Refugees from Hong Kong: Canada can and should do more

Alex Neve

Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Immigration and Refugee Measures for the People of Hong Kong

House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

February 17, 2021

At the heart of today’s hearing is, of course, the rapid and unrelenting deterioration in the human rights situation in Hong Kong. The erosion of freedom and the intensification of repression has been deepening and expanding for a number of years, through the umbrella movement in 2014, anti-extradition reform protests in 2019 and the imposition of a new security law last year.  When the national security law was enacted 8 months ago, Amnesty International noted,

“Virtually anything could be deemed a threat to “national security" under its provisions, and it can apply to anyone on the planet.”

And that is precisely what has occurred.  This new law has been used widely to target students, political opponents, critics, journalists, and, of greatest concern, to curtail fundamental rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and peaceful protest. A growing number of individuals – high profile and grassroots – have been arrested. In the face of remarkable courage and resilience on the part of Hong Kongers, this situation continues to worsen.

The Canadian government has spoken out on a number of occasions, including at the UN General Assembly last October, joining 38 other nations in an unprecedented call on China “to uphold autonomy, rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, and to respect the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary.”

As with any human rights crisis, there are refugee concerns as people in Hong Kong wrestle with wrenching decisions to escape for their safety and the safety of loved ones. There are unique aspects to this refugee situation though that merit specific and innovative responses from Canada.

First is the simple geographic reality.  In almost all other refugee situations people have the possibility of making it to the closest land border (though the journey may be dangerous), crossing that border and accessing international protection through the UNHCR and other agencies.  That is obviously not an option here. Crossing the closest border would mean greater danger, not protection.

Second there are strong Canadian connections to the refugee situation. There are likely more than 300,000 Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, many with dual nationality, whose situation is very vulnerable with increasing reports of officials refusing to recognize their Canadian citizenship as well as recent concerns about a proposal to give immigration officials “unfettered power” to stop anyone leaving Hong Kong. Many of those Canadians have close family who are not Canadian citizens, but who cannot be left behind.  This means protecting Canadian citizens and also permanent residents facing the threats, challenges and restrictions akin to refugees.  Canada may be their obvious destination and safe haven; but reaching Canada, along with their non-Canadian loved ones, may not be so easy.

With all of this in mind, it was encouraging to see the special immigration measures for Hong Kong instituted by Minister Mendicino in November.

More is urgently needed however.  I offer the following recommendations in five general areas.

First, the special measures should be strengthened. You have heard thoughtful testimony from highly respected advocates, including Avvy Go, Cherie Wong and Eric Li.  They have highlighted that measures such as the new open work permit privilege wealth and high levels of education, but are not accessible for many others, including young activists at greatest risk.  The criteria should be revised to be more responsive to those facing the greatest need and not inadvertently discriminate on the basis of higher education and, implicitly, the wealth that requires.

Second, possibilities for family sponsorship need to be expanded.  While the option of parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens applying for super visas is rightly being promoted, close family who are at risk is broader than that, including brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins, and nieces and nephews.  Canadians who may need to escape Hong Kong should not be forced to make the impossible decision to leave close family members behind.

Third, while there is of course a legal barrier to formally providing refugee status to Hong Kongers while they are still in Hong Kong, there should nevertheless be more attention to refugee-like measures, rather than relying primarily on immigration avenues to address refugee concerns. 

• Some Hong Kongers have been able to flee to other countries, including Taiwan.  Beyond noting that refugee resettlement may be an option for such individuals, it is important that Canada devote more resources to actively facilitate resettlement on an expedited basis.

•  And for individuals trapped in Hong Kong who need a quick means of escape, Canada should make greater use of humanitarian avenues for granting status through temporary residence permits and travel documents if necessary. In other words, refugee protection in all but name.

Fourth, there is urgent need for strategies for facilitating travel, in the face of repressive security measures in Hong Kong and the constraints of COVID-19 travel restrictions.  Staying abreast of security barriers that impede departure from Hong Kong requires close collaboration with other governments. I would also echo concerns about possible security problems associated with visa applications being processed by VFS Global. The PM has asked Ministers Mendicino and Anand to look into this.  It would also be advisable to ask the Privacy Commissioner to review this and to do so urgently.

Fifth, let me highlight two bigger picture and longer term points.

• The first is that this situation highlights the limitations of protecting individuals at risk in their countries who cannot reach a third country to apply for refugee resettlement or status.  Canada has had previous programs that offered urgent protection to people unable to cross an international border, most recently the source country program, which was repealed in October 2011.  While that program was not perfect, it should have been improved, not ended.  The government should look at restoring options for protection and resettlement for at-risk individuals still within their country of nationality.

• Finally, let me reiterate the obvious.The best solution is to address the grave human rights crisis that forces people to flee Hong Kong in the first place. Canada must continue and in fact intensify bilateral and multilateral efforts to press China to end the human rights crackdown in Hong Kong and, of course, other grave human rights concerns in China including mass atrocities against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities.