Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

[Ranya Elfil]

I'm not going to claim to be an immigration consultant or someone who's very deep into that. I will speak from the advocacy space, where I've been for the past two to three years. I would say just having an adequate....

I mean, Canada from the beginning had pillars for immigration. Economic immigration was part of those pillars, but the humanitarian part was always core to our values. We always stood up for communities impacted by war and created programs.

We see a lack of equity in the response to those communities. Have something with a standard process and transparency that brings equity to how we respond to communities in crisis, with targeted programs that help those communities. I think the example of the Sudan family reunification program is a great one, because it directly helped the Canadian community here that was mentally and emotionally impacted by the war and the direct impact on their families. That is one to replicate, I think, in similar cases.

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

Thank you.

You mentioned in your testimony that biometrics were made available and that wasn't initially the case. Can you talk briefly about how that made an important impact and change in terms of applications, processing, etc.?

[Ranya Elfil]

A lot of the applicants for the program are in Sudan. It was very difficult, due to the safety situation, for them to leave. There was no biometric centre in Sudan after the war. That impacted their processing, as IRCC was not waiving the biometric requirement. They either had to go to another country, which was not feasible for everyone, or just remain stranded in Sudan.

We worked closely with IRCC, with their international crisis response team, to establish a biometric centre in Sudan through IOM. IOM is present in Sudan. We actually came in with a proposal that through working with IOM, IRCC can solve that problem. It took a very long time, but at the end, they managed to establish a biometric centre in May last year. Since then, we've been able to successfully process applicants from within Sudan.

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

Aside from the one proposal you made, which you also succeeded in achieving, do you have any other proposals you haven't spoken about that you want to bring forward right now?

[Ranya Elfil]

I want to draw attention to and build on a point that was said by the witness next to me.

When you think about this community that is coming, you don't think about how they're actually skilled. Fifty per cent of the Sudanese population is under the age of 18, so the people coming to Canada are the youth. The majority of those coming to Canada are very skilled because unfortunately, due to the prohibitive financial requirements of this program, those who are able to apply to bring their family members are skilled professionals in Canada, who are actually bringing skilled professionals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have 30 seconds.

[Ranya Elfil]

My family sponsored three engineers who are currently in Canada—a civil engineer, an electrical engineer, both in Ph.D. programs now, and one in a financial institution with a full-time job, and an architect who's doing a bridging program and has a part-time job.

Those we're bringing are skilled. This is something that I think is overlooked. It should not be taken into account when we're talking about a crisis situation, but this is something to also be taken into account.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Elfil.

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Mr. Deschênes, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My next question is for Ms. Elfil.

According to an article published in the National Post this morning, thousands of claims made by asylum seekers are now being processed without any filters. The countries they come from are not taken into consideration.

Have you seen the IRCC's approach change in recent years?

[Ranya Elfil]

I'm trying to clarify the question. When you say, “with no filters being applied”....

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

According to an article published in the National Post, from 2019 to 2023, nearly 25,000 asylum seekers from previously listed countries who made refugee claims were admitted without meeting with a government official. They were admitted only on the basis of the written request they submitted.

Have you seen this approach?

[Ranya Elfil]

I won't say that I'm very familiar with the asylum system and how it's working. I can speak to our community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have one minute left, Mr. Deschênes.

[Ranya Elfil]

After the war, what we've seen in some cases is that they were processed without a hearing. Based on the cases presented, some, but very few, were processed without a hearing. Still, their ability to get a PR and to bring their families is very much restricted.

There's a huge struggle within that group who came here as asylum seekers seeking safety. Some of them even came before the war, with their families stranded in Sudan—a similar situation to family reunification. They're struggling to reunite with their families because processing, in terms of being given a PR so they're able to sponsor their family members, is taking very long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.

Thank you, Ms. Elfil.

That ends our first hour of testimony today. I want to thank all the witnesses for their time to be here.

I apologize to you, Ms. Elcano. I think we need to do a little bit better on our side. You have done everything right in terms of the headset and coming in and trying to do a bit of a test. We have to find a better way to guarantee that we can ensure all testimony while also respecting our interpreters.

Thanks to all.

We're now going to suspend for five minutes to do a bit of a changeover.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Welcome, everyone.

I would like to welcome everyone to our—

Mr. Deschênes, you may take your seat.

second panel. Thank you for being here.

I want to, as always, make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses.

We don't have anyone online. I'm glad that everybody's here in person.

Please put on your headsets and try to do it in advance. It makes it easier to hear.

Address all your questions through the chair, please.

Of course, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please make sure that you select whether you want to listen in French or in English. You can also adjust how loud you would like it to be.

As you saw earlier, I'll let everybody know when there's about a minute left.

With that, I'm going to now formally welcome our witnesses for the second panel.

We have, as an individual, Mr. James Yousif, who is a lawyer.

From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have Mr. David Pierce, vice-president, government relations.

From the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, we have Ms. Liane Roy, president, and Mr. Alain Dupuis, executive director.

Each group will have five minutes to speak.

We're going to begin with Mr. Yousif for five minutes, please.

[James Yousif, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the invitation.

My thanks also to the C.D. Howe Institute for its support with the publication last month of my paper on the subject of the Immigration and Refugee Board's file review policy.

The file review policy involves the rapid acceptance of asylum claims without conducting a hearing or asking any questions of the claimant. For example, between January 2019 and February 2023, the IRB accepted 24,599 asylum claimants into Canada without asking them a single question. This policy remains in effect, and I think it's problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it has not worked. During the relevant time, the backlog of claims increased from 17,000 in 2016 to 300,000 in 2025, an increase of more than 1,400%.

Secondly, the policy may also increase risk to Canada. The refugee hearing functions as a screen for national security risk and fraud. During the hearing, if questioning raises a red flag, the IRB member must stop the hearing and notify the minister to give the minister the chance to intervene. If the IRB accepts claims without conducting hearings or asking questions, those risks will never be detected, the minister's ability to intervene will be nullified and the risk to Canada will increase.

The policy may be interfering with the ability of board members to freely assess the evidence in their files in ways that are inconsistent with the law of administrative tribunals by imposing a mandatory file triage structure in which persons other than the person with authority delegated by Parliament are assessing the evidence in each file and making implied recommendations to adjudicators. This interferes with the independent assessment of the evidence in their files and pressures board members into making fast, positive decisions without asking questions.

Also of concern, the IRB appears to have implemented this policy on its own unilaterally without consulting ministers or cabinet, despite the fact that the policy has direct implications for the statutory mandates of the ministers of IRCC and Public Safety, and that shouldn't be possible. The IRB is an administrative tribunal. It does not have the authority on its own to make policies that directly implicate the mandate of the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Immigration.

For example, in the U.K., France, New Zealand and Australia, a policy change like this would have required the approval of ministers, cabinet and, possibly, Parliament.

I think this may point to a structural problem with Canada's model. Canada's IRB may be too independent; it reports to no minister. For that reason, it can't be seen clearly and its actions cannot be predicted. More broadly, the IRB's acceptance rate, or recognition rate, has now increased to 80% of claims decided on the merits, excluding claims that are withdrawn or abandoned.

By comparison, in 2024, Ireland accepted 30% of claims on the merits, Sweden accepted 40% and Germany accepted 59%. Research suggests that acceptance rates are a significant factor in asylum seekers' choice of a destination country. The IRB's extraordinarily high rate of acceptance may be attracting more asylum claims to Canada.

In conclusion, I would make two recommendations.

The first is that the file review policy be brought to an end and the regular in-person hearing restored.

The second is that ministers and cabinet should assume responsibility for asylum policy in Canada. It may be worth considering the transfer of the functions now performed by the IRB to a setting that places them within the oversight of government in a way that provides a sufficient degree of independence for each tribunal, but which also results in a direct reporting relationship to ministers and cabinet. That was one of the recommendations for the refugee protection division in the independent review commissioned by the Trudeau government in 2017. I think that's a good option worth considering for the four tribunals that comprise the IRB.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you very much.

Next we have five minutes for opening remarks from Mr. Pierce from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Please go ahead, Mr. Pierce.

[David Pierce, Vice President, Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and our new immigration council to provide testimony to your study on the immigration system.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is the country's largest business association, with an active network of 400 chambers across the country representing nearly 200,000 businesses. We exist in almost all sectors, across almost all regions and certainly in most ridings in Canada.

Immigration is a key driver of economic growth in Canada. For thousands of businesses, temporary and permanent immigration is not optional. It's an economic imperative.

That economic imperative became even more relevant last January with the inauguration of the current U.S. administration. Since then, Canadian businesses have been under strain due to the real or potential risk of tariffs that might shut down their sector. They're under strain because of aggressive changes to U.S. tax policy, and they're being asked to diversify to new markets.

At a time when Canadian businesses are having to compete in ways they haven't before, adding one more challenge—a shrinking workforce—may be a bridge too far for Canadian business. This in turn would force businesses to make difficult decisions to reduce services, stop producing goods or, worse, shift their business to jurisdictions where they can access labour.

I joined the Canadian Chamber of Commerce last January. I've had the chance over the past year to meet with most of our members. I can tell you from meetings with them that their top three issues always include access to skilled labour or access to immigration to grow our economy, which is also in their top three risks.

The simple fact is that we have an all-time low fertility rate, coupled with a rapidly shrinking labour pool due to an upcoming wave of retirements across critical sectors of our economy. The simple fact is that we have a demographic problem.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and our members recognize that, over the past few years, rapid and disproportionate population growth in certain communities across Canada has placed pressure on housing, infrastructure and social services, but we must draw to your attention the fact that those pressures are not experienced equally across our country. In many rural and remote communities, as well as specific sectors of our economy, employers continue to face persistent and structural labour challenges. Examples include Thunder Bay, much of northern Ontario, regions of Quebec and Atlantic Canada and across the west.

Our immigration system must reflect the full range of labour market needs for high-skilled, mid-skilled and low-skilled labour across rural and urban centres. Based on the research of our business data lab, approximately 1% of Canada's labour force is made up of temporary foreign workers, yet they play a critical role by addressing shortages in agriculture, food processing, construction, hospitality, manufacturing and health care.

Now, let me be clear. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce firmly believes that a qualified Canadian should have, and be able to compete for, a job in Canada. Those jobs should go to Canadians and permanent residents who want them and who are qualified to do that work, but I hope we can all agree that if those conditions do not exist, and where a qualified Canadian does not want that job, then a qualified Canadian business owner should be able to find the skilled workers they need through a program like the temporary foreign worker program to avoid being forced to reduce production, relocate or close.

Over the past couple of years, we've seen a lot of criticism of the temporary foreign worker program, and much of it, rightly so. The program's delivery, certainly over the past few years, has been a challenge for employers, no doubt for Canadians and especially for those coming in through the program, but that should not undermine the need—the imperative—that Canada has for an immigration program that enables employers to access labour that is not available domestically.

The multiple and reactive immigration policy changes over the past few years, such as the postgraduate work permit changes, changes to the temporary foreign worker program and reductions in immigration levels more generally, have created significant uncertainty and negatively impacted businesses and communities across the country. Together, the effect has been to erode Canadians' trust in the system, while also damaging Canada's reputation abroad as a destination for the best and brightest.

Businesses and Canadians need certainty and predictability back at the centre of our immigration system. On behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and our immigration council, I will say that we are eager to support you in doing just that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pierce.

Next we have, for five minutes, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

Who would like to start?

Ms. Roy, you have the floor.

[Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, to testify today.

My name is Liane Roy, and I have with me our executive director, Alain Dupuis.

For 50 years, the FCFA has been the national and international voice of minority francophones and Acadians in nine provinces and three territories. It runs a network of several hundred francophone organizations and institutions across the country. It is the federal government's voice when it comes to the vitality of our communities.

In 2001, the FCFA and its network made francophone immigration a priority in the national development of our communities. The FCFA quickly took a national leadership role on the issue. In 25 years, our communities have come a long way. For example, every province and territory now has at least one reception and settlement service in French.

Recruitment is improving, but it's still more mixed. In 2003, the government and the communities jointly adopted a target of 4.4% for francophone immigration to minority communities. It took us 19 years to reach that target. In the meantime, there have been several years of stagnation. Barely 2% of immigrants admitted outside Quebec were francophone. The federal government relied on general immigration instruments to achieve the target, with no specific mechanism to do so.

However, the FCFA and its network have argued for years that they needed programs specifically designed for francophone immigration. The government gradually changed the score given to candidates eligible for the express entry program who knew French. That's part of what got us to the 4.4% target in 2022.

However, at that time, we had fallen behind. For a generation, the Canadian francophonie was deprived of the immigration needed for its vitality and renewal. This has led to a faster decline in the demographic weight of our communities. A statistical study commissioned by the FCFA showed that, in order to halt and reverse the demographic decline of our communities, we now need targets of 12% as early as 2024, which would gradually increase to 20% by 2036.

The Official Languages Act, which was modernized in 2023, commits the government to taking action to restore the demographic weight of our communities to its 1971 level. As a result, the government adopted its first francophone immigration policy in early 2024. It also increased the francophone immigration targets. In 2025, the proportion of francophone immigrants admitted outside Quebec was 8.9%. The tools currently in place, such as group-based selection under the express entry program, seem insufficient to meet higher francophone immigration targets.

Moreover, these tools lead to a concentration of francophone immigration in two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick. However, all our communities want to benefit from francophone immigration.

The policy launched in 2024 commits to the creation of an economic immigration program specific to our francophonie. Under the program, immigrants can be matched with labour needs, particularly in the regions and rural areas where the needs are urgent. That way, immigrants can be retained in places where there are jobs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have one minute.

[Liane Roy]

Okay.

It will also help reduce labour shortages.

It will ensure that the criteria are better adapted to the socio-economic realities of francophone source countries, particularly in Africa. Lastly, it will increase the bilingual capacity of Canada's workforce, an important competitive advantage at a time when our country is seeking to diversify its markets, particularly with the 90 member states and governments of the francophonie.

We therefore recommend that the committee call on the government to work closely with our communities to accelerate the implementation of a separate francophone economic immigration program, so that it can see the light of day in 2026. That way, IRCC will have all the resources it needs to increase francophone immigration to the country, in accordance with its obligations under the modernized Official Languages Act.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you for your opening statement.

I forgot to mention at the outset that the last few minutes of our meeting is going to be taken up with a supplementary estimates motion. I just want to let everybody know that I'll be ending a few minutes early.

We go now to the first round of questions for six minutes, and we are going to begin with Mr. Redekopp, please.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Yousif, I'm going to start with you. I really hope I heard you wrong. I want you to clarify. You were talking about the file review program. That's the program in the Immigration and Refugee Board where asylum claimants come to Canada. Just repeat that for me. Are you saying that with file reviews those claimants do not talk to an interviewer?