could get. How do you get them?

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

Madam Chair, do I have time to offer a response?

The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

You have 20 seconds.

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

There was a lot built into that question, obviously.

If the question is how people got facilitation letters, they were issued to people who were being brought into the program for a time-limited purpose during the evacuation of Kabul. The ones that were officially offered by the Government of Canada were limited to individuals who were supposed to be coming through part of our resettlement effort.

I'd be happy to chat further if we have an opportunity for follow-up questions in a subsequent round.

5:25 p.m.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I'd like to go to back to the cap of 40,000. It's clear that they are people who served Canada, and they and their family members are at risk and in danger. They are not part of the system at the moment, because of the cap. Knowing that, will the minister lift the cap so that those applicants can get a chance to get to safety?

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

I don't have an announcement on a new target to make at today's committee hearing. To the extent that we can find complementary pathways that allow us to do more good, of course I'm interested.

Any time we're dealing with permanent residents who come to Canada, it's essential that we plan as part of our annual immigration levels plan or specific decisions that are taken through an official process of the government, so that we can work with settlement agencies toward capacity.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you, Minister.

Of course, the minister knew—or should have known—that there are these Afghans who served Canada and who, with their family members, could not get to safety before this moment in time. The minister has known this for a long time now. I have certainly written enough letters to the minister to fill a cabinet drawer full with respect to that. This is not new to the minister. That information was there before the minister, prior to the immigration levels plan that was released.

I bring this to the minister's attention because people's lives are at risk. Until it happens, these people will not get to safety—that is the reality—and the Government of Canada is giving them a death sentence. That's also a reality that they will face. I'm sorry to say that, but that's how people are being treated on the ground.

On a different question, I asked officials for information regarding biometrics. I have the information back to indicate that “3,486 unique applications, representing a total of 10,568 persons, have at least one person on the application waiting to have their biometrics completed as of December 23, 2022.” That means they can't get their biometrics.

Because they cannot get those biometrics, will the minister consider alternatives so that they can get to safety? Can they not do that outside of country and, for some of them, actually in-house when they arrive in Canada?

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

Let me address your first point briefly, and then answer your question directly.

One of the things that's important when we're talking about the number we're trying to resettle is that we have received expressions of interest from more than a million people who want to come to Canada—

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I'm sorry, Minister. They're not expressions of interest. I'm talking very specifically of people who served Canada and their family members.

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

I understand, but I think it's important that people understand the scale of interest from people who are seeking to take part in this program.

On your question about biometrics specifically, we've actually implemented a different security screening process that starts with enhanced biographic screening. We allow people to move through that process and complete their biometrics in a third country. We are now seeing that biometrics and security screening are not the bottleneck that they were a year and a half ago in this mission. It's proven to be somewhat successful, in my view. It ensures that we can have a rigorous security screening process pre-arrival, but it doesn't compromise the ability of a person to go through the process while they're still inside Afghanistan.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

It remains that 10,568 people are still stuck in the system, so—

Sean Fraser Central Nova, NS
Liberal

And nearly that many are actually still in Afghanistan—

The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I'm sorry to interrupt.

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

https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/49/jenny-kwan-1/

Latest posts

FINANCE#8: Calls for ministerial accountability on unintended tax cut consequences

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Hallelujah to progress being made on the bill.

NDP-2 requires the Minister of Finance to report to Parliament and the public on how reducing the lowest federal personal income tax rate affects the value of non-refundable tax credits, which are calculated using that same tax rate. This is a critical measure, because lowering the personal income tax rate not only reduces the amount of tax owed; it also diminishes the value of tax credits such as the disability tax credit, the age credit and the caregiver credit. These are important supports, particularly for lower-income Canadians, seniors and people with disabilities. For individuals who claim these tax credits, the net benefit of the government's proposed tax cut will be significantly reduced.

The National Disability Network, March of Dimes Canada and Inclusion Canada have also raised these concerns that some claimants may be worse off overall, as the drop in credit value could outweigh the savings from the lower tax rate.

Recent testimony before this committee from the finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, and senior finance official Stefania Bartucci confirms that the government is aware of the unintended consequences of the reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate on non-refundable tax credits. On October 6, 2025, the finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, told this committee, “we heard concerns regarding unintended consequences of the tax cuts on some disability tax credit recipients. I can assure you, Madam Chair, that we are working on resolving them.”

By mandating a transparent, timely report to Parliament and the public, this amendment ensures that the full impact of the tax change is understood and that vulnerable groups are not unintentionally disadvantaged. This amendment also holds the minister accountable to his commitment to addressing these impacts and ensures that Parliament can monitor progress on mitigating harm to vulnerable Canadians.

Madam Chair, I hope committee members will support this amendment.

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.

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

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

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources