Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to our meeting number 21 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I want to start by giving a warm welcome to Alexis Deschênes, who is now part of our team.

We have an extra special guest, the very Honourable Greg Fergus. I want to say welcome to you as well. Thank you for joining us today.

Thanks to everyone. I usually start promptly right at 11 o'clock, but it's been a manic Monday —everything has gone wrong. I appreciate everyone for their patience.

We also have Mr. Vincent Neil Ho. I saw you at our last meeting, and I thought you were already part of our team. Let me also warmly welcome you here with us today.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I want to make a couple of comments for the benefit of our witnesses as well as give reminders as always to our members.

I see we have one witness with us in the first panel on Zoom. As a reminder, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and kindly mute yourself when you are not speaking.

As well, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation, whether it's floor, English or French. If you have any questions, just let us know.

For those of you in the room, please use your earpiece and select the desired channel. Sometimes it's easier to listen to all the testimony in English. Sometimes the questioners are soft speakers.

For your five-minute introduction, I'll give you a bit of a warning when you have one minute left. I'll also let my colleagues around the table know when they have a minute of questioning left.

Of course, always wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Please do not speak over each other, as it makes it very difficult for our interpreters. All your comments are of course addressed to the chair.

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

Thanks to everyone 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 resuming its study of Canada's immigration system.

I would now like to formally welcome our witnesses for the first hour of our meeting today.

On behalf of the Caregivers' Action Samaritan Movement, we have online Laila Elcano, who's the founder—a warm welcome to you. In the room, we have two witnesses. From Immitracker, we have Nino Melikidze. Welcome. From the Sudanese Canadian Community Association, we have Ranya Elfil. Welcome to you as well.

You each have five minutes to give opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

I'm going to begin online with Ms. Elcano.

[Laila Elcano, Founder, Caregivers' Action Samaritan Movement]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Laila Elcano. I am a former caregiver. I now work in health care as a personal support worker. I am a community leader and volunteer. I am the founder of Caregivers' Action Samaritan Movement, or CaSamaMo, an organization of caregivers helping caregivers.

It is an honour to be invited as a witness to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for its study on Canada's immigration system. It is my hope that what I will share will assist you in this study.

As a caregiver myself, I know first-hand the emotional and psychological strains associated with being a caregiver. Though I am fortunate enough to have a loving and supportive family to work for, the fact that I was not with my own family back then was hard enough, but there was also the feeling of uncertainty. The feeling of not having control over your own life was, at times, too much to bear.

Caregivers or care workers are the backbone of Canada's economy. They perform critical work essential to the Canadian economy. Without them, parents of young children would not be able to work. The children of aging, sick or elderly parents would not be able to be in the workforce if not for caregivers. Families with special needs children and people with disabilities rely on the support provided by caregivers. Caregivers provide a sense of normalcy as they absorb the tasks and responsibilities the family can't provide to their loved ones. It is just fair that these caregivers be provided a simple, smooth and easy transition from workers to permanent residents, but the government is failing them.

Canada's immigration system has the family reunification program. It is ironic that the system that allows the family reunification program is the same system that is tearing families apart. How many caregivers are there who are not with their children?

One officer of CaSamaMo has five children—four boys and a daughter, who is the oldest child. Two years ago, her husband and the four boys came to Canada. Unfortunately, the only daughter was left in the Philippines. Why? She is over 22 years old. I believe, and I am sure you will all agree, that our children are our children at any age. They are our children for life. Why is it the daughter's fault to not be part of her family living in Canada? The sad part is, the boys here can't even post pictures of themselves enjoying dinner or lunch in a restaurant, or any picture, because it makes their sister back home feel sad, alone and abandoned.

Another one of our officers was able to bring her husband here, but not her two children. Why? They had turned 22. The mother, after sacrificing so many years of separation, will grow old here with her husband while both of their children are back home.

In both cases, they had to endure a lifetime of emotional and psychological pain. Is this what family reunification is? Lucky are those who have never experienced this.

With the current situation of the PR application, with all the delays, backlogs and lack of concrete or solid pathways, a lot more caregivers will suffer separation from their children, because their children will inevitably become 22 years old.

There is also a great concern with the educational credential assessment, ECA. I remember in 2021, there was a lot of confusion, anxiety, stress and depression in the caregivers community, particularly for those who were already here when this new requirement was announced. We even sent a petition to the then minister of immigration, Marco Mendicino with almost 300 signatures to reconsider this requirement. The TR to PR pathway opened and most of those who signed the petition were able to apply. Today, most of these caregivers are citizens now, and they are thriving, successful and contributing to Canadian society.

The biggest concern is the language proficiency test through IELTS and CELPIP. During the live-in caregiver program, LCP, ECA and language proficiency were never part of the requirements, but nonetheless, all the caregivers under the LCP are thriving and successful. Some are entrepreneurs or business owners. They are contributing to the Canadian economy and society.

At the last round table I attended with then minister of immigration, the honourable Marc Miller, alongside Minister Rechie Valdez and then minister Ya'ara Saks—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Ms. Elcano, I'm so sorry. You have 30 seconds left. I need you to wrap up, please.

[Laila Elcano]

I have provided a written question, which I will be asking here again, as this is an area I think you should look into. What steps have you taken to stop these unscrupulous immigration lawyers and consultants, who are charging exorbitant rates to vulnerable and desperate applicants?

I have included a written brief with recommendations that will hopefully assist you in the study of Canada's immigration system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Ms. Elcano.

Now we're going to turn to Ms. Melikidze for her five minutes.

[Nino Melikidze, Chief Executive Officer, Immitracker Inc.]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

I am one of the few tech entrepreneurs in the immigration space, and I run the largest Canadian immigration data aggregation consumer platform. Furthermore, I'm a product of the express entry system, having gone through it myself in 2018. From my unique perspective, Canada's immigration system is under strain, not because immigration has lost its value, but because the system has increasingly lost its focus.

When express entry launched in 2015, its role was clear: It was an economic selection system built on ranking skilled candidates based on merit. For several years, it worked. It predictably selected the candidates most likely to integrate successfully. However, since then, it has begun to collapse. I want to focus on two interlinked issues driving this breakdown: the implementation of francophone immigration targets and the mismanagement of skilled immigration categories.

Let's begin with francophone immigration. The federal government set an 8.5% target for French-speaking permanent residents outside Quebec in 2025, which will rise to 10.5% by 2028. Supporting francophone minority communities is a valid objective. The problem is where this target is being applied. Because family, refugee and humanitarian streams do not assess language, they cannot be used to meet francophone targets. As a result, express entry carries the burden by default. This isn't made explicit, but it is the operational reality, and the impact is clear.

In 2025, a significant share of express entry invitations—42% of the total—was issued to the francophone draws. Most were candidates outside Canada, without Canadian work experience or education. At the same time, the Canadian experience class, the pathway designed for people already working in Canada, saw fewer and smaller draws. The disparity between the quality of the applicants was stark, with a 529 average CRS score for Canadian experience class versus 422 for francophone candidates. That is more than a 100-point difference. This outcome is driven by politically motivated targets, not applicant quality.

According to the IRCC's 2024 stakeholder consultation report, only 14.6% of respondents identified francophone immigration as a top priority, while a strong majority emphasized economic and labour market needs. Despite this, francophone targets dominated express entry in 2025.

What was the result? First, express entry is being distorted and often fails to prioritize candidates with the highest potential to successfully settle in Canada. Second, francophone newcomers are dispersed broadly across the country, often into regions without strong French-language employment opportunities or settlement infrastructure. A more appropriate mechanism already exists. It's called the francophone community immigration pilot, and it aligns language objectives with specific regions that have the capacity and demand to support francophone settlement. This is exactly where francophone immigration outside Quebec can be pursued effectively.

On the skilled category side, STEM has effectively collapsed. There have been no STEM-specific draws since April 2024, and 19 core STEM occupations, including software developers, engineers and data scientists, were removed from eligibility. Meanwhile, occupations such as insurance agents were added to it, despite being sales-oriented roles. The health care category saw fewer than a third of the francophone invitations in 2025, while suffering from incorrect skill prioritization within. The result is predictable. Canadian-educated graduates and skilled professionals, many already working here, are losing clear pathways to permanent residence. Canada is training talent and failing to retain it. These outcomes directly stem from policy choices that layer non-economic objectives onto economic selection tools.

The brief we submitted to this committee outlines a clear course correction. The first step is to separate linguistic and cultural objectives from express entry. The second is to rely on targeted programs to fulfill francophone immigration objectives. The third is to restore the Canadian experience class as a reliable immigration pathway. The fourth is to correctly structure and increase the priority of STEM and health care categories.

Canada needs an immigration system whereby each stream does what it was designed to do. If it is to remain functional, we must return to first principles—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have one minute left.

[Nino Melikidze]

These are long-term economic impact and high human capital prioritization.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thanks so much, Ms. Melikidze.

Next, we have five minutes for Ms. Elfil's opening remarks.

Please go ahead.

[Ranya Elfil, Member of the Board of Directors, Sudanese Canadian Community Association]

Hello, and thank you for having me.

My name is Ranya Elfil, and I'm a board member of the Sudanese Canadian Communities Association. Since the war in Sudan began in April 2023, I have worked extensively with IRCC to advocate for humanitarian pathways for Sudanese impacted by the war—a tradition Canada has upheld for many communities in times of crisis.

Sudan is facing genocide and the largest humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world. Today I'm here to share our community's experience with prolonged delays, inequitable processing and systemic disparities, and to outline how we can ensure no future community endures what we have.

When the war began, we submitted a policy brief calling for multiple immigration pathways. Initially, IRCC focused on a family reunification pathway, recognizing the direct impact on Canadians and permanent residents with loved ones trapped in Sudan. The program launched—after many delays—10 months later, in February 2024. It was capped at 3,250 applicants and later increased to 5,000.

Sponsors were required to assume full financial responsibility and demonstrate substantial income, or tens of thousands of dollars in available funds. Applicants, many of whom had lost everything, were required to pay high processing fees. As a result, our community transferred millions of dollars to IRCC, funds that could otherwise have supported displaced family members with urgent needs like food and medicine. This put an immense financial burden on the community. Just a couple of days ago, a young community member, Muna Jad Alrab—who, like many others, had to work multiple jobs to help support her family in displacement while waiting to be reunited with them—passed away suddenly in Montreal, leaving behind a grieving family and an enraged community.

We met those financial obligations. What we did not anticipate were extraordinary delays. In the first 13 months of the program, only 9% of applicants arrived in Canada. In October 2025, it was stated before this committee that Sudanese applications could face delays of up to 99 months. For people trapped in an active war zone, displaced without work, stability or safety, 99 months is not simply a delay. It's life-threatening. Approximately 7,000 to 8,000 individuals remain waiting.

We repeatedly warned IRCC and honourable ministers that prolonged processing in a conflict zone would have deadly consequences. Our committee has tracked cases of applicants who died from violence, heatstroke or lack of medical care while waiting. One Calgary sponsor applied in February 2024 to bring his sister and her four children. After months of delay, she was killed when her city was stormed by RSF forces. Her children remain unprocessed. These are not abstract cases; these were preventable losses.

We are also deeply concerned about a reduction in government-assisted refugee, GAR, commitments. In September 2024, IRCC committed to resettle 4,000 Sudanese GARs per year from 2025 to 2027, with a focus on women impacted by gender-based violence. By March 2025, the commitment was reduced to 4,000 total arrivals by the end of 2026, effectively cutting the pledge to a third. An earlier request to waive refugee status determination requirements—allowing more Sudanese to access private and community sponsorship programs—was capped at only 700 individuals. At a time when Sudan faces the world's largest displacement crisis, scaling back commitments sends a troubling signal about prioritization and responsiveness.

We have also repeatedly raised cases of children with Canadian citizenship stranded in Sudan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Ms. Elfil, you have one minute left.

[Ranya Elfil]

Often, these children were the sons and daughters of deceased Canadian fathers and lived with their widowed Sudanese mothers. While the children are Canadian, their mothers required visas to accompany them, creating a barrier to leaving a war zone. We raised this issue in April 2024, in July 2024 and many times after.

One Canadian child drowned in an IDP camp after displacement. Other children were hungry, out of school and without access to medicine. While there recently has been some movement on the file, it remains alarmingly slow.

The Canadian Council for Refugees has documented that African applicants face the longest processing times and that African visa offices carry the highest caseload with the least staffing. Our experience aligns with those findings. The issue before us is not simply operational delays. It is an absence of equity, transparency and consistency in Canada's humanitarian response.

If I may say, just to conclude, as a way forward IRCC should implement a standardized crisis response framework with clear service standards for active conflict zones, including urgent processing timelines and transparent benchmarks. Equity safeguards must be embedded into humanitarian programming from the outset, including public reporting on regional processing times and adequate resourcing for African visa offices. IRCC should establish a standing protocol for Canadian children stranded abroad, with accelerated processing and facilitated pathways for accompanying caregivers. Finally, a structured and transparent engagement with affected communities must be formalized to reduce uncertainty and prevent harm.

Canada's humanitarian system should be measured—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Ms. Elfil, I'm sorry. You're a minute over your time—

[Ranya Elfil]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I want to thank you for your excellent opening remarks.

Thanks to our other two witnesses as well.

Now we will do rounds of questions. I'm going to start with six minutes for the Conservatives, followed by six minutes for the Liberals and then six minutes for the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Davies, you'll start please.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses on three very distinct and very important topics today, all of them important to the work of this committee.

I would like to spend my time with Ms. Melikidze.

You wrote a piece entitled “Rethinking Express Entry for economic growth”. I'd like to quote from the article:

One of the most significant shifts in Canada's Express Entry system is the quiet abandonment of the STEM category despite its central role in Canada's innovation economy and long-term productivity. No STEM draws have been held since April 2024, and IRCC has given no indication [when] they will resume.

I wonder if you could give us some insight as to why you think the STEM category for the express entry system was removed. Do you have some insight into why that was removed at a time when there are well-documented shortages in many of the disciplines in that STEM category?

[Nino Melikidze]

We did some digging when we were writing that article. We requested a couple of ATIPs. From what I saw in an ATIP from 2024, there was an IRCC ministerial instruction to halt all STEM draws sometime in 2024. I believe it said that there were no STEM draws that should have been conducted past the summer, but there was no justification provided in that ATIP. I can go back and look to see if I can find more data, but there was no information provided there.

This doesn't even begin to cover the entire issue, because the bigger part is that 19 core STEM occupations were also removed from the category, which is.... When we talk about Canada becoming a competitive nation compared to the United States in topics such as artificial development and building data centres or becoming a leading nation in terms of technology, how are we doing that if we have removed every single occupation that is related to that direction from the STEM category? IRCC has not provided a single documented fact regarding why they are choosing to pause STEM. I genuinely have no clue. I'd be lying to you if I told you that I knew.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Since that decision has happened, have there been any measurable or noticeable declines in the number of people who are coming to Canada? Has there been any impact on the number of people actually leaving Canada as a result of lack of support in that STEM sector?

[Nino Melikidze]

I will give you an incredible example.

A couple of months ago, I spoke to a U of T grad who was stuck at 499 points for CEC because he has two years of work experience. He is a civil engineer and working, with a good job. He cannot get selected for express entry because the Canadian experience class scores were so high and there have been no STEM draws. He told me that he's trying to utilize a special pathway to get another visa to get in another year of work experience sufficiently so that he can qualify for the next CEC draw when it happens. This is an example of a person who is a U of T engineer.

We're talking about Waterloo AI grads who are choosing to go to San Francisco to get a job at a start-up there rather than wait for a STEM draw here, and they're not qualifying for the CEC draws.

That's the impact, and yes, it's actually quite measurable.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Would you recognize in the market that these people who can't qualify under the current rules are actually leaving Canada for the United States?

[Nino Melikidze]

Some of them are leaving for the United States. Others are going back home. Another one I know, who is from Singapore, said that she's just going to go home. Why would she keep trying to struggle here when she's never getting selected for any of the draws?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

You also made reference to the fact that we seem to have flipped the script on some of the categories that are acceptable under the new rules. For example, we don't allow trained chefs to fill the gaps in the Canadian market, but we would allow cooks. Can you explain the rationale behind that?

[Nino Melikidze]

The rationale is that the system was designed in 2015 and hasn't actually been redesigned since. The points ranking system measures for very basic qualities. It measures for age and for Canadian work experience. When you put a NOC code as well, that is not really being divided up by the level of TEER, so a TEER 1 and a TEER 3 NOC code under Canadian experience class would be ranked the same level. You don't get extra points for having a higher skilled occupation under the Canadian experience class or even in the trades draws. The cooks and the chefs would actually be ranked equally under the trades draw because they both have work experience.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

That's interesting, considering that a chef has to go through many more years of education, experience, qualification and passing actual tests.

[Nino Melikidze]

The health care is the same, actually.