Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Hong Kong activist Nathan Law, center, takes part in a protest during the visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Berlin, Germany, Sept. 1, 2020.

Markus Schreiber/The Associated Press

A key parliamentary committee has voted to call VFS Global, the company that runs Canada’s visa application centres abroad, to answer questions regarding Chinese police ownership of the facility in Beijing.

The House of Commons committee on citizenship and immigration unanimously agreed to adopt a motion from NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan on Wednesday asking VFS to appear no later than Feb. 24.

VFS Global was not immediately available for comment on the development.

Story continues below advertisement

The Commons committee is in the midst of a study on immigration measures that Canada could take to help Hong Kongers fleeing the Chinese Communist Party’s crackdown in the former British colony. Ms. Kwan made the case that MPs would benefit from talking to VFS now because applications to migrate to Canada pass through visa application centres.

She noted The Globe and Mail’s reporting earlier this month on the Canadian government’s arrangement in Beijing, where Chinese police own a company that collects details of people applying for visas to Canada.

“This ought to be cause for concern for all committee members and most notably for the people who might be trying to access immigration measures through the visa application centres overseas,” Ms. Kwan said. “The information that visa application centres receive is particularly sensitive.”

As The Globe reported, Canada’s visa application centre in Beijing is operated by Beijing Shuangxiong Foreign Service Company, which is owned by the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau. At least some of the people working inside the centre are members of the Chinese Communist Party, recruited from a school that trains the next generation of party elite.

Beijing Shuangxiong is a subcontractor for VFS Global, a company headquartered in Zurich and Dubai that holds a wide-reaching contract to provide visa-processing services around the world for the Canadian government. VFS offices collect personal and biometric information that is then forwarded to Canadian immigration officials for decisions on who will be granted visas.

VFS spokesman Peter Brun has previously said the Chinese companies it works with “are managed by VFS Global and we ensure they operate entirely according to all VFS Global security processes and protocols, and according to the Canadian government’s visa application process and data protection requirements, which are audited regularly by the Canadian government.”

“Individuals or local companies having a stake in the FMCs [Facility Management Company] that you described have no access to visa application data and no influence on the integrity of the visa-application process as defined by any client government we serve,” Mr. Brun said.

Story continues below advertisement

Separately, Hong Kong activists asked Canada, through testimony to the immigration committee, to guarantee that protest-related arrests or charges will not bar residents of the Asian city from seeking asylum or permanent residency here.

They’re also asking Canada to allow would-be political refugees to commence their claims in third countries because of travel restrictions that prevent them from reaching Canadian soil to start the process of seeking asylum.

Nathan Law, currently in political exile in Britain, was one of several high-profile figures in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement who testified Wednesday.

Human-rights advocates and civil-liberties groups have accused Hong Kong authorities of politically motivated arrests and charges in connection with protests that began in mid-2019 over a proposed law to allow extradition to mainland China. More than 10,000 Hong Kongers were arrested, and many subsequently charged with “rioting” and unlawful assembly.

Canada has already promised it would not deny entry to anyone solely for having been charged under the new national-security law enacted June 30, 2020.

But Mr. Law and Joey Siu, an activist with London-based Hong Kong Watch, told MPs that it’s important for Canada to clarify whether protest-related charges in the year leading up to the imposition of the national-security law will represent a barrier to entry.

Story continues below advertisement

Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino’s office said that Hong Kongers who were arrested or charged after “taking part in peaceful protests” would not be deemed inadmissible to Canada.

“We want to be unequivocally clear that no Hong Kongers will be prevented from coming to Canada or claiming asylum solely because they have participated in peaceful protests, whether they did so before or after the introduction of the National Security Law,” said Alex Cohen, press secretary to Mr. Mendicino. “Additionally, conduct that is not recognized as an offence under Canadian law is not grounds for inadmissibility. No matter what the charge is, the underlying actions themselves must constitute an offence in Canada to be considered grounds for inadmissibility.”

Know what is happening in the halls of power with the day’s top political headlines and commentary as selected by Globe editors (subscribers only). Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the authors of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies