Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Richard.

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I want to thank the witnesses here today.

We're now going to suspend for about five minutes so that the current witnesses can leave. We will come back to a second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Welcome back, and welcome to our new panellists.

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

As you all know, you can use the earpiece that's in front of you and select the channel you want to listen to. I think it's fairly self-explanatory. You can choose English, French or the floor.

For those who are giving opening remarks and for those who are asking questions, I'll let you know when you have only one minute left. Of course, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to formally welcome our witnesses for the second panel.

I would like to welcome Luisa Veronis, professor and research chair on immigration and Franco‑Ontarian communities at the University of Ottawa.

From the Hong Kong Pathway Ontario Committee, we have Sheung Ching Cheng, organizer. Welcome to you.

From the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, we have Alexandra Chyczij, president, and Ihor Michalchyshyn, chief executive officer. We give a warm welcome to you.

Five minutes will be given to each group for opening remarks, and then we will proceed with rounds of questions.

I will start off with Professor Veronis.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Luisa Veronis, Professor and Chair in Immigration and Franco-Ontarian Communities, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to be here today.

I teach social geography at the University of Ottawa, and I hold the research chair in immigration and Franco-Ontarian communities. I have spent more than 15 years researching francophone immigration in minority communities. I work closely with francophone immigration networks, settlement agencies, host communities and immigrants themselves. That on-the-ground expertise informs my remarks today.

Canada recently met, even surpassed, its francophone immigration targets outside Quebec. That significant achievement deserves to be recognized. Keep in mind that the 2003 targets weren't met until 2022, some 20 years later. However, this progress must not mask an ongoing fundamental structural problem in the way we select francophone immigrants.

Currently, francophone immigration is largely based on the express entry system, but the system was designed for the selection of economic immigrants. It ranks applicants according to their human capital, education, work experience and language proficiency. While important, those factors do not take into account the community-based and language-driven mandate that is central to francophone immigration.

Francophone immigration is more than just an economic program. It is a social vision that builds on the Official Languages Act and seeks to restore the demographic weight of francophone communities to 6.1%. That demographic weight sits at 3.5% today. Francophone immigration is also a commitment in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, recognizing the importance of enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

The express entry system cannot fulfill that dual mandate. It selects individuals without regard for host francophone communities. The system steers candidates to regions that may have limited French services. It does not take into account communities' actual capacity to accommodate newcomers' needs and provide housing, French or bilingual employment, or French settlement services. In fact, the committee has heard from stakeholders about the pressures this is currently causing within the express entry system itself. I agree with them. Reducing francophone immigration is obviously not the answer. The answer is to develop a program tailored to francophone immigration and its purpose.

My main recommendation is this: Francophone immigration needs a stand-alone program, separate from express entry, with its own selection criteria, a program that takes into account both the skills of candidates and the needs of host communities. A program like that would ensure alignment between the selection process and francophone communities' actual capacity to welcome, integrate and retain newcomers.

A number of complementary pathways also need strengthening. First, the francophone community immigration pilot, which uses a community-based approach to selection, could and should be strengthened and expanded. Second, the pathway for French-speaking international students opens the door to an ideal pool of francophone immigrants: people who speak the language, know the community and have networks there. The government should make it easier for them to become permanent residents. The provincial nominee program should also be leveraged more effectively to meet francophone needs. Lastly, family reunification should be recognized as a tool for retention; an immigrant whose family has settled is much more likely to stay and lay down roots in their host community.

In addition, I want to point out that the current economic situation—the cost of living, the cost of housing and the limited bilingual labour market—make integration harder for all immigrants, but especially French-speaking immigrants. They face an even greater challenge, given the limited number of French and bilingual jobs outside Quebec. That is why it is so vital that selection go hand in hand with the necessary supports and infrastructure—French settlement services, employment assistance and access to housing—ensuring that francophone immigration truly does what it's supposed to: enhance community vitality.

In short, francophone immigration has a dual mandate of supporting the economy and communities. A program tailored to that dual mandate is needed, a stand-alone program that takes communities' needs into account. The program also needs to be supported by complementary pathways and proper infrastructure. That is the key to turning the achievement of targets into the lasting vitality of francophone minority communities.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Veronis.

We are now going to hear from Mr. Sheung Ching for five minutes, please.

[Sheung Ching Cheng, Organizer, Hong Kong Pathway Ontario Committee]

Good evening, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you so much for inviting me to participate in the study today.

I would like to extend my special thanks to MP Salma Zahid and MP Brad Redekopp, who have supported the Hong Kong community for a long time. I'm sincerely grateful for your work in Parliament.

My name is Sheung Ching Cheng Donald. I'm the organizer of the Hong Kong Pathway Ontario Committee, HKPOC, and I've also been a permanent resident applicant under the Hong Kong pathways stream B since February 2024.

The backlog for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, H and C, has existed for more than two years, since August 2023. As a result, many applicants are living in immigration limbo.

According to the latest immigration levels plan, released in 2025, the immigration target for the H and C stream is only 6,900 in 2026 and 5,000 in 2027, which is a sharp decrease from 10,000 in 2025. Under this plan, many applicants are suffering from prolonged waiting times.

According to the IRCC website, processing times for permanent resident applications may extend up to 10 years. Consequently, more than 60,000 applicants, including those from Hong Kong, Ukraine and Sudan, have become uncertain about their future in Canada.

To address these issues, the Hong Kong Pathway Ontario Committee was established in September 2025. It is committed to working with Parliament to explore solutions to the PR backlog. To achieve this mission, we have reached out to various members of Parliament to present our proposal and a solution.

I have submitted a proposal for solutions to the permanent resident backlog under the humanitarian and compassionate stream. I hope you will take it into consideration.

Here are my recommendations.

First, we recommend establishing a priority system for applicants who have been waiting for more than two years. According to data from IRCC, there are approximately 1,000 applications per month from both Hong Kong and Ukraine.

Currently, IRCC is still processing the applications from November 2023, which means that around 8,000 applicants have already waited for more than two years, without updates. We suggest that the government prioritize these applicants by transitioning them from temporary resident to permanent resident status, or TR to PR, and waive the requirements for work experience and the language test.

Second, we recommend facilitating the transition into the skilled trades and key occupations. The Government of Canada aims to address the critical labour shortage in sectors that include research, transportation and the military.

Many new immigrants are eager to contribute to the Canadian economy. These individuals are well positioned to help fill the critical labour gap. Therefore, we recommend increasing the job opportunities in these sectors for applicants who have already been waiting for over two years, enabling them to contribute to addressing the labour shortage in Canada.

Finally, we recommend providing presumptive approval in principle, or AIP, letters to applicants upon submission of their PR applications. An AIP letter is typically issued by IRCC once an applicant passes the eligibility assessment. With an AIP, applicants can access provincial health insurance, such as OHIP—the Ontario health insurance plan—and qualify for domestic tuition fees. Therefore, we suggest that IRCC issue presumptive AIP letters at an earlier stage of the application process.

The humanitarian system should provide safety and freedom to those who are facing repression and persecution, allowing them to rebuild their lives in Canada. We hope to work together with Parliament to restore the effectiveness of the system.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Mr. Sheung Ching.

Now we have Ms. Chyczij, who will speak for five minutes.

[Alexandra Chyczij, President, Ukrainian Canadian Congress]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members, for the invitation to appear before you today.

As many of you know, since February 2022, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has focused its efforts on responding to Russia's full-scale genocidal invasion of Ukraine. We are very grateful to the Canadian people, to our government and to all parliamentarians for their steadfast support of Ukraine.

Since 2022, Canada has contributed over $25 billion in military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine. Most importantly, Canada provided refuge to almost 300,000 displaced Ukrainians under the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel program, which I'm going to refer to as CUAET, because it's easier.

It's important to remember—and I know that all of you on this committee are aware—that Ukrainians are not classified as refugees. That is because they don't meet the UN convention definition: They are not being persecuted by their own government. As a result, they aren't eligible for many of the benefits that convention refugees receive.

CUAET visa holders received a work permit, two weeks of temporary accommodation and a one-time subsidy of $3,000, so Canadians mobilized to fill the gaps. They provided housing, furniture, clothing and jobs. They taught them English and gave them moral and psychosocial support. This outpouring of support from Canadians who opened their hearts and their homes was amazing. We are eternally grateful.

Today, we can say that virtually all CUAET visa holders are employed. They fill important labour needs in the workforce. They contribute to the economy and they pay taxes.

Initially, the program was offered for three years. In 2022, none of us imagined that the war could continue longer than that, but four years later, the war continues, and every month the prospect of a negotiated peace settlement becomes more and more remote.

Donald Trump is emboldening Russia, and the windfall in oil revenues because of the suspension of sanctions, coupled with the skyrocketing price of oil, is financing the Russian war machine.

The devastation in Ukraine becomes worse and worse. This past winter, one of the coldest on record, when temperatures plummeted to -20° and -30°, Russia systematically destroyed all of Ukraine's energy grid. Yesterday, Russia launched 1,000 Shahed drones across every major city in Ukraine. This was the largest drone attack since the beginning of the war, and it's only going to get worse, because the war in the Middle East has depleted reserves of air defence missiles. Russia's war continues, and Ukrainians have no home to go home to.

We ask that the Government of Canada offer them predictability and stability, because currently they face a bleak and uncertain future. Their temporary status leaves them in limbo. Surveys of CUAET visa holders indicate that this lack of certainty and the inability to plan for a future are major sources of psychological stress. This is particularly so for those with young children.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has presented the minister with policy recommendations that would alleviate these issues and assist Ukrainians displaced to Canada.

Our recommendations are, first, that pursuant to the discretion granted to the minister under section 25 of the act, the minister approve a temporary public policy pathway for permanent residence for Ukrainians who are here in Canada on a CUAET visa. We also ask that the minister increase the number of provincial nominee allocations across Canada. This will allow provincial governments to develop streams designed to meet their specific needs.

In doing so, the Government of Canada would align with the feelings of the Canadian people. According to polling we commissioned in October, 69% of Canadians support creating more pathways for permanent residency for Ukrainians, and 81% of Canadians want displaced Ukrainians to stay for the longer term. We ask the committee to join the majority of Canadians in supporting our recommendations to the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Ms. Chyczij, and thanks to everyone for their excellent opening remarks.

Now we begin our rounds of questions. The first round of questions will be for six minutes each, and we'll begin with Mr. Menegakis, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for your testimony here today.

Madam Chair, I'd like to move a motion that is very important to the community that I represent and I believe to communities right across the country. My motion is as follows:

That, further to the testimony from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) on March 9, 2026, related to the presence of agents of the Iranian regime and agents of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Canada, further to the committee's study on Canada's immigration system, and further to the imminent danger that the presence of IRGC officials and regime agents in Canada may pose to Canadian public safety, the committee report the following to the House:

1. Government officials have admitted the known presence of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials and regime agents residing in Canada;

2. There are gaps in legislation and procedures that may allow IRGC officials to avoid detection prior to arrival and deportation after;

3. The government should exercise the full force of the existing law regarding the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, specifically by expediting the execution of deportation orders of regime officials who are non-citizens under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;

4. The government should immediately undertake a comprehensive review of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with an eye to modernizing it to prevent regime officials from avoiding deportation by:

a. Clearly ensuring non-citizens are deemed inadmissible if involved in regime-linked businesses, spreading propaganda, or human rights abuses;

b. Extending inadmissibility to immediate non-citizen family members of regime officials; and

c. Creating an exemption from non-refoulement protections for inadmissible non-citizen regime officials proven to be complicit in human rights abuses.

5. The government should, within 30 calendar days following the passing of this motion, table a report to Parliament explaining why it has not made public the identities of known non-citizens who are Iranian regime officials or agents who are currently present in Canada; and

6. It is imperative that the government stop approving refugee claims from nations with regimes hostile to Canada without an in-person interview being conducted first.

That is my motion, and I believe it is very important to communities across this country. We have a responsibility to ensure that all Canadians, and indeed all people in our country, feel safe in the communities where they live.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

We'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos for debate.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Our side is prepared to support this motion, but that is conditional on the following amendment that I want to introduce, Madam Chair. It would be a new paragraph at the end of the motion. Right after I read it, I'll send it to the clerk. In fact, why don't I do that right now?

There you go. The clerk has it.

It would read as follows:

That the Government of Canada undertake a thorough legal review of the measures raised above to ensure consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international legal obligations and report its findings to this committee within 30 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I will pause to see if anyone has any comments or if people would like to wait until they receive it so they can read it.

We'll go to Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Just so it's clear, I have the beginning of a version of what the amendment was, but I don't think it matches anymore. I gather that our excellent interpreters didn't have a copy of the amendment. According to what I have in front of me—and Mr. Fragiskatos can tell me whether this is indeed the case—the amendment calls for the Government of Canada to undertake a thorough legal review of the measures raised above to ensure consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international legal obligations, and to report its findings to the committee within 60 days.

Is that what's being proposed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

It's 30 days, in fact. It's what I just read into the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Yes, but it's 30 days.

Are there any other comments on the amendment?

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Could my colleague just walk through what the intent is? Is the intent to have the motion reviewed for charter compliance or...?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

It's yes and no, I suppose. The intent of the amendment is to review what the motion calls for, because the motion does call for some things that I think would be unprecedented.

We're certainly not against the substance of the motion. There are concerns around the IRGC—issues that have been brought forward before this committee. That's not the immediate issue. What is immediately at play is a desire to ensure that what the motion calls for would be charter-compliant and in compliance with Canada's international legal obligations.

If Conservatives believe sincerely, as I know they do, in what they're calling for, it's not asking a lot to ensure that those measures are in compliance with Canadian law, if we're serious.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Ms. Rempel Garner, if you need a couple of seconds, I can suspend for a couple of minutes.

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

Maybe we can talk off-line quickly. I'm just concerned about setting a precedent that the courts have jurisdiction over Parliament and committees. I think that's unprecedented. I'm sorry. This is my House, and my constituents drive what happens here, not the courts.

I thought that perhaps it was going to refer to just one part of it, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

We're not asking for a court review. We're asking that an analysis be done to ensure charter compliance. We're not asking for any judicial intervention of any kind. That's why it says, “That the Government of Canada undertake a thorough legal review”. That's within 30 days, I'll add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

I misunderstood originally what the intent was.

I am concerned about setting a precedent that we would have a legal review over committee oversight. Parliamentary supremacy has to be a principle here.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems that what we would be doing here is ceding the contents of this motion to a review, as opposed to Parliament dictating what we want to see happen in a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Go ahead, Mr. Simard.