Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Good afternoon.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 16 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. We have two of our witnesses on screen and one here in person for our first panel.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses, and I'll make some comments for the benefit of all of us.

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

All of you will have five minutes to give your opening remarks. I will give you a signal, or I will say, “You have one minute left,” when you have one minute left. At the end, I will just say that your time is up, and the microphone will turn off.

To all of you who are in the room, including all committee members, always wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I also remind everyone to please not speak over each other, as it will be hard for our interpreters; it makes their job difficult. Please ensure that all of your comments are addressed through the chair.

Finally, members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

With that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on September 16, the committee is resuming its study of Canada’s immigration system.

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

Joining us online, as an individual, we have David Thomas, lawyer. Welcome, Mr. Thomas.

From the Centre for Immigrant and Community Services, we have Alfred Lam, executive director, who is also online. Welcome, Mr. Lam.

I want to warmly welcome the chief executive officer of COSTI Immigrant Services, Anita Stellinga, who is here in person.

Welcome. Thank you for being here with us in person.

You'll each have five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed to rounds of questions.

I'm going to begin with Mr. Thomas for five minutes.

[David Thomas, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair.

By way of introduction, I've been a lawyer in Vancouver since 1989. For 25 years, I was a—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Hold on a second, Mr. Thomas. We just have to increase the volume in the room. We'll restart you in a second.

[David Thomas]

I don't think I can adjust my microphone at this level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Maybe all of us will wear ear pieces. Is that okay? I'm okay if everyone else is okay.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, do you agree to use an earpiece?

Okay, let's go.

Mr. Thomas, we will restart your five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[David Thomas]

By way of introduction, I've been a lawyer in Vancouver since 1989. For 25 years, I was a well-known immigration lawyer, specializing in skilled workers and business immigrants and helping Canadian employers seeking to hire foreign nationals. In 2014, my career went sideways when I moved to Ottawa for seven years to become the chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. After returning to Vancouver in 2021, I worked for three years for the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, which is the regulatory body for immigration consultants in Canada. I was a vice-chair of their discipline tribunal, where I heard complaints about immigration fraud and consultant misconduct.

I've been in the trenches for a long time, and I've seen a lot: the good, the bad and the ugly. Your other witnesses have told you much about the good, and there is a lot of good, but today, I'm going to tell you about the bad and the ugly, because you need to hear this.

Let's start with temporary foreign workers and LMIA fraud and abuse. LMIA stands for labour market impact assessment. It is a key document that allows a foreign worker to get a work permit and, in many cases, permanent residence. LMIAs are so valuable that there is an underground market for them. People will pay tens of thousands of dollars for an LMIA that will allow them to work at a lousy job with the end goal of permanent residence as a possibility.

I recommend that you read my discipline decision last year in the Bharowal case. Young men from India were paying $40,000 to get an LMIA to work as a truck driver for an employer that actually owned no trucks. Their labour was subcontracted out and they were paid only $10 an hour. When they complained, their consultant threatened to arrange their deportation, so they continued to work in slave-like conditions until their permanent residence came through. LMIA abuse like this is happening everywhere and on a huge scale.

The next item is police checks and CSIS background checks. Police checks from certain countries are not worth the paper they're written on, and we need to stop kidding ourselves about that. The foreign minister of India has gone on the record, warning Canada that we're admitting serious criminals from their country.

I recommend that you read a paper I wrote earlier this year for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute about CSIS background checks for prospective immigrants who are suspected of terrorism or organized crime. In a bizarre decision related to my former human rights tribunal, we somehow concluded that CSIS background checks are “not a matter of national security”, and ordering one makes immigration officers vulnerable to a human rights complaint.

The next item is that the recent push to prioritize French-speaking immigrants needs a rethink. Under the express entry system, French speakers are so highly prioritized that they are now displacing health care workers in the selection process. Immigration lawyers and consultants are now coaching their clients to take French classes to boost their chances. The express entry system was designed to admit people with valuable job skills, but with all due respect to my francophone friends, how is French a job skill, especially in places like western Canada? We all know that the majority of these French-speaking immigrants are from developing countries, and they may have no other valuable job skills to ensure their success in Canada.

The next item is regional immigration programs, whereby foreigners are granted permanent residence based on a promise to live in Quebec or some other province, and the new rural community immigration pilot. All of these destination programs are a waste of time, and will be until you do something to enforce the regional residency requirement after they arrive. These programs are all actively promoted as the backdoor route into Canada. Either issue conditional visas or invoke the notwithstanding clause, but do something. Otherwise, we should quit wasting time on these regional destination programs.

The next item is citizenship fraud. It's way bigger than you think it is. We need to stop the fraud, and we need to stop giving away Canadian citizenship so freely and with such low thresholds. Please, bring back mandatory, in-person citizenship swearing-in ceremonies. Have we really devalued our citizenship that much that we're happy to let that happen online? A person can go through all of their immigration, temporary residence and permanent residence applications, and now citizenship ceremonies, without ever meeting a Canadian official.

My last item is Canada's fertility crisis. It's worse than it has ever been. Immigration was supposed to fix it. I've been working in this area for longer than a generation, and I have to be honest and ask: Has mass immigration made conditions better or worse for young people thinking about starting a family? We keep admitting people faster than we can build housing for them, so of course the costs have gone up. We need to start having an honest conversation about this.

That's my short list. I'll be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Next, we have Mr. Lam for five minutes.

[Alfred Lam, Executive Director, Centre for Immigrant and Community Services]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Alfred Lam. I am the executive director of the Centre for Immigrant and Community Services. I'm also the board chair of the Ontario Council for Agencies Serving Immigrants and sit on the National Settlement and Integration Council. Additionally, I also co-chair the newcomer inclusion table of the Regional Municipality of York. It is an honour to be invited to address the committee today.

A good immigration process needs to do two things. First, it needs to encourage immigrants to come to Canada, and second, it needs to encourage immigrants to stay in Canada. Unfortunately, Canada's current immigration processes fail on both counts. To encourage immigrants to come, we must remember that immigrants have a choice where they want to go. If we want more people to choose to come to Canada, we need an immigration process that is fair, consistent and predictable and has a clear path to permanent residency for all migrants.

Instead, we currently have a system that is convoluted, with a confusing array of different pathways for different populations and rules that change without warning. We end up with tens of thousands of people stuck in limbo, waiting in queues shrouded in uncertain wait times.

A story published by the CBC just last month reported that processing times for Canadian immigration applications have reached up to 50 years under some permanent residency programs—50 years. We have newcomers from Hong Kong who come to the country via the Hong Kong pathways, who now face wait times approaching 10 years.

Every day, our staff work with people whose lives are stuck in the limbo created by our immigration process, who have skills that Canada desperately needs. The most common sentiment we hear from them is that they regret coming. Canada needs an immigration process that honours the promises we make and our international humanitarian commitments. That is our moral obligation. Only with transparency, fairness and consistency can our immigration process encourage immigrants to come to Canada.

To encourage immigrants to stay in Canada, Canada needs an immigration process that is part of the vision of Canada we are trying to build. If immigration is critical to Canada's future as a country from an economic and population standpoint, then our immigration process cannot operate and function in isolation.

Instead of looking at immigration through a lens of scarcity and focusing on the strain immigration will put on our capacity as a country, we need to look at immigration as part of the broader strategic vision to build Canada for the future and increase the capacity of our economy, boost our productivity, strengthen our health care, build housing and infrastructure, etc.

We need an immigration process that not only invites people to come but also offers a vision to stay and build a country that belongs to them and their future generations, where their prosperity will become the country's success. We need an immigration process that attracts and offers the best from the world clear pathways to use their skills and assets to build Canada's future.

Instead, our immigration process is mired in self-inflicted obstacles that prevent skilled immigrants from contributing to that vision. We hide racist practices behind excuses of qualification control. We speak of protecting the best opportunities for “our own”. We end up with nonsensical requirements, such as insisting that internationally trained medical graduates must have two years of Ontario high school attendance to have their credentials recognized.

This does not present a vision for a Canada that the best from the world would want to be a part of. Contrary to public opinion, the problem is not that we have too many immigrants. The problem is that we have too small a vision for Canada.

In closing, I would like to present two recommendations to the committee.

First, I urge the Canadian government to introduce a broad and comprehensive program for immigration status regularization. That is the fastest way to clear our current backlogs and for people to stop putting their lives on hold and begin contributing to our society. This would also recognize the contributions of tens of thousands of undocumented workers who are already contributing to our economy.

Second, we need a credentials and skills recognition process that is consistent with clearly laid-out processes, including the costs involved and timelines. The latest research indicates that out of the top 16 professions most in need of an infusion of talent, 10 have higher than average departure rates among recent immigrants.

With that, I thank the committee for the opportunity to provide input.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Mr. Lam.

Next, we go for five minutes to Ms. Stellinga from COSTI.

[Anita Stellinga, Chief Executive Officer, COSTI Immigrant Services]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Anita Stellinga. I'm the chief executive officer of COSTI Immigrant Services. COSTI is a community-based settlement agency that has been serving immigrants, refugees and vulnerable individuals for over 70 years. Our mission is simple but profound: to ensure that every newcomer, regardless of language or cultural barriers, can use their skills, learn new ones and participate fully in Canadian life.

The sector that serves immigrants and refugees is essential infrastructure for Canada's success. Immigration is not just a social policy; it's an economic imperative. Nation-building projects are framed as investments in the economy, and so it must be with the settlement sector. The sector ensures that newcomers can integrate quickly, find housing, secure employment and contribute to Canada's prosperity, yet, despite this critical role, agencies across the country are being asked to do more with fewer resources.

The funding reductions introduced by IRCC in 2024 have already had deep and measurable impacts. A forthcoming report commissioned by United Way Greater Toronto, OCASI and the City of Toronto shows that agencies expect program closures, and more than half anticipate longer wait times for clients. These cuts are not abstract. They translate into fewer language classes, fewer employment supports and fewer pathways for newcomers to succeed.

The consequences are clear. The loss of such specialized programs as advanced workplace language training and timely credential and skills recognition limits newcomers' ability to work and contribute. Short-term funding cycles and sudden policy shifts destabilize the sector, forcing governments and agencies into reactive short-sighted responses instead of strategic long-term solutions. Rolling back IRCC's five-year funding cycle to three years, with continued reduced funding, has weakened service capacity and made planning nearly impossible.

Stable, sustained core investment is critical. To protect Canada's immigration and refugee system, the federal government must commit to investments that reflect real operational costs and account for client complexity. Restoring stability will enable agencies to meet client needs, maintain quality services and ensure that immigrants can contribute fully to Canada's economic and social life.

In addition, as the steward of Canada's immigration system, the federal government must lead with evidence-based policy that strengthens prosperity and social cohesion while actively countering harmful narratives that misrepresent immigration's role in Canada's success.

I also want to raise two concerns. The new immigration plan introduces limiting access to settlement services for economic migrants. This assumes a low complexity of needs and disproportionately harms women, who often delay service use due to family responsibilities. Second, the exclusion of housing support for refugee claimants in the federal budget post March 2027 signals a troubling shift away from Canada's humanitarian obligations. The discontinuation of the interim housing assistance program is of deep concern. Even with reduced numbers, asylum seekers will need housing and support. Historical data shows that up to 70% of claimants are successful and become permanent residents, making it counterproductive to delay their integration.

COSTI is a leading provider of refugee shelter and support services, recognized for delivering cost-effective programs. Without renewed federal funding for shelter supports, asylum claimants will be diverted to the general shelter system, already over capacity and ill-equipped to meet their unique needs, creating systemic strain and undermining Canada's commitment to refugee protection.

In closing, Canada's immigration policy cannot succeed without a strong settlement sector. Our work delivers the human capital outcomes that make economic goals possible. Strategies must prioritize growth and capacity-building, not short-sighted reactive measures. A prosperous and inclusive Canada depends on leveraging the aspirations, talents and skills that newcomers bring so that all of us can thrive, contribute fully and shape the social and economic fabric of our country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Stellinga.

Thanks to all our witnesses for their great opening remarks.

We will now begin the first round of questions.

Mr. Redekopp, you have six minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Thomas, I read some of your articles. They seem to share one theme. That is, if you take tempting incentives and put them together with weak consequences, it equals predictable abuse. If Parliament were to fix one thing, what do you think would be the priority from an immigration standpoint?

[David Thomas]

Well, my favourite saying is that what you permit, you promote. What gets permitted by IRCC, I can guarantee you, is very strongly promoted through the immigration industry around the world. That's a good thing to remember.

As I mentioned, I think the most important thing for us right now is really to do a better job of doing background checks on people who are coming to this country. I think we are allowing huge, huge numbers of people in under temporary status that we didn't do in the past. We're not doing as thorough background checks on those people who are coming in under that temporary status. I think we can see that it has been leading to problems.

That would be my number one fix that I would encourage the committee to look at.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks.

You also cited a sharp rise in inland refugee claims, which has resulted in a major backlog, of course. In your view, what proportion of current asylum claims is driven by protection needs versus people who are just system shopping, looking for a good deal for citizenship?

[David Thomas]

I think the facts speak for themselves. A lot of the people who have applied for refugee status from within Canada are people who will have their temporary status expire. We have had a huge spike from citizens of Mexico. We did away with the visitor visa requirement for Mexican citizens a second time in 2016 up until 2024. It was a mistake. It happened in the early 2000s as well, and it led to a big spike in inland claims.

The biggest number of inland claims we're seeing now are from Indian nationals, and many of them came here under a temporary status. You do have to question what the underlying motivation is.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

In your experience, what would you estimate the number of so-called legitimate asylum claims to be—people who are truly fleeing for their lives?

[David Thomas]

That's a little hard to say, in all honesty. I was not a refugee-focused lawyer in my day, but I do speak to adjudicators at the IRB from time to time. There is often a feeling within the tribunal itself as to how hard we want to scrutinize the applications of people coming in, because I think the bigger question is on Canada's overall goal in terms of bringing people in.

There are some people who believe we should be bringing in a million people a year. The Century Initiative wants to have 100 million people in Canada by the end of the century. If your push is that we need bodies, that we need people and that we're not very selective as to where they come from, then you're not going to press very hard on those things, are you? You're going to let people walk across the road and self-select, as they did while crossing at Roxham Road when that was open, or let other people just come in on temporary status and make artificial refugee claims. I think that is largely driven by what the Government of Canada really sees as its objective for bringing people into the country and on what sort of scale.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm sorry to interrupt you. You're saying that the government's lack of direction makes it so that the folks at the IRB think they could err on the side of letting someone in because it seems like that's what the government would want. Is that what you're saying?

[David Thomas]

I am sort of hinting at that, but of course, this is not an empirical study; this is just my gut feeling based on talking to people.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

To carry on along those lines, you spent time with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. What kinds of changes or improvements do you think could be made there?

There are lots of issues with consultants. I think there have been attempts to get it under control in Canada, but we know there are lots of people from outside the country who are difficult to control, maybe. Do you have any suggestions about what we could change or improve on that front?

[David Thomas]

We probably need to do a better job, and I think there are moves toward being a bit more selective in terms of who we permit to be consultants. The kinds of conduct I saw as a tribunal member were unbelievable, and a lot of people, frankly, should not be regulated at all. They're just not suitable for that. I think we need to be more selective in that.

I've been told that there are more unlicensed immigration consultants in the province of Punjab in India than there are fully licensed immigration consultants in Canada. The problem is astronomical, and I don't think we have a good sense of how big the numbers are.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the one-touch system, but we had some testimony here a couple of weeks ago about that. The CBSA is essentially allowed to funnel people into the so-called low-risk category, which then allows those people to tap a few buttons in the system, get into the country and do all their paperwork after the fact. Are you familiar with that, and do you think that is contributing to some of our asylum problems?

[David Thomas]

I'm not really family with that system. When I started practising law, every person who applied for permanent residency in Canada sat down and had an interview with an immigration officer. There was a lot more interaction going on, and we've really done away with it. It's a faceless process now.

As I said in my opening remarks, we don't even insist that people come in for a swearing-in ceremony when they become a Canadian citizen. It's sad, and I think we're robbing the immigrants themselves of that opportunity to celebrate that moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Next, we will go to Mr. Fragiskatos for six minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In fact, Chair, you'll find that there has been a push-back—one that I agree with and one that I think the vast majority of MPs agree with—to move away from web meetings for citizenship ceremonies, so they're not something that you'll see being the norm going forward. It was necessary during the pandemic, but the point is taken, Mr. Thomas, that there is an appropriate way to do things, and in-person ceremonies are absolutely what we should continue to pursue.

I want to begin with you, sir. You had a number of points that you went through, but I want to hear your thoughts further on the rural side of things. You talked about the residency requirement in particular. You have some ideas to offer there, I believe. Can you expand on the points in your testimony with respect to that?