Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 20th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I call this meeting to order.

Good Monday morning to everyone. It's the last of a few winter days before, I hope, spring really starts.

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I want to give a warm welcome to Madame Claude DeBellefeuille.

Welcome.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members today.

Participants in the room, I know you've heard this a million times, but it's always nice to have a reminder. You can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I will let you know when you have only one minute left. Kindly wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Please do not speak over each other, as it will be very hard for the interpreters to translate; it makes their job very difficult.

Of course, kindly ensure that your comments are addressed through the chair.

Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and I thank you 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. Today we're focusing on the 2026 Auditor General's report “International Student Program Reforms”.

I would like to now warmly welcome our witnesses for today's meeting.

We have, from the Office of the Auditor General, Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada.

Welcome. It's nice to meet you.

Also from the OAG, we have Gabriel Lombardi, principal, and Erin Jellinek, director. From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Ted Gallivan, deputy minister; Alexis Graham, assistant deputy minister; and Tara Lang, director general, admissibility. Finally, from the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Erin O'Gorman, president.

Thank you all for being here.

I will just finish this, and then I will go to you, I promise, Mr. Redekopp.

Up to five minutes each will be given for opening remarks. I believe we have opening remarks from both Ms. Hogan and Mr. Gallivan, after which we are going to begin rounds of questions.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Yes, it's just a procedural question.

Normally, these meetings are two hours. This one is an hour and a half. Is there any reason that we can't go for a full two hours today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

The decision I made was as follows. Typically, we would have had this for maybe an hour and then a panel of witnesses for the immigration study. However, last week we were unsure of what was happening, and our clerk said that there wasn't enough time to put together a panel of witnesses. Because I felt this was a big issue of importance, I put it from an hour to an hour and a half. That is the reason.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Then I guess I may ask the witnesses whether it would be okay if we did the full two hours rather than the 90 minutes.

Does anybody object to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Would you all be available until one o'clock today? I believe we have resources.

Okay. Thank you. There are no objections.

I think that meets with your approval as well, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

That's good. Okay, we have two hours, so we get to spend far more time together.

With that, we'll begin with Ms. Hogan, please.

You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today before the committee to discuss our report on reforms to the international student program, which was tabled last March.

I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

As part of this audit, we examined the implementation of reforms to the international student program by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. These reforms were intended to manage the program's growth and strengthen its integrity controls. Overall, we concluded that, while the department reduced the number of new study permits issued, it did not meet expectations in other key areas.

In 2024, the department issued just under 150,000 new study permits. This figure was well below projections, which stood at nearly 350,000. Some provinces, particularly those with smaller populations, were disproportionately affected. For example, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan were both projected to see a 10% increase in the number of new study permits approved compared to the previous year. However, both saw a decrease of at least 59%.

The audit found critical weaknesses in the program's integrity controls. Although the department introduced a new tool to verify acceptance letters and had processes to identify potential fraud and student non-compliance, it did not effectively investigate or follow up when risks were flagged. For example, in 2023 and 2024, designated learning institutions identified over 153,000 potential cases of non-compliance with study permits, but the department investigated only about 4,000 of them.

Most cases could not be closed, because the students did not respond to the department's requests for more information. Further, the department's fraud detection activities identified 800 cases of fraud after permits were approved. No follow-up occurred on these cases. In most instances, individuals went on to apply for other immigration permits while in Canada. More than half of those applications have since been approved.

Our audit also identified an opportunity for better collaboration with the Canada Border Services Agency. We found that the immigration department did not collaborate with the agency to identify whether students with expired permits had left Canada. Using the immigration department's available data, we worked with the Canada Border Services Agency and found that only about 40% of the 39,500 students required to leave in 2024 had, in fact, left the country.

Ultimately, the department needs to act on the information it already has to address integrity concerns in the program, including collaborating with the Canada Border Services Agency. This is equally important once students are in Canada and applying for additional permits.

Madam Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We will be happy to answer any questions from committee members.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hogan.

Next, we go to Mr. Gallivan for five minutes.

[Ted Gallivan, Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In order to maximize time for questions, I'm not going to read my remarks. I'll just make a couple of quick points.

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to this committee for the report it provided last week. It contains very important insights that will assist us in this area.

Second, the OAG recognized three areas where the planned reforms to the student visa program had the intended effect: the overall numbers were down; the student direct stream had been wound down; and verification letters from the educational institutions had been implemented. We'll probably not spend a lot of time on those positive findings.

I will say that the negative findings, in particular the lack of follow-through on fraud, are unacceptable. We've submitted management action plans to this committee. Hopefully, you have that, or at least it's with the clerk of the committee. For me, it was important that all of those actions be completed in calendar 2026. It's important for us to address these quickly.

Madam Chair, I have finished my remarks and am ready to answer questions from committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you very much.

We now have an extra half an hour, so we have lots of time for questions and answers.

I want to say a huge thanks to you, Auditor General Hogan, and to your entire team. I want to point out that the work you do is extraordinarily important. We cannot have a functioning and healthy democracy if we don't have a very strong Auditor General, so thanks to you all for your great work.

We will go to rounds of questions. We start with six-minute rounds.

I believe we begin with Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses. I especially welcome Mr. Gallivan, the new deputy minister.

I want to jump right into it with the Auditor General. On the “letter of acceptance” fraud, you talked about 51 applications where fraud was suspected, and you found that the department didn't follow procedures in a quarter of those cases. Either they were approved without looking into the fraud or the fraud wasn't flagged on their files for future use.

Is that consistent with what you saw?

[Karen Hogan]

Absolutely. We looked at a smaller sample of those that were flagged and found that the procedures that were supposed to be followed weren't followed. This is key. Many of the subsequent applications are given a light touch because it's assumed that there's rigour at the outset, and we didn't see that in some of the cases.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Gallivan, did you advise or did your department flag to the government that you needed more time and resources to thoroughly investigate frauds like this? I'm talking about prior to receiving this report.

[Ted Gallivan]

Madam Chair, it's my fourth week on the job. I wasn't here at that time, so I can't answer the question directly.

I will say that the number of high-risk cases or fraud ought to drive the budget, rather than the other way around.

In our management action plan, we are making a commitment to review all of the cases. Where it's confirmed that it's not a discrepancy but actual fraud, we need to take action. We'll have to sort out the budget implications after the fact.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

On that answer, are all the answers from you going to be, “I don't know. I wasn't here”? That's not going to help us in getting through this.

[Ted Gallivan]

I was asked a direct question about something that happened when I wasn't there. I couldn't answer directly. I believe I addressed the substance of the question.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Did you get briefed? Do you know anything about the department? Let's start with that.

[Ted Gallivan]

Do I have information about the department? Yes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Are you briefed on this subject? Are you able to speak to it today?

[Ted Gallivan]

I'm ready to talk about this audit, absolutely.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Do you know anything about the question I asked? Your answer was no, I guess. I got that answer.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

This committee has found a way to work with one another in a very professional and collegial way. The deputy minister is new to the job. It's been four weeks, as he said. I think we should allow him the space to answer questions as he wishes and not interrupt when he's trying to finish a sentence. It's just basic courtesy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Let's allow time for responses. Know that we have right until one o'clock, so we have lots of time.

Mr. Redekopp, please continue.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Feel free to ask one of your assistants if you need the information.

Did the government ask your department to be more thorough in terms of investigating fraud, prior to receiving this report?

[Ted Gallivan]

Again, we're going to have trouble with “prior to receiving this report or not”.

I would say that we do need to tighten controls. We need to act more quickly, more aggressively and more thoroughly in the face of discrepancies. The OAG pointed out a figure of 153,000. At the time of the audit, we ought to have had evidence to show that many of them were discrepancies and weren't cases of fraud. We should have been able to say, “This is the number of fraud cases that we do suspect”, and then we ought to have followed through on 100% of the cases of fraud.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I recognize that you're new. I appreciate that there's a lot to swallow and understand in the department.

In terms of the last four weeks, what have you discovered in terms of the culture of fraud and detection of fraud in the organization? Would you sense that it was a really high priority or is it a gap? What's your assessment of that as a new DM?