Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[André Côté]

I think it will force a reduction in the overreliance on that revenue stream. We're already starting to see some of the cracks in the system as a result of the fall in international student numbers.

With certain colleges announcing campus closures, we're just at the beginning of what's going to happen. However, I think this was just not sustainable and we were not providing solid outcomes for many of these learners. We were giving them a false bill of goods on their opportunity to stay here in Canada, so something had to be done.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Your report mentions that need for a strategic approach to integrating international students into the economy and society. Do you see the federal government's reform as laying the groundwork for a more balanced education sector?

[André Côté]

International education strategies going back a decade or so have focused on this idea of alignment with the labour market to fill labour market needs. Obviously, that's a priority in these federal reforms.

I agree with what Mr. Patel was saying. It's really about the mechanism to go about it, especially around this connection to postgraduate work permit eligibility for college programs. I feel that is something that would be much better decided at a provincial level, where there's a keener sense of local labour market needs and demands and the capability to set it at that level, as opposed to nationally, where it's a blunt instrument.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm sorry, Mr. Ali. That was two minutes and 10 seconds. Thank you.

We will go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for one minute.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Côté, when you talked about the failure of federalism, that captured my attention and resonated with me.

I think you're on the same wavelength as everybody else. The government doesn't seem to be consulting with stakeholders. Maybe it should give the provinces a little more power when it comes to making decisions like that.

What are your thoughts on that?

[André Côté]

Thank you for your question.

I'm sorry. I'll answer in English because I'll be able to go more quickly.

We've been seeing this in many areas. The international student program is a jointly managed system, but you have a situation where the federal government felt compelled to take unilateral steps without adequate consultation with stakeholders and, from what I can gather, the provinces. I do not feel we will be capable of properly reforming and fixing the system if we do not have better coordination between the federal and provincial and territorial governments and a clear division of labour, whether it's overseeing DLIs or putting in place standards or requirements around international recruitment, and if we're using a common Canada brand, though obviously differentiated for certain provinces or institutions.

I have a very hard time seeing how we're going to repair the system without a much more coordinated approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to MP Kwan.

MP Kwan, you have one minute.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Jacob, are there any recommendations you want to make to the government?

[Jean Daniel Jacob]

Make sure you look at what happened to the schools of nursing. If you're going to ask to increase the numbers in the schools, the resources need to follow. If you end up cutting those types of programs within academic institutions, you're not going to get the output you're looking for.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I think we've heard from all witnesses about the lack of consultation and the importance of coordination and working together. Would you recommend that the government pause this plan and begin that work now, so we can get it right?

I'll get a quick answer from all of the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'll start with Mr.—

[Ajay Patel]

I say yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Patel.

Mr. Côté.

[André Côté]

I don't think it can be paused, but I think there's no reason why the government couldn't step in now and say, “We're going to be thinking long term, and we're going to be convening and consulting around a new long-term strategy together.”

[Jean Daniel Jacob]

I would agree on more consultation, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

On behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank Mr. Patel, Mr. Côté and Mr. Jacob for their time and input to the committee.

With that, we will suspend for five minutes to set up the next round of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will call the meeting back to order.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel.

We will start with Higher Education Strategy Associates, Ms. MacLennan, senior research associate. Ms. MacLennan, welcome to the committee.

From Simon Fraser University, we have with us Mr. Dilson Rassier. Welcome to the committee.

From the Canadian Bar Association, we have Madam Kamaljit Lehal. Welcome to the committee.

With us, we also have Wei William Tao. Welcome to the committee.

Up to five minutes will be given for opening remarks, and then we will proceed with the rounds of questions.

We'll start with Ms. MacLennan for five minutes.

[Tiffany MacLennan, Senior Research Associate, Higher Education Strategy Associates]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for having me as a witness today.

My name is Tiffany MacLennan, and I'm a senior research associate at Higher Education Strategy Associates, a consultancy in Toronto. I've studied at St. FX University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and I now hold a master's in education policy analysis from Harvard University.

In my academic and my professional careers, I spend the majority of my time analyzing sectoral trends and understanding what drives decision-making within the Canadian post-secondary education system. The roots of the challenges facing the international student program today run deep, stemming from years of systemic underinvestment and various policy decisions.

For over a decade, provincial government spending on the post-secondary education sector has been stagnant across the country. On top of this stagnation, many provinces have introduced domestic student tuition caps. When combined, these two things have resulted in less real university and college operating funding, per student, over time.

Instead of investing government money, provincial governments encourage colleges and universities to become more entrepreneurial and to produce new revenue sources to meet their costs. As a result, many institutions turn to recruiting significant numbers of international students.

The overreliance on international student recruitment not only became a financial lifeline for many institutions, but also introduced significant pressures on the local infrastructure, particularly on the housing market. The interplay between institutional strategies and inadequate provincial support for housing exacerbated an already critical supply and demand imbalance. Nowhere was this more apparent than in regions like southern Ontario, where some colleges leveraged international student recruitment as a monetized pathway to permanent residency, intensifying an already noticeable strain.

While it is undeniable that action was necessary, the blanket caps have imposed unfair penalization across the entire sector, rather than addressing the practices of a select few bad actors.

The international student caps, however, represent just one facet of the damage that has been inflicted through the recent reforms to the international student program. Broader restrictions on the postgraduate work permit eligibility, limiting attraction to selected high-demand programs, have created additional barriers for both students and institutions. Compounding these challenges is the narrative from the minister, who has openly questioned the quality of Canada's post-secondary sector, labelling certain institutions as “diploma mills”, a term that undermines the credibility of the entire system.

These reputational blows, coupled with the financial strain of the caps, have had a chilling effect on international student recruitment. Many institutions across the country are already reporting steep declines in applications, far exceeding what might be expected solely from the introduction of enrolment limits.

It is crucial to recognize that no single entity is responsible for the series of actions that have brought us to this point. Provincial governments neglected to appropriately fund institutions, colleges and universities leveraged international students as a source of funding, with some overusing the resource, and the federal government took an action that was understood to be a problem.

However, there were many other options that would have been available and less damaging to the sector. To give an example, even setting a limit at a maximum of 25% of the student population being international—allowing for exceptions with things like graduate student programming at U of T bringing in top talent—would have been an alternative that would have punished bad actors without causing harm across the entire sector.

The lack of regional and targeted measures will not only reduce the opportunity for international students to learn in the country, but also decrease opportunities for domestic students. Already, we are seeing institutions cut off entire program offerings, close regional campuses and lay off hundreds of staff members.

A question that should have been considered much more deeply is this: Should students studying in Atlantic Canada, in rural Manitoba or in the interior of B.C. have less access to education as a result of a problem that was largely concentrated in a handful of southern Ontario colleges?

Addressing systemic challenges in higher education requires thoughtful, regionally tailored solutions that balance accountability with the preservation of access and opportunity. Broad, untargeted policies risk undermining the very foundation of an inclusive and robust education system, leaving both international and domestic students to bear the brunt of poorly considered decisions.

I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much. That was four minutes. That's excellent timing.

Now we'll go to Simon Fraser University's provost and vice-president, Mr. Dilson Rassier.

Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Dilson Rassier, Provost and Vice-President, Academic, Simon Fraser University]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee, for the opportunity to address you today.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you today from the traditional and unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Kwikwetlem nations.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the recent changes the Government of Canada has made to the international student program. This is something we're very familiar with at Simon Fraser University.

As many of you know, Simon Fraser University is a leading research university that is advancing an inclusive and sustainable future.

Based in British Columbia, SFU has over 37,000 students across three campuses in Burnaby, Surrey and Vancouver.

Since 1995, we have a demonstrated record of helping business and academia commercialize their great ideas right here at home. Our dedication to driving innovation has enabled us to attract the world's best and brightest to Canada. Students from abroad who choose to study at SFU bring incredible ideas and diverse thoughts to our classrooms. Those who graduate and stay in Canada have gone on to contribute greatly toward our domestic economy.

International and domestic students alike are students in computer science, engineering, health sciences, as well as business and social science programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Immigration reform has become a priority for the Government of Canada, and it has been escalating in urgency over the past 18 months. These matters are incredibly complex. While we agree on the need to address bad actors and to increase the housing supply for students and Canadians alike, we feel it's crucial to approach this challenge with care and consideration, especially given where we find ourselves today.

Canada's talent gap is widening and its domestic productivity continues to lag behind global competitors. This is a decades-long issue exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. SFU and other research universities are uniquely positioned to help address these challenges. Through partnerships with industry, we drive innovation, create economic opportunities and prepare students for the jobs of the future.

Actions taken to address this complex set of issues have caused several unintended and significant consequences, including the financial burden placed on institutions that were largely unaware of and not consulted on these changes.

At SFU, we have been recognized as Canada's top comprehensive university, offering a diverse academic program. The changes implemented by the IRCC have resulted in significant declines across all faculties at the undergraduate and graduate levels. This impacts our globally recognized research programs.

In these challenging times, when the need for collaboration and collective action is greater than ever before, SFU and our colleagues in the sector are ready and willing to help the government. They are already doing so in diverse ways.

Take housing, for example. Through SFU's housing master plan, we are investing in the delivery of affordable housing and child care for students, which is reducing pressure in the community. Over the last year, we opened 865 new accommodations for the students on the Burnaby campus. Many more students have on-campus housing and are not competing in the local rental market, which frees up lower-cost rentals. This brings the number of on-campus student beds to more than 2,450. The next phase of student housing will open in fall 2027, creating additional accommodations for 445 students and a 106 spaces in the child care centre.

We encourage all committee members to recognize the unintended, immediate and long-term consequences that these blunt policy measures will have on Canada's economy. These measures will, without a doubt, affect SFU's ability to help close Canada's talent gap through workforce training, to drive innovative research, and to foster economic growth. This will impact the whole post-secondary sector.

Lastly, we encourage you to engage with universities and institutions of higher learning. We're here to help mitigate risk, avoid unintended consequences and build a sustainable path for international education and the Canadian economy as a whole.

Working collaboratively, we have the opportunity to ensure that institutions like Simon Fraser University continue to shape the next generation of Canadian leaders and innovators and drive Canada's economy.

I thank committee members once again for the opportunity to address you today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much. That was four minutes and 32 seconds. Again, it's excellent timing.

Now we will go to the Canadian Bar Association.

Madam Lehal or Mr. Tao, you have five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Kamaljit Lehal, Chair, National Immigration Section, The Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Kamaljit Lehal. I am the chair of the CBA national immigration law section. I am here with my colleague, Will Tao, who is also a member of the section.

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you on this important topic.

The recent reforms to this program are intended to primarily target fraud within the system. While these measures may help to somewhat safeguard the program's integrity, they directly and adversely impact students who came to Canada in good faith, committed years to studying and working here and were led to believe, through government messaging, that by doing so there was a pathway to permanent residence. The reforms now expect students to leave the country yet do not hold bad actors accountable.

This committee has been tasked with studying the impact of these reforms. We need to look at both the immediate and long-term consequences.

In terms of immediate impact, again, it's on the students already in Canada, who paid premium tuition fees to pursue studies here under an immigration system that supported their families to be here while they studied, permitted spouses to work and provided a postgraduate work permit as the next step towards the ultimate goal of PR.

Quite abruptly, the legal framework has changed, and tens of thousands of students in Canada are now grappling with uncertainty and the threat of removal from the country they've come to call home.

Many of those students—and I really want to emphasize this—are members of racialized and equity-deserving communities who are more likely to face barriers in addressing the challenges they now face to their immigration status.

From a humanitarian perspective, we must also acknowledge the profound mental health toll these changes are taking on international students.

In terms of long-term consequences, it's undisputed that international students contributed to Canada's GDP, supported jobs in Canada and paid taxes. We need to assess the long-term impact of the exodus of thousands of students from Canada under these reforms.

Another long-term consequence is the reputational harm to Canada's immigration system resulting from misaligned messaging, which may cause future students to think twice about Canada being their destination for studies.

Additionally, the reforms requiring students to reapply for a study permit in order to change institutions may further erode Canada's appeal, because it creates a two-tiered system.

Thank you.

[Wei William Tao, Canadian Immigration and Refugee Lawyer and Member, The Canadian Bar Association]

Mr. Chair, the CBA national immigration law section makes the five following recommendations. If I don't get through all of them, I will rely on our written material.

First, the government should prioritize creating pathways to permanent residency for students already in Canada. There are students here who have studied and worked here. They're well established, some even having arrived here in their youth. They are permanent residents but for having received the legal status. Canadians likewise have invested in them and supported them. As such, we need to implement unique pathway programs, including dedicated express entry draws targeted at filling labour shortages and aimed at ensuring positive long-term outcomes not only for our economy but also for future immigrants and their families. A broad range of stakeholders must be consulted when building these programs.

We understand that there is an in-Canada focus set out in the levels plan and the minister's mandate, but how is this going to be operationalized and how is this going to be done within the current levels plan?

Second, we should halt the systemic removal of international students with no pathway to PR until the available pathways and exemptions are made clear.

As a result of these recent changes, many students will find themselves without pathways to permanent residency, having lost status or fallen into non-compliance due to circumstances outside of their control. We must explore new ways to facilitate temporary and permanent measures for these individuals utilizing the minister's authority to consider implementing new public policies and revise existing ones. Coordinated efforts to systematically remove and refuse students must be halted until we find urgent efforts to create and clarify the availability of these pathways.

Third, federal and provincial governments must collaborate on a long-term plan for managing international student enrolment. This includes redefining the criteria for designated learning institutions and implementing measures to disincentivize exploitation, reduce opportunities for abuse and provide effective oversight of agents, recruiters and employers. We do recognize the recent positive efforts in the latest regulatory amendments.

Fourth, we should introduce legislation to deter bad actors who prey on international students. This includes harsher penalties for fraud and large-scale misrepresentations. We understand that this takes more than just a whole-of-government approach; it likely will take a whole-of-society approach.

Fifth and finally, a two-tiered system should not be adopted. International students should have the same flexibility as local students to change studies without needing to apply for a new study permit or become non-compliant while waiting. There are many bona fide reasons for students to change institutions, such as mental health, harm prevention, sexual assault and educational advancement. There needs to be at least a list of carve outs.

In our role as immigration lawyers, we work to uphold the integrity of the system while also recognizing and empathizing with the increasing traumas of our clients. Let us ensure that Canada's policies reflect that shared value. Protect international students and hold bad actors rightfully accountable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

That was four minutes and 50 seconds, which was excellent timing.

We will follow that with the honourable members' questions.

We will start with Mr. Kmiec for six minutes, please.