Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 20th, 2026

[Ted Gallivan]

I did take careful note of the committee report suggesting that we revisit upward that financial threshold and also the concern on the extension—how do we dive deep or not—so we will be taking back how we handle a check on the financial solvency of the student during the renewal process.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

How is IRCC working with the provinces in making decisions? Are you doing some research on the market trends or the needs in the market? Some colleges have concerns that some programs are being cut, so are you working with the provinces on that, or are the decisions being made just by the provinces?

[Alexis Graham]

We work very closely with provinces. The way that it works for the student program, of course, is that we set the national cap, and then each province is provided an allocation based on historical approval rates, capacity and things like that. We definitely need to work very closely with them to understand how this change is transpiring in their jurisdiction to see if we can tailor things and, as the deputy said, tweak in a way that's going to maximize the number of those quality and genuine students we see within each jurisdiction.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Can you explain quickly how the letter of acceptance and verification system are strengthening the program integrity, and what is being done to ensure all flagged cases are investigated?

[Ted Gallivan]

I think, up front, it would have had a deterrent effect. Just the presence of a letter would encourage people to do the right thing. Where we are now, as said previously, is that we have to manage the exceptions and the discrepancies that those letters are identifying and follow through on them and audit the institutions to make sure they're compliant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Zahid.

Thank you, Mr. Gallivan.

Next, we're starting our third round of questioning. It's going by very quickly this Monday morning.

We will have five minutes with Mr. Ho.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

My questions will be for Ms. Hogan.

In your Auditor General report on international students, you found 153,000 potentially non-compliant international students in 2023 and 2024, but the immigration department launched only 4,000 investigations. Would it be fair to say that the immigration department was receiving warning signs at scale and largely not acting on them?

[Karen Hogan]

It wasn't our audit that flagged the 153,000 cases. It was actually the department that flagged it. This is an example of their having information and needing to act on it. This is where learning institutions must report whether or not they believe the student is complying—so full-time studies. We saw that only 4,000 cases were investigated in the two years that we looked at. What the department explained to us is that it was for lack of funding.

While I understand the funding aspect, I would have expected that when the 4,000 cases were investigated, they would have taken them right to the end. We saw that about 40% of those were closed, even though the student just stopped communicating. That isn't determining whether or not the individual is following the conditions of their permit. I would expect them to take it right to the end when they do the investigations, even with limited funding.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

With what you've just said, do you feel that the government has the international student program under control?

[Karen Hogan]

I think they should act on the information they have now before they decide if they need more funding or how they want to move things about. The majority of students are here for a genuine reason. We're talking about a few 100,000 cases where there is some potential concern. You need to give the students the time to clarify, and then if not, take appropriate action.

Having all of this data and not acting on it is not acceptable.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

It sounds like they need to get their priorities in check.

In your report on international student permits, you describe a “light touch” approach used by the immigration department to study permit extensions.

Could you expand on what you meant by “light touch”?

[Karen Hogan]

“Light touch” was not as rigorous as an initial application should have been. The concern here is that many of the extensions came through the student direct stream, which was a “light touch” stream. When you look at the data of who was applying through that stream, a significant portion came from one country that had been identified as high risk.

We saw a disconnect between the risk rating of a country and the light touch applied in the initial application, and then doubling down on a light touch in the subsequent application. We flagged concerns there. It's important to know that the direct stream is now cancelled, but now you need to not just do a light touch on every single extension. You have to go back and decide if they were high risk and not treated with enough rigour at the front end.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Do you think this so-called “light touch” approach has contributed to the non-compliance issues we've witnessed?

[Karen Hogan]

I think that's a difficult one to answer. I would expect that a light touch would apply to countries with lower risk ratings, and we saw an inconsistency there. As I mentioned, that's been closed.

A light touch is good for expediting applications.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

You did see some high-risk countries where a light touch was inappropriately used.

[Karen Hogan]

Yes, when we flagged those through the student direct stream...but as I mentioned, in 2024, that stream was closed. That means you need to apply rigour on anyone who came through that stream when they apply for another immigration status.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

You found in your report that of the roughly 549,000 people whose study permits expired in 2024, about 93% were allowed to remain in Canada. Although 39,500 of those appeared to have no status, a whopping 60% of those 39,500 still remain in Canada.

Does that indicate a major gap between the permits expiring and actually enforcing the rules that are attached to them?

[Karen Hogan]

I think this indicates that rigour was applied maybe at the front end of the application process, but that the department needs to do a better job once people are in the country and clearly identify whether they're complying at the end of a permit. I've heard the deputy talk about the reforms they're going to bring there, but we didn't see it during our audit period.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

In my last few seconds, Ms. Hogan, do you think the immigration department under this government has been far too reactive and fragmented?

[Karen Hogan]

That's a very difficult question for me to answer, given I looked at just the international student program.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

In this specific instance, is it too fragmented and reactive?

[Karen Hogan]

I think here they responded to their main goal, which was to reduce the number of international students in the country, but they failed to act on information they had in their possession and maintain the integrity of the program throughout all steps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Hogan.

Thank you, Mr. Ho.

Next, we have five minutes for Mr. Zuberi.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to begin by congratulating Deputy Minister Gallivan on his new position.

Thank you for being here.

My first questions are for the chair of the Canada Border Services Agency.

We've heard a fair amount about removals and the message being passed from IRCC to CBSA around removals.

Can you walk us through the process? How are those removal orders actually implemented at the CBSA level, including by frontline officers?

[Erin O'Gorman]

Stepping back, broadly speaking, for all removal orders, when somebody does not have status in Canada because they have an expired permit that's not in an application, they have not been granted refugee status or they have serious inadmissibility, CBSA will issue a removal order and must execute the removal as soon as possible.

People can have removal orders while they're still going through processes, in which case they're not enforceable. There are many people with removal orders who might be appealing to the Federal Court or might be appealing to the refugee division, so we won't act on those. When a removal order becomes actionable, it goes into our removals in process, and they're actioned by the officers.