Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

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

Would it be fair to say that those numbers need to drop to nearly negligible if the government doesn't have a plan to have three million people leave as they should?

[Michael Barutciski]

I don't know what you mean by negligible or nearly negligible, but they need to drop considerably, so what I recommend—

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

If three million people don't leave, how many people should the government be bringing in on temporary resident visas?

[Michael Barutciski]

A very small number—

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

It should be a very small number. I would agree.

Thank you. That's all I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much.

Next we'll go to Mr. Zuberi.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to continue with Ms. Sreenivasan.

In your initial remarks, you spoke about the We're Better Together campaign. Would you like to elaborate a little on that in the brief time that we have?

[Gauri Sreenivasan]

Thank you very much.

We feel it's very important to recognize the strong values and commitment that exist in Canada that people are ready and keen to welcome immigrants and refugees, but the polling has shown that they've begun to have doubts. They do have questions about what's happening, and they need a sense of confidence restored. They're also looking for a government and a policy that uphold the traditions that they identify with.

We're looking for a way to enable Canadians who are prepared, willing and ready to welcome refugees and immigrants and who want the government to continue those traditions to signal that. That is the obligation we all have because the more that leaders cast doubts and start to have Canadians question that system, they also move with that narrative.

The opportunity of the We're Better Together campaign is to invite organizations in civil society and members of Parliament to stand up for the values and ideals that we know, whether our families came here last year or 100 years ago, that across languages and cultures in this country we look out for each other and we are a stronger country when we are together. We are a stronger country when we are more diverse. That is the message we want to tell people, because increasingly, many people in Canada are starting to feel not safe and they're questioning choosing Canada or not.

We are deciding the future of the kind of country we want to build. When we see what's happening in the U.S., I think there are many, many people in Canada in our experience in communities across the country who want to stand up and say that we have a different way, where we want to have a system that provides a safe future for all families, refugees, migrants and immigrants. To do that, we have to start sharing those stories and speaking to that.

We're inviting members of Parliament to join the campaign, for organizations to join the campaign, so that we can find solutions together, and tell that story loud and proud so that we maintain the commitment that we will, in the long term, stay an inclusive and strong country.

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

Mr. Barutciski, I saw your physical demeanour when you heard this testimony.

Do you agree that we need positive accounts of immigrant refugees and that the government plays a role in making this happen?

[Michael Barutciski]

Absolutely. I completely agree with what my colleague just said. I would simply add that, with this in mind, we want to preserve the system. If there are issues with the system, we must recognize them and try to deal with them.

On that note, I told the other committee member that, in the past, we would have substantially reduced the numbers. The two parties in power in the 1980s drastically reduced the numbers when things got a bit tense. We should go back a bit to this approach and not automatically assume that we'll have plenty. We've had historic numbers. We need to reduce them in order to preserve this typically Canadian cohesiveness and openness. That's a good thing. However, how will we do so? I think that the talking points from ten years ago are no longer useful today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Barutciski.

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Witnesses, I want to thank you for your time and for your important contributions to this study. If there's anything that you want to add to your responses or any additional information you want to provide to the committee, please submit it formally, and it will be considered when we are looking at the testimony in preparing our final report.

We're going to suspend for five minutes so the witnesses can leave, and we'll come back for the second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Welcome back.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses.

We have a couple of witnesses joining with us on Zoom. I'm sure that you've run through this already in your test, but just as a reminder, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation, English or French, or floor. For those in the room, could you make sure that you use your earpiece and select the desired channel. To all, just a reminder to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel. As an individual, we have Mr. Lou Janssen Dangzalan, immigration lawyer, who's joining us by video conference. Here in person from C.D. Howe Institute, we have Dr. Parisa Mahboubi, associate director of research. From the Halifax Partnership, via teleconference, we have Wendy Luther, president and chief executive officer.

Each of you will have up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed to rounds of questions.

We'll start with Mr. Dangzalan, please.

You have five minutes.

[Lou Janssen Dangzalan, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear today before the members of the committee.

I am appearing in my personal and professional capacity to contribute to your study of Canada’s immigration system.

My remarks today will focus on express entry and, more specifically, on category-based selection for francophone candidates.

I want to be clear at the outset: Francophone category-based draws have been a good starting point. They have increased francophone admissions outside Quebec and have produced tangible and measurable results. They have also sent a clear policy signal about the importance of francophone vitality.

At the same time, the committee has also heard serious and credible critiques. Some relate to the perceived fairness of the system. Others relate to labour market alignment. Others relate to transparency and predictability within express entry Canada 2025. These critiques shouldn't be dismissed.

I would also like to echo a point raised by many lawyers before this committee. After more than five years of pandemic‑related disruption, the system needs stability, predictability and fortified service standards. Rules that keep changing, without clear benchmarks, undermine confidence among applicants, employers and provinces alike.

We aren't looking at a public policy failure. We're looking at a policy that works, but that now reveals its limits. The question isn't whether to abandon francophone draws. The question is how to develop them intelligently, within a more stable and better‑governed system.

As a result, I'm proposing a possible next step. Rather than maintaining French as a stand-alone category, it could be more deeply integrated into other priority categories. French would become an enhanced factor when combined with strong human capital.

Currently, for instance, the cap for bilingualism is 50 points. One option would be to increase that cap, for example to 100 points, when French proficiency is combined with a high‑demand occupation, such as in health care.

This approach builds on what already works. It preserves the francophone objective. It responds to labour market needs. It reduces perceptions of competition or displacement. It also contributes to system stability, by reducing reliance on ad hoc adjustments.

This evolution does not require the dismantling of express entry. It can be implemented through a recalibration of point weights. However, it should be accompanied by clear service standards and a commitment to policy stability.

In closing, francophone draws have been a good starting point. Now that the committee has heard the critiques—and there's plenty of that—there's an opportunity to take the next step. By strengthening both the system design and the service standards, Canada can restore confidence and legitimacy in its immigration system when it comes to francophone immigration.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much.

Next, for five minutes, we'll go to Dr. Mahboubi.

[Parisa Mahboubi, Associate Director of Research, C.D. Howe Institute]

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important work on immigration levels.

Immigration remains essential to Canada's economic and demographic future, but its benefit depends critically on whether immigration levels align with housing supply, infrastructure, public services and labour market capacity.

Canada faces demographic pressures, an aging population, declining birth rates and a rising old age dependency ratio. However, the C.D. Howe Institute research consistently shows that immigration alone cannot fully address these challenges. Under any reasonable immigration rate, Canada will become both larger and older. Immigration can slow aging, but it cannot prevent it. Treating immigration as a demographic cure risks pushing levels beyond what the economy and housing systems can absorb.

Following the pandemic, Canada experienced an unprecedented surge in population growth driven largely by temporary residents. Year-over-year growth peaked in 2023 at just over 3%, remained elevated in 2024 and then slowed sharply in 2025 as policy changes took effect.

A key message from the C.D. Howe Institute's work on immigration is that immigration level targets should account for both permanent and temporary immigration to ensure that overall levels align with Canada's economic and social capacities. Focusing only on permanent admissions understates the true population impact and leads to systematic under planning.

The consequences of this misalignment are evident. Housing supply has struggled to keep pace with population growth. As a result, the rental vacancy rate fell to 1.5% in 2023, its lowest level since 1988, and rents increased significantly.

C.D. Howe Institute research also highlights the economic risk of rapid population growth without matching investment. Immigration increases total GDP, but when capital investment lags behind population growth, productivity and GDP per capita suffers. These patterns align closely with Canada's recent economic experience.

The temporary resident population has been central to these challenges. Many have concentrated in low-skilled jobs despite high education levels, intensifying competition for entry-level positions and likely contributing to rising youth unemployment. Compounding these are significant shortcomings in how Canada tracks and monitors its temporary resident workforce.

Canada's temporary resident population expanded rapidly through 2024, peaking at over three million before beginning to decline in response to recent policy changes. Even with that decline, the imbalance between temporary residents and permanent admissions remains substantial. The ratio of temporary residents to permanent admissions increased from roughly 3:1 in 2022 to about 7:1 in 2025, placing sustained pressure on the immigration system, including the asylum system, as many seek pathways to permanent residency.

Stabilizing population growth in the short term is critical and managing the non-permanent resident population is necessary to restore balance. Immigration policy must align with absorptive capacities, setting levels that reflect housing supply, infrastructure, investment and health care capacity. This requires a long-term vision that coordinates immigration planning with infrastructure development, workforce participation and capital investment. Composition matter as much as levels. Benefits depend on successful integration and rising standards of living for both newcomers and existing residents, not simply on admission volumes.

Finally, public support for immigration depends on credibility and competence. Canada has historically enjoyed strong support, but that support is not unconditional. When population growth persistently outpaces housing and services, confidence erodes.

To conclude, immigration remains vital to Canada's future, but policy must account for total population growth and absorptive capacity. Getting both levels and selection right is essential to preserving openness and benefiting from immigration.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Ms. Mahboubi.

Our final witness will speak for five minutes.

Please go ahead, Ms. Luther.

[Wendy Luther, President and Chief Executive Officer, Halifax Partnership]

Honourable Chair and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Canada's immigration levels. I am grateful for the chance to contribute an economic development lens and an Atlantic Canadian lens to this important conversation.

I'm Wendy Luther, president and CEO of Halifax Partnership, Halifax's public-private economic development organization. To begin, I'll provide a brief history on population growth in Halifax and in Atlantic Canada more broadly.

For decades, Atlantic Canada's economic growth lagged behind that of the rest of the country. In a place full of natural resources, natural beauty and industrious people, how could this be?

Well, according to Don Mills and David Campbell in their 2025 book, Toward Prosperity: The Transformation of Atlantic Canada's Economy, our economy's sluggish performance is largely due to slow or no population growth. In fact, the average number of foreign-born Canadians is about 23%. This is four times the average in Atlantic Canada.

To put it another way, from 1971 through 2025, the population growth rate in Atlantic Canada has exceeded the rate for Canada overall in only four years: 1983, 2021, 2022 and 2025. This demographic trend has limited the region's economic dynamism and ability to attract investment, underscoring the critical role that immigration can play in driving prosperity and addressing long-standing challenges.

Over 10 years ago, in 2014, the Ivany report, “Now or Never: An Urgent Call to Action for Nova Scotians”, emphasized the critical need to increase Nova Scotia's population to ensure long-term economic sustainability and vitality. The report set a bold target of growing the province's population to one million by 2025. Nova Scotians took these recommendations to heart and we were very proud to reach this milestone goal, reaching a population of one million ahead of target in 2021.

Now that our population was growing, instead of stagnating or shrinking, there was no end to the opportunities we could seize. Existing businesses were expanding and new businesses were choosing to locate in Halifax. Also, our GDP was growing ahead of the Canadian average, while unemployment and youth unemployment remained low.

In 2022, Halifax launched its next economic strategy, “People. Planet. Prosperity.” That brings us to 2027, with an ambitious goal to grow our population to 525,000 and our GDP to $25 billion by 2027.

By 2024, our growth was so fast, up to 4.2%, and undeniably causing some growing pains. We met the moment and addressed these challenges. Our population goal was in sight and our GDP goal was met two years early.

However, recent immigration policy changes put these gains at risk in 2024, when the Government of Canada announced a significant shift in immigration policy and targets. In weeks, Canada fell significantly from its place as a first-choice destination for international students. Recent EduNova data shows that, globally, 38% of prospective students and applicants said they are reconsidering their study abroad plans in Canada.

On the ground here in Nova Scotia, this means that we have significantly undershot our quotas because of the message that Canada wasn't open for business. Last year's plan for a 20% reduction in Canadian permanent resident targets has led to a 34% reduction in Nova Scotia's permanent residence admissions so far. Although we had made great strides in population growth, it is highly unlikely that natural population growth will make up for our aging population, so we are not out of the woods from our considerable demographic challenges.

Access to talent is key to Halifax's value proposition in attracting and retaining business in our municipality. The strength of our graduates, including our international student graduates, and access to efficient and predictable immigration pathways spur business and investment in Halifax.

In meeting our housing challenges in 2025, there were a record 6,676 housing starts in HRM, and we have to ensure the real estate industry is not thrown into disarray by a rapidly slowing economy. We need consistent, predictable immigration policies in order to ensure a reasonably balanced real estate market.

In an increasingly volatile economic and geopolitical environment, we Canadians need to do everything in our control to add stability, predictability and efficiency into all systems, including ensuring we have an immigration system that meets the needs of business and enhances our global competitiveness.

Halifax is open for business. Predictable and appropriate immigration levels and policies ensure our success.

Thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Ms. Luther.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their opening statements.

Now we'll go to our first round of questions, which is for six minutes.

We'll begin with Mr. Redekopp for six minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

I want to start with you, Dr. Mahboubi.

In the previous panel, we had a witness who stated that there was absolutely no connection between the amount of immigration we have and the housing market. Do you agree with that?

[Parisa Mahboubi]

No, I don't agree. The problem we have in the housing market is a combination of supply and demand. Before recent increases, it was mainly on the supply side because it's been slow and not even consistent with previous population growth.

However, post pandemic, given the significant increase—for example, the population increased by 3%—means that when it comes from immigration, those immigrants all need a place to live. If population growth comes from, for example, the birth rate, for those individuals there is, at least, 18 to 20 years before there's a demand for housing. When the biggest part of population growth comes from immigration, that means the supply side of the housing market needs to be ready to accommodate those individuals.

Also, one thing that is—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have limited time.

I guess the point, which I think you would agree with, is that if you have a large demand, with millions of people coming into the country who all need housing, it's going to have an impact on the availability. That's common sense.

[Parisa Mahboubi]

Yes, it's sudden.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

In the same vein, then, should the number of people we bring into the country be based on the availability of things like housing and jobs?

[Parisa Mahboubi]

In terms of what we should plan, I stated that, for immigration planning, we need a long-term vision. What does it mean? It means we have to think about the rate we want to maintain consistently over time, and based on the immigration rate and population growth we think Canada needs to have, we are able to project population. We are able to see, for example, that, if today the immigration numbers and rate are going to be this much, this is going to be the future population growth and future numbers for Canada.

Our scenario shows that, if Canada continues to grow, it means we need more services and housing. The goal is to make sure that all government departments, federal and provincial, are aware of that vision and of that target for immigration long term. We need something predictable. We need to make immigration planning sustainable to be able to plan for that, and we need coordination across all levels of government.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

As you stated, lately there have been three million people.... The government's policy is to reduce that. They've made some policy changes, but they're making the assumption that when somebody's paperwork expires, they're going to leave the country. Is that the same assumption you make, or do you have any evidence to suggest that might not be true?