Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Before I begin, I will say happy Greek Independence Day. I want to make sure that Mr. Menegakis gets an extra special shout-out today, and Peter Fragiskatos, of course, and anyone else who is celebrating this very important day.

Welcome to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Today's meeting will be taking place in a hybrid format.

As always, I'm going to provide a few comments for the benefit our witnesses and members today.

For those who end up on Zoom, please click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: English, French or floor. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will let everybody know when they have one minute left, whether it is in your remarks or the rounds of questions.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

I will remind everyone to kindly not speak over each other, as it is hard for our interpreters to translate. It makes it difficult for them to do their job.

Of course, please ensure that all your comments are addressed through the chair.

Members, as you know, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. Thank you for your co-operation.

Before we begin, as promised, the clerk distributed the final copy of the international student program report on Friday. If everyone is in agreement, we can adopt two motions.

Could I have someone move that the draft report be adopted? Who would like to move that?

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Does anybody have any issues with us adopting the draft report?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Does that sound good to you, Mr. Simard?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes. That sounds good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Who would like to move that the chair present the report to the House?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Are there any objections to that?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you so much.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on September 16, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of Canada's immigration system.

I would now like to warmly welcome our witnesses for today's meeting.

We have Adam Hummel, lawyer, Hummel Law PC. Welcome.

We have Zhixi Zhuang, associate professor, Toronto Metropolitan University. She is joining us virtually. Welcome, Ms. Zhuang.

From the Société nationale de l'Acadie, we're joined by Émilie Caissie‑Richard, chief executive officer of the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone; and Michel Denis Richard, administrator, Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone.

Welcome.

With that, up to five minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions. I will begin with Mr. Hummel for five minutes.

I now invite you to begin your opening statement.

[Adam Hummel, Lawyer, Hummel Law PC, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of this committee, for this invitation to appear.

My name is Adam Hummel. I'm an immigration lawyer in Toronto. I am a litigator specializing in criminal inadmissibility and discretionary immigration applications.

I was born in South Africa, and I came to this country as an immigrant myself, so I understand in a personal way what it means to choose Canada and what it means to trust that the system you're entering will treat you fairly. I appear today as an individual practitioner who spends his days navigating the system on behalf of workers, families, refugees and employers trying to fill genuine labour shortages in Canada. I recently published a paper for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on Canada's immigration security screening.

I wish to be direct: The problems I'm going to describe hurt both sides of the equation. A broken screening system endangers Canadian public safety, but that same system also fails the legitimate applicants stuck in years-long limbo, whose lives are on hold and who increasingly regret choosing Canada. A system that works properly protects Canadians and treats applicants fairly. Right now, it does neither.

Let me start with the security problem, as the structural issues are straightforward. Four agencies—IRCC, the CBSA, CSIS and the RCMP—have a hand in immigration security screening. Each maintains a separate database. Each uses different risk indicators. Each operates on its own timeline. When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable.

A 2023 evaluation of Canada's national security screening program found that IRCC granted approval to enter or stay in Canada in 46% of cases where applicants had been assessed as inadmissible by the CBSA. In nearly half of the cases where one agency said no, the decision-maker said yes. That's not a difference of opinion; it's a system at war with itself.

These security concerns are not abstract. As a Jewish Canadian, I belong to a community that has faced a sharp rise in targeted threats since October 2023. I raise this not because any one community's experience should drive immigration policy, but because it underscores something that this committee already knows: When screening fails, the consequences land on real families and neighbourhoods across this country.

Let me tell you what this looks like from a practitioner's side. Between June 2022 and December 2023, the inventory of CBSA security assessments surged from 11,000 to over 103,000. Referrals for screenings are dramatically outpacing completed assessments. In 2024 alone, CSIS received over 538,000 screening requests. A CSIS check that once meant in-depth inquiry now means running names through databases under pressure to clear significant backlogs.

By mid-2025, processing times exceeded 50 years for certain pathways—50. Even common streams face delays of nine, 10 and 20 years. These aren't just numbers. These are my clients, whose careers, families, mental health and savings deteriorate while they wait for a system that can't tell them when or whether it will render a decision.

In my paper, I proposed four reforms.

The first is to create an immigration security coordination centre, a unified hub where all screening partners access the same information in real time.

The second is to implement continuous vetting. Right now, we check backgrounds at submission but have no mechanism for ongoing monitoring.

The third is to modernize sections 34 to 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which were drafted many years ago and don't capture modern threats like foreign interference and cyber-espionage.

Fourth, we have to fund it properly. Current backlogs stem from understaffing, insufficient analysis and outdated IT systems.

I believe in immigration. I chose this area of law because Canada is made stronger by the people who come here to work, build and contribute, but the current system is failing the people it has promised to serve.

I often joke that no one taught us in law school how much of this job is spent just answering emails. As an immigration practitioner today, I can tell you that 75% of those emails ask the same questions: When will my application finally be processed? When can I see my kids? When can I see my spouse? When can I start to work? We are breaking faith with applicants who follow the rules and who chose Canada in good faith, but we are simultaneously leaving Canadians exposed to threats that a properly functioning system should catch.

Fixing this is not about closing doors. It's about making sure that the doors we open lead somewhere and that we all know who's walking through them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Hummel.

Next, for five minutes, we have Professor Zhuang, who is online.

Please go ahead. Your five minutes start now.

[Zhixi Zhuang, Associate Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual]

Dear Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Zhixi Zhuang, associate professor at the School of Urban and Regional Planning and associate director at the Global Migration Institute, Toronto Metropolitan University.

I'd like to address one critical issue in Canada's immigration levels planning, and that is the need to better align immigration levels with municipal infrastructure planning.

Immigration success depends not only on how many people we meet but also on whether our cities and communities are prepared to support them once they arrive. At present, Canada's immigration system faces a structural coordination gap. Immigration targets and mobility policies are set at the federal level, while settlement and integration take place locally, where capacity is uneven and often strained, especially in smaller communities that lack sufficient housing supply, transit networks and culturally appropriate services to support long-term settlement.

The settlement experiences of both international students and immigrants highlight this shared structural challenge. When immigration targets, study permit allocations and institutional recruitment strategies are not aligned with local infrastructure and service capacity, the results are increased pressure on local infrastructure and greater vulnerability and inequity for newcomers.

Although federal policy has increasingly encouraged regionalization to advance economic development and demographic renewal, only 16.6% of newcomers settle across 140 small and mid-sized Canadian cities. This disconnect raises a broader policy question: How can municipalities, especially small and mid-sized communities, be supported to receive and retain newcomers at the levels currently being planned?

Municipalities are on the front lines of this issue. They are responsible for housing, transit, land-use planning, community services and public spaces that shape everyday life. Many smaller communities operate with limited transit and fewer culturally appropriate services and federal funding structures. Immigration levels are not just about housing units, jobs or population numbers. They are about the broader infrastructure ecosystem that allows people to settle, stay and thrive at the community level.

Higher education institutions also play a direct role in attracting international students and shaping local population growth. However, in many cases, student recruitments have outpaced the development of housing supply, settlement supports and pre-arrival information systems. Without coordinated planning among institutions, municipalities and governments, responsibility becomes fragmented and accountability unclear.

To address this gap, I would respectfully offer four recommendations for consideration.

First, Canada would benefit from a formal federal-provincial-municipal coordination mechanism that links immigration planning with housing, infrastructure, and service capacity. A dedicated task force that brings together representatives from immigration, housing, education and municipal governments, as well as from student and newcomer advocacy groups, could help map local assets, identify infrastructure gaps, and support coordinated planning and funding across jurisdictions.

Second, municipalities should be given a clearer and more formal role in integration planning. Planning processes, zoning frameworks and service delivery should systematically integrate newcomer considerations into housing, transit, health and workforce planning, supported by dedicated funding streams for settlement integration.

Third, higher education institutions that recruit internationally should be recognized as key partners in immigration infrastructure. Institutions should be expected to demonstrate housing planning, pre-arrival guidance, and talent education supports as part of responsible recruitment strategies and practices.

Last but not least, immigration levels planning should incorporate measurable indicators of local capacity, not only through housing availability, transit access, service provision and labour market needs, but also by systematically mapping local assets, resources, and key institutional and community actors to ensure that population growth is sustainable, coordinated and equitable across communities.

Immigration policy does not end at the border. It continues in the places where people live their lives: in neighbourhoods, classrooms, transit systems and housing markets across the country. Municipal leadership, institutional accountability and coordinated planning are essential if we want immigration to succeed not only in numbers but in meaningful outcomes at the community level.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Zhuang.

Thank you to our interpreters, because that was a marathon translation.

Ms. Caissie‑Richard, you now have five minutes to give your opening remarks.

[Émilie Caissie-Richard, Chief Executive Officer, Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone, Société nationale de l'Acadie]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the committee members for inviting us here today.

For 145 years, the Société nationale de l'Acadie has represented the Acadian people on the Atlantic, national and international stages. It plays a structuring role in francophone immigration, in particular through the coordination of the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone. This committee encourages stakeholders in the four Atlantic provinces to take concerted and consistent action.

I'm joined today by Michel Denis Richard, the administrator of this committee.

Let me be quite clear. Canada has made great strides in terms of policies, targets and commitments regarding francophone immigration. However, it lacks a consistent and regionalized approach to implementation that fully reflects the realities of francophone minority communities. We showed this in the brief submitted to your committee. Recent developments confirm this on an even more urgent basis.

On the one hand, the Government of Canada is modernizing the Official Languages Act, recognizing francophone immigration as a key to vitality and setting ambitious targets. On the other hand, on the ground, we're seeing programs disappear, positions eliminated and organizations grow weaker. Moreover, no additional funding is planned for the 2026‑27 fiscal year. We aren't seeing a simple administrative adjustment. It's a contradiction.

Immigration is currently the main driver of demographic growth in Atlantic Canada. For our communities, it represents a key factor in economic, social and community development. Yet despite taking in more immigrants than its demographic weight, Atlantic Canada has one of the lowest retention rates in the country, both in the short and medium term.

This situation directly compromises the restoration of the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec to 6.1%, as set out in the Official Languages Act. This issue doesn't stem from a lack of effort on the part of the communities. Rather, it stems from a governance framework that remains too centralized, too uniform and too poorly adapted to the distinct realities of Atlantic Canada. We can't overlook this structuring challenge.

Francophone immigration isn't just another program. It stems from clear legislative obligations. The Official Languages Act recognizes its restorative role. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that immigration contribute to the development of official language minority communities.

This brings us back to the principle of substantive equality. Substantive equality doesn't mean providing exactly the same services to everyone. It means providing services adapted to the specific realities of the communities. The current model doesn't fully uphold this principle. It treats different realities as if they were identical. As a result, the francophone integration process remains too fragmented. The recruitment, settlement, integration and retention process lacks continuity. Expertise in the field receives too little recognition.

Yet we know what works. The francophone integration process must be seen as a continuum, from discovery to citizenship. It must be approached with a regional lens and supported by francophone players who understand local realities. In other words, we really need an approach based on services provided by and for francophones.

This capacity already exists. For over 20 years, the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone has facilitated interprovincial coordination and ensured a consistent approach to the attraction, settlement, integration, retention and economic immigration of newcomers. This isn't about creating a new structure. It's about truly recognizing an existing structure that has proven its ability to meet the demands of this role over the past few years.

That's why we aren't asking for a new strategy. We're asking for the consistent application of the current strategy. We're asking you to recommend the official recognition of the Société nationale de l'Acadie, which includes the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone, as the umbrella organization for francophone immigration in Atlantic Canada. We want you to give it a clear mandate for regional coordination at the local level, to recognize its truly regionalized approach and to give it stable and predictable funding.

Atlantic Canada's Acadian and francophone communities are ready. They have the expertise. They're already achieving results. Today, they're asking for the system to fully recognize their role and to give them the resources to make francophone immigration a real driver of sustainable vitality.

Ultimately, the issue is simple. Do we just want to set targets, or do we truly want to strengthen the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Caissie‑Richard.

We'll now begin the first round of questions.

It will be for six minutes.

I believe we have Ms. Kronis. Welcome to our committee.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

She's just visiting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Okay. Then we have Mr. Redekopp. I'm sorry; I had a different name.

Mr. Redekopp, you are very welcome to begin. You have six minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to cede my time to Monsieur Simard, who will then cede back to me in his round—just to mix things up a little today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

That's not a problem.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank my Conservative colleague. How kind of him! I appreciate it. He let me use his time because I was perhaps too eager to speak to the witnesses.

Ms. Caissie‑Richard, I believe that we can make some quite useful connections between your comments and Ms. Zhuang's earlier remarks regarding integration. We must keep in mind that the integration of migrants differs depending on whether they belong to a national minority group or a linguistic minority group. You clearly illustrated this point.

I'll quickly give you some figures that struck me. In 2024, 57,000 temporary migrants arrived in Quebec. Before that, in 2023, the figure was 65,000. In 2025, I believe that one-third of Canada's asylum seekers, most of whom are temporary migrants, came to Quebec.

In Quebec, we prioritize the integration of French speakers, with language being a key factor.

I wonder whether a certain mechanism could be developed. As Ms. Zhuang clearly explained, our intake capacity depends on our infrastructure. When we have too many temporary migrants or asylum seekers, this places pressure on public services and infrastructure as a whole. Wouldn't it be possible to adjust the migration of francophones to ensure that the Atlantic provinces take in a slightly higher proportion? What could the federal government put in place? I don't want to say it this way, because it sounds a bit insensitive. However, it seems that, from a volume perspective, the figures are disproportionate. You'll agree with me. Couldn't a mechanism be implemented here? I would like to hear your opinion on this.

[Michel Denis Richard, Administrator, Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone, Société nationale de l'Acadie]

Thank you, Mr. Simard. Good question. I completely agree with the points that you just made. When it comes to the reality, the specific features or the characteristics of francophone minority communities in Atlantic Canada, various initiatives have been implemented in recent years. These initiatives include the welcoming francophone communities, which play a key role in connecting municipalities, educational institutions and health care services. These structures have been set up to try to connect these different bodies.

At the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone, we work with all direct and indirect settlement service providers that have contribution agreements with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC. This can include educational institutions or municipalities, for example. Our job is to mobilize all these players in order to implement solid intake structures and ensure a better retention of newcomers.

We can currently see that Atlantic Canada has the lowest retention rate in the country. As the chief executive officer said, this mainly stems from an overly centralized and nation‑centric approach.

Our goal is to make people aware of the characteristics, specific features and realities of francophone minority communities in Atlantic Canada. The Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone benefits from its proximity to the four provinces and to service providers. We believe that IRCC's recognition of the committee as an umbrella organization would serve as an excellent model initiative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have one minute left, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'll be brief, Madam Chair.

Mr. Richard, you probably know that immigration is a shared jurisdiction in Quebec. This isn't the case everywhere. That said, in a way, this helps to establish connections, even though some aspects remain contentious.

I must be quick. I don't want to put words in your mouth. However, you're seeking official recognition for your organization. You would like to become key contacts for the federal government when it comes to immigration. This would be a good first step for you, wouldn't it?

[Michel Denis Richard]

This would be a good step for us.

I would like to ask the chief executive officer of our committee to add to my response.

[Émilie Caissie-Richard]

I would simply add the following. One way that the federal government could support us would be to recognize an economic immigration program. When it comes to regionalization, if we want people to stay, we need a program that focuses on the regions and that helps to attract the talent that we need. With Express Entry, we'll never be able to meet the regional needs. I think that we need a French‑speaking workforce to meet specific needs in fields with labour shortages. I think that an economic immigration program of this nature should also be adapted to the francophonie countries. So we also need an economic immigration program.