Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2025

[David Thomas]

I recall a conversation years ago with a Chinese immigration consultant who was using the Manitoba business program extensively for her clients. I remember asking her, “What do you think? Out of your clients who are going through this program in Manitoba, how many of them do you think are really going to end up in Vancouver at the end of this?” She looked at me with this really funny look, and she said, “All of them, of course.”

You see, that's the problem. Because the charter guarantees people freedom of mobility, it's really marketed that way. If there is a lower threshold for immigration under a regional program or to go to an underpopulated province, then that's going to be exploited, and it will be marketed to prospective immigrants around the world as a backdoor route to end up in Vancouver or Toronto or wherever it is they really want to go. I just raise that because that is a reality that is out there in the trenches.

During the 1990s and the early 2000s, under the Quebec investor program, it was known that 92% of the people who came through that program did not remain in Quebec. It was well known, and the statistics were published. There was no incentive to do anything about that. I just flag that to say that, look, it's a reality. It's nice to have this program. It would be great to attract people to those regions, but we should hold them to that. If that's the deal that we made with them to immigrate to this country, we should hold them to that deal and not let them just walk away and abuse that. That's what I want you to be aware of.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Do you have examples of other countries that have pursued similar programs, whether they are pilot programs or whether they are pilot programs that evolved into something more permanent, where the intent of the program is, in fact, a guarantee that individuals stay in the region they initially migrated to?

[David Thomas]

I can't say that I am aware of any programs quite like that, although I know that in the past there have been discussions about issuing people, say, a five-year conditional visa. We used to issue conditional permanent residence visas for entrepreneur immigrants. They were given a visa that had terms and conditions that had to be satisfied within two years of landing or else they risked losing that status. There have been mechanisms in the past that have worked.... Well, I wouldn't say that they worked really well, because the enforcement wasn't very good. However, as I said, if that's the deal that we've made with somebody—if we've said, “We're going to let you come into Canada, but the deal is that you have to settle in this region here, because that's where we need you”—then I don't think we should be ashamed of holding people to that in whatever way we need to.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

I'll go to Mr. Lam.

Mr. Lam, you have two recommendations. The first is immigration status regularization, as you put it. Could you expand on what you mean by this and what this could look like in effect?

[Alfred Lam]

I think the idea of regularization, first of all, is to have an immigration process that moves everyone towards permanent residency. We have a situation now, as I said in my opening statement, whereby we have people who came in through our various programs and who are now in danger of spending decades, literally, waiting in the queue. One possible way and the quickest way to resolve some of that backlog is through a regularization program whereby we grant permanent residency status to people who are waiting these unreasonably long times.

We have undocumented workers who have been in the country working, and many of them are in the country not because they entered through questionable means but because they came in on a visa that expired, and then they stayed afterwards. These are people who continue to contribute to our economy throughout society, and a regularization program would recognize these people and grant them permanent residency status, because they are permanent residents in every sense of the term.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

If I understand you correctly, you would want everyone, in effect, who's in the various queues to become permanent residents.

[Alfred Lam]

That is the ultimate goal, yes, because that is the way we market some of these programs and pathways we offer to different parts of the world. For the Hong Kong pathways program, for instance, we issue these pathways as opportunities for people to leave a tumultuous political situation in Hong Kong to become permanent residents in Canada. Part of the frustration is that people come with that understanding—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Lam. I'm sorry, but I have to cut you off. That is time. You'll have to continue this in another question.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I love this committee because we have such opposing points of view about our immigration system. It's important to be exposed to different points of view. It gives our analysts lots of work.

Mr. Thomas, the lead-in is a little long. Raising concerns about immigration often causes terrible reputational harm, especially for Quebec. As soon as we speak about integrating immigrants or limiting the number of asylum seekers or thresholds, some people will claim we are racists, that we have a problem with difference, when that's not necessarily the case.

Let's look at the problem from a bigger perspective, with Quebec as our example. Quebec lived through the Roxham Road period and the influx of asylum seekers. That put a strain on public services. Let's face it, it created an impossible situation in terms of providing health care, education services and decent housing for newcomers, migrants and the host society's population.

There comes a point when it's not that we don't want to take in more immigrants, but we simply can't take in more, because available services lack the capacity to serve all these people. It's important to keep in mind that people really need the help and are legitimately seeking asylum. We've signed international conventions, like the convention relating to the status of refugees.

Mr. Thomas, in your opinion, what does a dignified reception and successful integration look like?

[David Thomas]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

First of all, Canada should be clear about who we are, and we shouldn't be ashamed of acknowledging that we are a country with a unique culture. Everybody thinks of that New York Times interview that Prime Minister Trudeau gave in 2015, when he said there was no common Canadian culture and that we were a post-national state. I think that sends a very confusing message to new immigrants to Canada.

In my experience, successful new immigrants to Canada want to belong and want to be part of that Canadian society. There's not a big desire to be a hyphenated Canadian; they just want to be Canadian.

We need to do a better job of telling people what the expectations are of them when they come to Canada. I don't think we should feel any shame about that. Other countries have a much higher standard than we do, and I think that for our prosperity and our continued social cohesion, we need more unity, and we shouldn't be afraid to ask for that.

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

I'm a member of the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Thomas, so you'll permit me to use Quebec as an example, since Quebec is recognized as a nation with its own culture, history and language, obviously.

Would you agree that cultural particularities exist across Canada? If you're in Newfoundland, you know you're not in Moose Jaw, and if you're in Moose Jaw, you know you're not in Calgary.

If we think of each province as a federated state, would it be better for each of them, like Quebec, to have its own integration system?

Let's consider multiculturalism, the doctrine favoured across Canada. This doctrine doesn't produce a meaningful sense of belonging here, in Canada.

Could you share your observations on multiculturalism? I'm asking the question because we get criticized whenever we address this doctrine. However, integrating newcomers into a shared culture is a vital issue, especially for Quebec.

What are your thoughts on that issue?

[David Thomas]

As a matter of fact, I spoke to a group of students at the University of British Columbia Okanagan just last week on this exact topic. They wanted to talk about whether or not multiculturalism or diversity was our strength and a real and true asset for Canada. The concern is that, unfortunately, there has been a little bit of a balkanization. We see that with communities not integrating.

I mean, one thing that I think is very different, and I see this with even my own former clients, is that people's information sources come from different places. Before the Internet, we all had to watch the same TV channels or read the same newspapers. Now I have clients who immigrated from Germany and who get all their news from German TV. I have other clients from Korea watching Korean news. They can do that now. There's not a need for them to integrate as quickly.

Another observation I would make is that I often met people who were immigrants to the United States and were interested in seeking immigration to Canada. Those people always could speak English very well, and usually with an American accent. In contrast, I would often meet people who'd been in Canada for three or four years and could barely string a sentence together in English or French. I think that reflects the different idea about the melting pot in the United States and this cultural mosaic thing we seem to talk about a lot in Canada. I think we can learn a bit from the U.S. We should think about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

We will now go to our five-minute rounds.

Mr. Menegakis, you have five minutes.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.

Mr. Thomas, I would like to start with you, sir. It has recently come to light that some asylum claimants are being admitted into Canada before their background checks are fully completed. That's something you alluded to in your opening testimony.

Considering your known stance on the need for rigorous security measures, how do you assess the potential security implications and dangers associated with the current asylum processing system?

[David Thomas]

Well, I think the proof is there. We remember the Eldidi family, the father and son who were in the advanced stages of planning a mass terrorist attack in Toronto. We were advised by the Americans about this. We'd already granted those folks permanent residence. We were about to grant them citizenship. It surfaced that Eldidi the senior was filmed in an ISIS video in 2015 where some poor person was being beheaded.

I mean, we have been reckless—I'm sorry to say that—in terms of being naive or just assuming that most of the people here are legitimate people and are not like that. What you permit, you promote. If we're not doing a thorough job of checking people's backgrounds, particularly for terrorism or organized crime backgrounds, then we'll attract those people into Canada. We actually will attract those people into Canada.

The other big mistake we made was dropping the visa requirement for Mexican nationals in 2016. I think we're seeing evidence of cartel activity in Canada. I think that was another big mistake we made. It was naive for us to think that this wouldn't happen. I don't think it's wrong for us to inconvenience people and hold up their applications for a bit longer while we do our due diligence and satisfy ourselves about who they are. We shouldn't feel shame about that.

Again, I would point to that decision. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there's a long article about that. We're somehow second-guessing ourselves on whether or not this is right, and we shouldn't second-guess ourselves. We have a right to know if people have a terrorist or organized crime background before we admit them into Canada.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you. I certainly remember the Eldidi case and the father-son combination. They actually lived in my riding, in Richmond Hill.

Recently, we've heard testimony at this committee about the government having implemented a one-touch system. Basically, when somebody comes into Canada, they have an initial face-to-face with an officer, where some initial questions are asked. Following that, they use biometrics to take a picture of their eye and their thumbprint. Then they're provided with a questionnaire to take home with them. They have 45 days to self-complete this form. In those 45 days, they're allowed into the country to go on with their lives without us having completed the background check effectively. They call it an initial stage to help people come through faster.

What do you think? How do you feel about that system? I wonder if you could provide comments on that.

[David Thomas]

I think we're inviting people to take advantage of us. We're probably known around the world for being a bit naive about these things.

Years ago, in Australia, they were having a big problem with asylum claimants, and they decided they were going to park all their asylum claimants on an island. I can't remember exactly where it was, but rather than release people into the general population, they put them all in a specific location. Once they did that, they suddenly found that, wow, the numbers dropped immensely.

Maybe we should be thinking about whether we are sending the wrong message when we make it so easy for people to do these things.

Again, I'm not saying that everybody is an illegitimate asylum claimant. I'm not saying that at all. I've dealt with some very legitimate claims myself, and they do exist, but we are making an open invitation for people to abuse the system, and we should be very careful about that.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I have only a few seconds left.

Let me ask you this: Are you aware of any immigration consulting companies in Canada outsourcing some of their services to immigration consultants in other countries that are not regulated?

[David Thomas]

There's a system for consultants in Canada to have agents in foreign countries, which is how they generate a lot of their business. As long as they register them.... They're not really regulated agents. I don't think we do a close examination of what's really happening in these relationships. Obviously, I've dealt with some cases where they haven't been on the up and up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

We have five minutes for Mr. Zuberi.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to start with Ms. Stellinga.

In your opening remarks, you said it's important that the government actively counter harmful narratives around immigrants—those seeking to come to Canada, those who are in Canada and newly landed communities. Do you want to expand a bit upon that?

[Anita Stellinga]

Some of these narratives that are unfolding around us around immigrants and newcomers to our country are very worrisome. It's really important that we counter them, because from our perspective and where we see immigrants and newcomers coming through our doors, they are hard-working individuals who want a better life for themselves and their kids, and they want to contribute. They want to find jobs, they want their kids to attend schools and they want to find ways to give back to the community.

Many of them are contributing in significant ways. They are part of filling the labour market gaps that we're seeing. They're bringing in their expertise and their skills. They're bringing in their passion and contributions. I think that outweighs some of the other things we've heard being expressed.

It's important for us to ensure that we're not shifting toward that narrative, which I believe is a dangerous one.

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

Certainly. I tend to agree with you.

Are you familiar with the history of immigration in Canada to a fair extent? I want to ask you some questions on that if you are.

[Anita Stellinga]

You can try me.

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

Immigration has changed over the last several decades, and even centuries, within Canada.

I think of my great-grandparents, who immigrated through Ellis Island around 1900, from Sicily. They were Italian. Once upon a time, there were Italian communities, Irish communities and other communities that were very new. Once upon a time, we would have thought of them as being ghettoized. They didn't speak English or French very well.

Would you say that was the case back then, in that period of our history, within North America and within Canada?

What I'm trying to get at is that we're hearing some talk around ghettoization today and people in their silos, but hasn't that been the whole history of this country, from the time when people settled here until now, including 100 years ago or even before that?

I want to hear about that commentary, because we hear a lot about today, but what about what was happening yesterday?