Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Good morning. It is not another manic Monday. It is just another wonderful Monday, a start to a great week.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome, everyone, to meeting 20 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today's meeting is being held in a hybrid format, although our first panel is all here, in person. For our second panel, we will have someone join us by video conference.

I remind everyone in the room, including my colleagues, to please use the earpiece and select the desired channel, depending on which language you would like to hear. For those who are speaking, and that includes our questioners, I will let you know when you have one minute left. As always, kindly wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Of course, please do not speak over each other, as it will be very hard for our amazing translators to translate. It makes their jobs very difficult. Please ensure that all your comments are addressed through the chair. Members on all sides, kindly raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best as we can. I thank you in advance for your co-operation.

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

I would now like to warmly welcome our witnesses for today's meeting. As an individual, we have Michael Barutciski, professor, York University in Toronto. I also want to warmly welcome Steven Paolasini, a regulated Canadian immigration consultant. From the Canadian Council for Refugees, we have Gauri Sreenivasan, the co-executive director.

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

We will begin with Mr. Barutciski, please, for five minutes.

[Michael Barutciski, Professor, York University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The topic at hand is polarizing, so it makes me a bit uncomfortable to participate in discussions. I hope that you won't see me as a person who contributes to this polarization, but rather as a person seeking to find a fair and acceptable balance.

I would like to start by thanking the committee for its work on Bill C‑12. Regardless of what happens in the Senate, I believe that the measures proposed won't be enough to address the dilemmas of asylum. I'm glad that the committee is addressing this issue as part of its broader study on the immigration system.

We can't say that Canada's situation is completely different from the situation of its partners, especially its European partners. However, I would like to identify some specific aspects of the Canadian situation in my remarks.

I think that, in general, people are quite confused about the history of the asylum concept. In my opinion, the Roxham Road saga brought this to light. We invented rights that don't really exist. We didn't take the challenge of sharing responsibilities seriously, leaving Quebec virtually on its own to welcome a major influx of people. Moreover, we did a poor job of managing the diplomatic aspect, at the interprovincial level and at the international level, with our American partners.

I'll tell you a bit more about these three issues.

If we want to address the challenges realistically, we must recognize that, under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or under Canadian legislation, asylum seekers aren't automatically entitled to a hearing. For example, the Singh case states that asylum seekers are entitled to a hearing only if they'll be sent back to a dangerous country.

One consequence of a realistic approach to our actual legal obligations is that the safe third country idea does follow the underlying logic of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It's useful to clarify the norms if we're still receiving relatively high numbers of asylum claims.

Despite the government's suggestion that there will be a 33% drop in the numbers for 2025, we're still dealing with around 115,000 claims. That's still competing with the highest numbers for EU member states. It will probably be more than Germany, a country with twice the population size. Even though Canada has a smaller population than Italy, France and Spain, in 2024 we had more asylum claims than all of those countries. They didn't have as much of a drop over the last year, so we'll see the new numbers soon.

If this type of data is still available, we need to think about another internal issue concerning the division of responsibilities.

Another misconception worth noting is that we can't transfer an asylum seeker to another province without the consent of the person concerned. Yet section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides for freedom of movement, doesn't apply to temporary residents such as asylum seekers. The example of Germany shows the need for negotiations among federated entities to ensure the distribution of asylum seekers and the support of host populations.

The negotiation is important not only within the federation, but also with our allies abroad. Clearly, our traditional partners are looking to work together on asylum issues so that they can be addressed extraterritorially.

If we think that asylum is supposed to provide anyone from anywhere the right to claim protection in any country, then I think we are deluding ourselves. The historical development of treaty law relating to asylum shows that there was never any consensus for such an expansive individual human right that gives migrants the ability to choose the destination country.

Voters in our democracies have always pushed for migration control, so it's not surprising that advocates and academics have, in turn, pushed judges to interpret laws in the most open way possible. I believe we are now reaching the breaking point, and that's why our western European partners have been tightening their rules and exploring extraterritorial mechanisms.

To maintain the balance between compassion and firmness, I think we will have no choice but to harmonize our system with our allies and prepare the legislative groundwork so that this can happen smoothly.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Barutciski. You have perfect timing, so thanks so much for that.

Next we're going to hear from Mr. Paolasini.

You have five minutes, please.

[Steven J. Paolasini, Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, As an Individual]

Chair and committee members, Canada is deporting data scientists who are working in Canada and who studied at our world-class institutions while importing unemployed insurance agents and line cooks from overseas. The economic class immigration system is no longer driven by economics but by administrative convenience and political quotas.

My name is Steven J. Paolasini. I'm a regulated Canadian immigration consultant, an entrepreneur and a very proud Canadian. I've consulted with thousands seeking to call Canada home and I've watched this system deteriorate in real time.

Take my co-author on this brief, Nino Melikidze, a tech entrepreneur who built Immitracker, the largest international peer-to-peer immigration process tracking platform. The system that granted her PR years ago no longer exists. If she applied today, she wouldn't make the cut. Her spot would go to someone overseas with half her qualifications and none of her Canadian work experience, selected not for economic potential but to hit a linguistic quota that 85% of stakeholders were not in favour of.

Express entry was designed to select those—and I quote from the act—with the “ability to become economically established”. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of candidates already working and studying in Canada outside Quebec don't speak French. To hit this quota, IRCC had no choice but to look overseas and sacrifice human capital and skills selection by extracting candidates with no work experience in Canada, no Canadian education and no job offers—people who've never even paid a dime in taxes here.

Over 80% of those who became permanent residents in the francophone category of express entry in 2024 did not reside in Canada. They were overseas. In 2025, nearly 50% of express entry invitations went to this category, a whopping 48,000 invitations to apply. This is our premier economic selection engine. What are the consequences? Data scientists, skilled tradespeople, entrepreneurs, doctors, researchers, IT managers—you name it—are going home.

We strangely added insurance agents, a sales and service occupation, to the STEM category, while removing 19 actual STEM occupations. We're placing pharmacy counter attendants in the same category as registered nurses and licensed medical lab technologists. We're ranking line cooks alongside Red Seal construction electricians.

We expect applicants who are already here in Canada, who have been working and paying taxes, sometimes for over half a decade, to somewhat impossibly reach over 500 CRS points, but those overseas get a pass at 379, a score even lower than when express entry was introduced more than a decade ago. This is not what merit-based selection looks like.

We're also strangling legitimate innovation. Our only federal business program has an annual quota of just 500 PR spots and somehow within four years accumulated a backlog of 42,000 applications. This is 84 years of inventory.

My friend Mostafa, who is the CTO of PavePal, is a victim of this program. He has eight Canadians on payroll, projects in three countries, dozens of signed MOUs and has raised nearly $1 million in private investor capital. He's exactly who this program was designed for. It's been over three and a half years since he applied for PR. At this rate, he'll be waiting his entire life.

Here are my recommendations for this committee.

Number one, get serious about restoring merit to express entry. Return to all program draws with a predictable cadence that selects for proven economic potential. Revamp the CRS to be more granular in nature and target managerial, professional and technical occupations.

Number two, increase francophone community immigration through the francophone community immigration pilot only. Stop distorting our premier high-skilled immigration pathway for a strict linguistic goal.

Number three, mandate full transparency in planning. If you're going to increase a one-time economic class measure by 7%, make sure you also disclose to Canadians in the budget that you're going to increase the protected persons measure by 380%. Canadians deserve honest numbers.

Number four, make stakeholder consultations mean something. Stop wasting taxpayer money on consultations only to ignore what Canadians have asked for and what we want and need.

Number five, commence damage control on the start-up visa program. Triage the applicants like Mostafa who are building in Canada and work towards making a program that leading entrepreneurs can help design.

The economic class must actually be economic. Let's build this country to have, once again, the best merit-based immigration system on earth. I'm here and I'm ready to help.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Mr. Paolasini.

Our last five minutes go to Ms. Sreenivasan.

[Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you very much.

My name is Gauri Sreenivasan, and I'm co-executive director at the Canadian Council for Refugees.

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for its commitment to this major topic in Canada's immigration system.

CCR, for those of you not familiar with us, is the national voice for over 200 member agencies that work with, from and for refugee communities and migrants across the country. From the work of our members, we have a profound appreciation, perspective and vision for Canada's immigration system—what is precious about it, what is at risk and how it can and must be strengthened to ensure a fair, welcoming and just system that supports a future where all families and people can thrive.

You have said that this panel is to focus on the asylum system, and that is indeed a critical aspect that deserves attention. Let me zoom out first to comment on the wider context, and then I'll come back to the asylum system.

Globally, we are seeing a rise in authoritarianism, xenophobia and hate, whether that's in countries far away like Iran and India or much closer in our neighbour to the south, where ICE's inhumane and violent enforcement practices include abducting people from schools, homes and workplaces, deporting people of all statuses to third countries, where they are at risk of torture and other harms and meeting peaceful protesters, as we have seen, with deadly violence. People in Canada have watched in horror, and in the face of global trends that are narrowing the scope for protection, we are asking how Canada will respond.

The federal government came to power at a moment when Canadians felt vulnerable in the face of political and economic threats from the Trump administration, and our collective instinct was to put our elbows up to defend Canadian values and to forge our own path. The question we must ask ourselves as we look to shape Canada's immigration system, which you as a committee are contributing to is this: What is the Canadian path?

I want to remind everyone that we recently marked the 10th anniversary of Canada's welcoming Syrians fleeing conflict. It was a moment that galvanized the entire country and reminded the world of who we are. We saw it again as Canada responded to the context of Ukraine. We see it now as Canadians watch in horror and wonder how they can help and respond to what's happening in the U.S.

We are still that country, but we must stand up again for those same principles. Instead, we are seeing steps in the opposite direction. We are not stepping up. We are stepping back. I have a few examples.

The private sponsorship of refugees program is being slashed, despite its being one of the most respected, effective and cost-effective programs in the world. Government-assisted refugee numbers are being reduced, even as countries around the world are also doing that. Refugees in Africa continue to face significant longer wait times than others. As well, the groups of five sponsorship pathway has been frozen.

Moreover, the government is looking to pass legislation in Bill C-12 that moves Canada away from human rights standards and norms of procedural fairness for refugee claimants, denying many their right to a hearing if their case is turned down and to an appeal. We look forward to discussion of that bill in the Senate this week.

My point today is to invite us to consider that these decisions greatly misread the capacity and the interest of Canadians to welcome immigrants and refugees. More Canadians support than oppose immigration, and they believe in the positive role of immigrants in Canadian society: 66% versus 20%. CCR research and polling has shown that one in five Canadians wants to be contacted to get involved in welcoming immigrants and refugees into their communities. They are waiting.

The limitations I put before you are not actually public will. They are government policy. However, the policy choices are given cover from dangerous narratives that have taken hold and have been fanned over the past two years by all levels of government and across party lines.

The narratives wrongly blame current pressures on housing and social systems. This is not only false but dangerous and undermines confidence in the immigration and refugee system. It has started to seed doubts, but it has not changed core values. This is a precious consensus whose unravelling has a great price, as we see in the U.S. and Europe.

We're inviting you, as members of Parliament, to recommend the need for a whole-of-country effort to push back against these narratives. We've launched a national public campaign, We're Better Together, to reignite public support for immigration and to remind us—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have 30 seconds.

[Gauri Sreenivasan]

—and I invite you to participate in that.

On the asylum system, I want to remind you that Canada receives a tiny fraction, 2%, of asylum seekers worldwide and that we have a system respected worldwide. The safe third country agreement is based on the premise that the U.S. is a safe country for refugees, and the evidence no longer supports that claim.

There is no country. The convention is very clear that people need to cross borders to claim protection, and those are the rights we have to protect. It's about the ability of people to cross a border, ask for protection and have their case heard on its merits. If the case does not have the evidence, they are turned down. The IRB is very good at discerning between yes and no. That is a system we need to protect and support.

I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Sreenivasan.

Thanks to everyone for their remarks.

We'll turn to our first round of questions, which is for six minutes.

First up, we have Mr. Menegakis for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing before us today and for your testimony.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Paolasini.

Mai Trinh, an entrepreneur, was recently on BNN noting that tech start-ups are leaving Canada in favour of doing business in the United States. She said, “Canada is like a really good-looking guy you want to date, but for some reason, he makes it really difficult for you to be with him.”

Do you believe the immigration system today enables entrepreneurs to stay in Canada and build businesses?

[Steven J. Paolasini]

I don't think it does at all.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned a friend of mine, Mostafa. He raised $1 million in private investor capital. He's doing operations in three different countries. He has signed memorandums of understanding, but he's going to have to wait 84 years to get his PR. Yes, he's in Canada right now on an open work permit, but the challenge is the uncertainty for these applicants. We have, as I said, 500 spots for start-up visa applicants.

I just don't understand how it got so out of hand, with 43,000 in the backlog, according to the minister's transition binder. I just don't understand how that happened. They were asleep at the switch or something.

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

You've also published letters to the minister regarding processing timelines and inconsistencies.

How would you characterize the current state of IRCC?

[Steven J. Paolasini]

It's a bit like a lottery. It's a bit random. You never really know what you're going to get. It's certainly not fair. There's no transparency and very limited accountability.

That is my statement on the current state of IRCC.

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

You've also advocated for a sustainable immigration policy.

Do you believe the Liberal immigration policy over the past few years has been sustainable?

[Steven J. Paolasini]

No, it has not, particularly in reference to the....

I will say that the reduction in temporary resident numbers has been effective—cutting out the international student fraud and the public-private partnerships with DLIs.

What was concerning was the one-time measure in the budget. They didn't put in the number for protected persons, but they put in the number for students and economic class. It's a much smaller number, 33,000 TR to PR. When you look through the 2024 and 2025 stakeholder consultations and the consultations on express entry, it is obvious what Canadians want. They want to focus on skills. They want to focus on economic class immigration. I believe that's why they left it out of the budget.

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

For the record, in your view, has the current government's rapid increase in immigration targets outpaced the actual growth of our housing supply and health care infrastructure?

[Steven J. Paolasini]

I believe the temporary residents did, at some point. As I mentioned, the current government reeled that in, and they reeled in the LMIA fraud, which I have been quite outspoken about over the last couple of years.

In terms of permanent numbers, they are relatively sustainable right now if they go with 380,000 permanent residents per year in the budget—not 455,000 when you include the special one-time measures.

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

One phenomenon we've seen, certainly in urban areas across the country, and definitely in my riding in the greater Toronto area and in the York region, is youth unemployment. You've spoken about fraudulent labour market impact assessments, or LMIAs.

Can you expand on the impact this has on youth unemployment?

[Steven J. Paolasini]

What happens is that employers, when they can bring somebody in on a closed work permit based on a low-wage LMIA, basically have a modern-day wage slave who has to show up for work every single day. Otherwise, they're afraid they're not going to get to realize their dream of remaining in Canada. Employers who pay the minimum wage find that these workers are better than Canadians, who have an open work permit, essentially. They can go and work at the next shop, and they're competitive in the market. This has definitely contributed to it.

Like I said, Service Canada has really cracked down on this.

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

Thank you for your response.

Mr. Barutciski, you have described the current state of immigration as possibly the country's worst public policy failure in a century. Can you elaborate on how the Liberal government's failure specifically destabilized Canada's ability to provide housing and health care?

[Michael Barutciski]

I don't know if I can help specifically on housing and health care but, in general, there are large numbers. We were just talking about permanent residents, and we were going up towards 500,000, but that's only a small part of the picture.

Right after the pandemic period, there was a huge explosion in various categories of temporary residents. We were never even told about that. We couldn't plan for that. I'm saying that it was two or three times more than permanent residents, and it doesn't make sense to talk about immigration in Canada by focusing on just permanent residents. That's a little, simple point, but it has huge implications, because we're talking about many more immigrants, temporary residents.

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

You've also argued that letting so many people into the labour market in low-skilled jobs has lowered GDP, so I have a similar question. How does this touch upon youth unemployment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have 20 seconds, please.

[Michael Barutciski]

What happens if you bring in a lot of temporary residents is that students who then are working.... They're taking the kinds of jobs I would want to have if I were 16, 17 or 18. I'd want to work in a fast food restaurant, as I did. I'd want to do these things. If your competition is a lot of people from poorer countries, as a discussion paper from the Bank of Canada was telling us, poorer countries bring in lots of younger people. They're studying, but they're not really studying—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Barutciski.

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

Next, for six minutes, we have Mr. Zuberi.