Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 4th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Good afternoon. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 17 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Before I go into the regular general comments and reminders, and formally introduce our guests who are before us today, I just want to bring to everyone's attention a letter that has been shared with everyone on the committee. It is a letter from Deputy Minister Kochhar, and I'm going to read a couple of sentences from it, because I think it's important for us to highlight this.

He wrote to “express [his] growing concern about the safety and well-being of public servants who appear at the Standing Committee”. He has also indicated that “Recent participants...have endured significant harassment, abuse, and threats from the public—ranging from social media attacks to hostile messages sent to their work emails, and even in-person confrontations.”

He has further indicated that “One source of harassment”—so it's not all—“stems from short, decontextualized clips of committee appearances by public servants being posted on social media by members of Parliament or their staff.” Then he also said, “Without a change in approach, I am concerned that threats and intimidation from the public will persist, increasing the risk to public servants who appear before committees.”

I'm reading all of that because I want to implore all committee members from all parties—that's all of us, from all sides, and our staff—to be very cognizant of how we use the information from this committee, whether it's online or off-line. It is vitally important that we understand how we're using it and how it may be interpreted. Whether it's witnesses from—I see you, Ms. Rempel Garner; please let me finish—Immigration and Citizenship or any of our witnesses, we don't want them to feel, in any way, ever, that it is a safety risk for them to come before our committee and that coming before our committee would in any way, ever, result in their safety being in any way threatened.

Do you have a point of order?

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

I do.

Since you've introduced this letter.... I had hoped to talk to you off-line about it, but you've now introduced it, so I would like to provide the Conservative response to the letter. I wish we could have done this in private, but you have introduced it, so I'm going to briefly provide the Conservative response.

It's in a form of a letter to the minister.

I am writing to you with regard to a letter that your Deputy Minister sent to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I have copied her, below.

In the letter, your DM makes a troubling accusation, and an even more concerning recommendation. First, he made an accusation that negative feedback one of his colleagues received after a Committee appearance, which was in no way detailed or substantiated [in the letter], was somehow the fault of Members of the Committee. Second, he implied that public testimony at committee should not be shared.

Given the eyebrow-raising nature of the content, I am affording you the courtesy of assuming that your most senior bureaucrat went rogue and sent the letter to the committee without your knowledge. If that is truly the case, I trust you will enact appropriate disciplinary measures.

If you did in fact sign off on this letter, allow me to provide you with some [feedback] that may help you...effectively manage this situation....

1.) If your officials have experienced criminal behaviour, they should report it to the authorities.

I condemn any actual harassment or intimidation against any Canadian. And, no one should experience criminal harassment or criminal abuse. [In fact] I myself have faced criminal harassment for holding your government to account. I am pleased to report I haven't allowed it to silence me.

Given your government's insistence that Canada's criminal justice system works in the favour of victims, if [your officials] feel their accusation has risen to the level of criminality, your officials should have no problem reporting this...to police, having [them taking it] seriously, and seeing the perpetrator brought to swift justice. Godspeed to them.

I [would also note that it was most recently] a Liberal MP who set the bar for harassing behaviour in a committee. [That was the status of women committee.] But I digress.

2.) Recognize that your officials carry your water.

Based on the limited information your DM provided [in this letter], and the fact that he did not mention that the incident had been reported to the authorities, I have to assume that the incident he described did not reach the threshold for criminality. The limited (unverified) accusations he presented suggested this official was presented with a person who was irritated with the content they provided on your behalf during a committee....

If this is the case, perhaps, as the Prime Minister recently told a journalist who was questioning him over a failure, that you should “look inside yourself” [perhaps you should do that as well].

Your government has turned the once strong immigration system into an unmitigated dumpster fire.

You and your cabinet colleagues have made policy decisions which have enabled mass abuse of Canada's asylum system, and mass overall immigration levels with little thought to impact on taxpayer funds, the health care system, housing support, a youth jobs crisis, wage suppression, and the UN describing aspects of the immigration system as akin to slave labour.

Said differently, I wouldn't want to have to appear before a Parliamentary committee to defend your actions either. In fact, I feel sorry for your DM and your officials.

However, if you want the public to support the testimony of officials, then you should make better policy and decisions. The buck stops with you.

3.) Understand that it is the committee's job to hold you to account for your decisions, and we will not be censored.

It's the job of non-government Members to hold you to account for your decisions. This includes asking questions of department officials who taxpayers pay to execute said decisions, and the public's right to see these proceedings. This is a fundamental part of [our] democracy.

It is troubling that rather than advising you to make better decisions, you have instead directed your DM to try to censor Parliamentarians and infringe upon our rights.... Do better.

We will not accept any form of censorship, and will not roll over to make it easier for you and your government to get away with breaking Canada's immigration system. Rebuilding Canada's consensus for immigration rests on our ability to use the Committee to hold you to account, propose policy, and get you to do the right thing. We will stay the course, giddyup.

4.) Your department officials have a history of providing unclear information to the committee, and sometimes appear to [even be] obfuscating Parliamentarians.

I have reached my limit with regard to your officials giving unclear testimony at committee and failing to provide Parliamentarians information we need to scrutinize the government's decisions.

I appreciate that your government's tactic of trying to impose censorship measures or withhold information from Canadians is designed to make it easier for...you to get away with [all of the issues that you've had in the system and how you've failed with Canadians]. This spans from your [government] suing the Speaker of the House of Commons to prevent the release of duly [voted on] document production orders, and filibustering numerous committees for the same.

Recently, I discovered that your government has been instructing officials to actively find ways to avoid answering my questions and to use “limiting language”. [I found this out in an ATIP.] So, forgive me if I take your DM's detail-free accusations with a healthy dose of skepticism.

With regard to your officials recent performance at committee....

I can list it. I have numerous occasions where they gave unclear...and we had to do follow-up examples. In fact, the deputy minister had to write the committee on November 24 admitting that they “did not convey a complete picture” of the CBSA's work.

5.) Your government has enabled a culture of managerial incompetence in your department.

I direct your attention to [the Yeates] report.

I could read multiple quotes out of that: “The diffuse organizational structure and lack of clear accountability...in large committee membership....” It's just boggling me.

Here's the other thing:

[From 2015 to today] the headcount at your department [has doubled]. Yet, processing times for some streams have grown to [a mind-boggling] ten years. That is insane. In no going concern would any board [members] allow FTE count to double while [the outcome] becomes precipitously worse.

This is squarely a fault of your Prime Ministers, who have treated the Immigration Ministry as the armpit of Cabinet, appointing multiple incompetent Ministers incapable of righting the ship over the last decade....

In closing, I will not be silenced. The members of my committee will not be silenced, and you, Minister, need to do better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Colleagues, we all know that the presence of a minister and officials at a parliamentary committee is fundamental to the Westminster tradition. I think the letter was written as a call to ensure respectful dialogue. I think it was written in good faith.

I know that we can approach the meeting in that vein, because that's what we've done at committee from the outset, as I talked about in our previous meeting.

With that, Madam Chair, I hope we can begin the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Mr. Fragiskatos.

I will move to general comments, and then I will introduce our witnesses. It's always good to go through reminders of general comments. This is meant for both our witnesses and our members.

We have two hours with the minister and officials. As always, I will be very strict with time. There will be opening comments of five minutes. I will, of course, let you know when you have one minute left.

Kindly wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I will remind everyone to kindly not speak over each other, as it will be hard for our translators to translate and makes their job difficult. Of course, please ensure that all comments are addressed through the chair.

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

Thank you in advance to all of you for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) and the motion adopted by the committee on November 18, 2025, the committee is commencing its study on supplementary estimates (B) 2025-26 and votes 1b and 10b under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

As well, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on November 18, 2025, the committee is commencing its briefing on the immigration levels plan for 2026-28.

I would now like to offer a warm welcome to our witnesses at today's meeting.

We have with us today the Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Dr. Harpreet Kochhar, deputy minister; Emmanuelle Deault-Bonin, acting senior assistant deputy minister, strategic policy; Soyoung Park, assistant deputy minister of economic programs; Jean-Marc Gionet, acting assistant deputy minister, protection and family programs sector; and Nathalie Manseau, chief financial officer.

I will keep a few minutes at the end of the second hour to report the supplementary estimates (B) to the House, if the committee decides to.

With that, welcome, Minister Diab.

I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm here today on the immigration levels plan and the supplementary estimates (B).

Our immigration levels plan is a plan that restores control, brings immigration back to sustainable levels and aligns with Canada's capacity to grow. Canadians have been clear that welcoming newcomers and celebrating diversity are part of who we are, but they also need an immigration system that strengthens our economy, respects local capacity and protects those we welcome and integrate.

In recent years, rapid population growth—especially in temporary residents—has put pressure on housing, services and the systems communities rely on.

Our plan brings immigration back to sustainable, predictable levels. It focuses on the areas where newcomers make the greatest difference: essential jobs, key sectors and strong, resilient communities.

Over the next three years, permanent resident admissions will stabilize at 380,000 per year. This keeps us on track to maintaining permanent resident admissions below 1% of Canada's population beyond 2027. Nearly two in three newcomers will come through economic programs that target essential jobs and respond to real labour market needs in communities across the country.

Temporary resident arrivals will be reduced to 385,000 in 2026, including 230,000 temporary workers and 155,000 international students. These arrivals will further be reduced in the following two years. This supports our commitment to bringing Canada's temporary population below 5% of the population by the end of 2027 and allows for sustainable growth for everyone who lives in and comes to Canada.

In addition, we will maintain Canada’s humanitarian commitments, welcoming close to 50,000 refugees and protected persons next year.

We’re also reaffirming our commitment to francophone immigration outside Quebec. In 2026, 9% of permanent residents will be French-speaking, keeping us on track to reach 12% by 2029.

We’re introducing a one-time initiative to transition approximately 115,000 protected persons who are already living here and recognized as needing Canada’s protection, accelerating their full integration into Canadian society and giving them a clear path to citizenship.

To retain essential workers, we’ll also prioritize the transition to permanent residence of 33,000 temporary workers who are already living and working here: doctors, nurses, builders and others that communities rely on every day.

Our new international talent attraction strategy will help employers recruit high-skilled workers faster in key sectors like health care, construction, clean technology, and AI, strengthening Canada's competitiveness and keeping us a top destination for global talent.

With permanent resident admissions below 1% and the temporary population decreasing to under 5% of our population by the end of 2027, we're bringing immigration back in line with Canada's capacity. These measures strengthen our economy, protect our capacity to welcome, and rebuild trust in the system. That's a plan that will work better for newcomers and better for Canadians.

Thank you. We're here until 5:30.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Minister Diab.

Now we're going to begin with our first round of questions, which is for six minutes.

The first person we have is Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of you for being here.

Thank you, Minister.

I want to start with a troubling incident that happened at the Montreal passport office. Passport officials told an Israeli woman that they could not put Israel on her passport.

Minister, did you instruct Service Canada officials to not allow Israel as a country of birth on passports?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm familiar with that; we've received messages on it. The IRCC department has responded to some media outlets.

I definitely did not. Israel is a country, and anybody who is born in Israel can put that on their passport.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Can you supply the Passport Canada policy documents that this official would have referenced to make their decision?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The policies would be handled by Service Canada. I certainly don't personally have them.

I wouldn't have them myself, but I am aware of this because there have been a number of questions raised, and the department, IRCC, worked with ESDC on that issue.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

As the minister responsible for passports, do you condemn the rogue behaviour of that agent, then?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Listen, Israel is a country, and there have—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Do you condemn the behaviour of that agent?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

—been no changes in those policies.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Do you condemn the behaviour of the agent who did that?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I don't understand the word “condemn”. I'm not sure what that means.

Obviously, that was not correct.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Let me put it another way.

Your deputy minister is right beside you. Would you instruct him to reprimand or fire these employees for denying the existence of Israel as a country?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

They're not our employees.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Should you be speaking to your counterpart and asking them to deal with that employee?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Well, the minister responsible for the file would obviously be speaking with the department and staff on that. It's not—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Have you spoken to that minister about this issue?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

When it first came...to understand what the relationship is between IRCC and ESDC.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

In your opinion, is Jerusalem considered part of Israel?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Listen, people have the right to put in where they were born, regardless of where they were born.