Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

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

For those who are on Zoom—and we do have one person joining us virtually today—kindly remember to click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. As well, and this is also for the benefit of our virtual guest, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French.

Of course, for those in the room you can use your earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will let everyone know when you have one minute left.

As always, kindly wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

I will remind everyone not to speak over each other, please, as it will be hard for our interpreters to interpret. It makes their job difficult.

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

Members, raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. Thanks to all of you for your co-operation.

Before I go into introducing our guests, I want to say this.

Welcome, Mr. Champoux.

I also have a warm welcome for Randy Hoback.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Hoback. It's a pleasure to have you with us. I have not seen you for a while, and it's nice to have you here.

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.

Mr. Hoback, I'm going to ask you to keep your voice down, please.

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

We have with us Professor Tony Fang, a full professor—I'm glad you're not a half professor, but a full professor—and the Stephen Jarislowsky chair in economic and cultural transformation, and from Drummond économique, Julie Biron, director, industrial development and talent strategy, and Philippe Proulx, lawyer, immigration law.

From Matthew House, we have Ms. Anne Woolger, founding director. We are very pleased to have her joining us by video conference.

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

Professor Fang, if I could start off with you for your five minutes, your time starts now.

[Tony Fang, Full Professor, Stephen Jarislowsky Chair in Economic and Cultural Transformation, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members, for the opportunity to present before the committee.

My name is Tony Fang, professor of economics and the Stephen Jarislowsky chair at Memorial University. I also have adjunct appointments with the University of Toronto and Toronto Metropolitan University. Over 20 years, my research has focused on immigration, employer harm behaviours and the systematic barriers facing newcomers.

My core message today is very clear and simple: One size does not fit all in immigration policy and programs. To illustrate, let me discuss five key points in which immigration is not currently working to the best of its ability. I will also provide five key recommendations to address those inefficiencies.

Number one is that regional floors are essential. I come from Newfoundland and Labrador. Using University of Toronto's macroeconomic model, called FOCUS, we simulated an increase of 10,000 immigrants per year to Atlantic Canada, matched with proportional national growth. By year 10, real GDP would rise by 4.2%, employment by 4.4% and GDP by 0.6%, with no increase in unemployment. Therefore, the positive impact is stronger for Atlantic Canada than the national average.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the oldest province in terms of average age, at about 48, with the national average being 41. It has the lowest immigration rate, at 2.8%, versus the national average of 23%; it also has a lower retention rate of 45%.

I urge the committee to recommend regional floors and minimum annual economic integration allocations for Atlantic Canada and to make the Atlantic immigration program more permanent, predictable and scalable.

Number two is that the over-education crisis is systematic, not accidental. New research from TMU corroborates my earlier study published in Canadian Public Policy in 2008 and shows an 11% immigrant unemployment rate, which is double that for Canadian-born people, at 5.6%. Only 44% of recent immigrants are working jobs matching their qualifications, versus 64% for Canadian-born people. The over-education rate is 26.7%, doubling that of Canadian-born people, which is 10.9%.

Our point of view is that this is not a skills problem. It's systematic discrimination and labour market inefficiency, including employer preferences for Canadian experience, which is illegal right now in Ontario, and devaluation of foreign credentials. This represents a severe underutilization of the immigrant human capital and a significant drag on Canada's productivity and economy.

Number three is that racialized newcomers face severe discrimination. Our IRCC-funded study in 2024 found that 45.7% of racialized newcomers face discrimination in employment, housing or daily life, compared to only 17.9% of non-racialized newcomers. Settlement workers also reported landlords refusing to rent to racialized families and employers hesitating to hire due to accent and foreign names.

We need mandatory anti-racism training for settlement staff, expanded service eligibility for international students and temporary foreign workers, and the provision of support with navigators for foreign credential recognition.

Number four is that employee engagement works but barriers remain. In our 2022 survey of more than 800 Atlantic Canadian employers, 81% of those who had hired immigrants agreed that the modern cultural workforce enhances creativity, innovation and productivity, and 90% would hire immigrants again. However, the number of employers—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have one minute.

[Tony Fang]

Okay, thank you.

The point is that we need a national employer engagement strategy.

Number five is to modify and not purely pursue a wage maximization model. This is only one factor. We also need other kinds of programs—for example, low-wage pathways for the care and agriculture sectors—and we need to update models every two or three years.

To re-emphasize, I have five key recommendations: regional floors in immigration levels planning for Atlantic Canada, credential recognition reform for pan-Canadian credential assessment and skill recognition, anti-racism and EDI policies and programs in the settlement service sector, a national employer engagement strategy and modified wage-based selection.

Madam Chair, Canada's long-term competitiveness and prosperity rely on immigration programs that are equitable and allow immigrants to contribute in Canada, a nation of immigrants. A regionalized, employer-engaged, anti-racist and evidence-based immigration system will deliver order, fairness and effectiveness for every part of Canada, including Newfoundland and Labrador, especially for racialized newcomers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Fang.

Who will speak on behalf of Drummond économique?

Ms. Biron, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Julie Biron, Director, Industrial Development and Talent Strategy, Drummond économique]

Good morning, committee members.

Thank you for meeting with us today and for giving us the opportunity to speak to you.

Let me introduce myself. My name is Julie Biron. I'm the director of talent strategy at Drummond économique. I'm joined by my colleague, Philippe Proulx, an immigration lawyer.

Before I get to the crux of our remarks, let me briefly explain our role.

Drummond économique is a parapublic organization that promotes economic development in the census metropolitan area—commonly known as the CMA—of Drummondville, a city located between Montreal and Quebec City.

For over 15 years, we've been actively supporting local businesses in their international recruitment efforts. We believe that economic immigration plays a key role in our community and our businesses.

Over the years, we've developed a unique model that gives businesses access to international recruitment initiatives. We provide legal support when it comes to their foreign workers. We also take care of the intake and integration of their workers. We've supported hundreds of businesses and helped recruit over 5,000 workers. Over 1,000 immigrant families now live in our region.

We're here today first to talk about the restrictions imposed on all CMAs in Canada, regardless of their size. We really want to reassure you that we understand the Government of Canada's desire to lower the proportion of temporary immigrants in the country. However, the uniform application of restrictions unduly penalizes small CMAs. The economic and demographic reality of these CMAs is radically different from the reality of major urban centres.

As a result, an employer located in Drummondville, a CMA with just over 100,000 residents and home to small towns and small rural municipalities, is subject to the same rules as a company located in downtown Toronto.

The first example that I would like to address concerns the recently announced temporary measures for the temporary foreign worker program. These measures came into effect on April 1, 2026. One of these measures seeks to give employers in rural areas the opportunity to retain the services of foreign workers who already hold a job. In concrete terms, this measure allows rural employers to maintain the current proportion of temporary foreign workers who hold low‑wage positions, even if this proportion exceeds the allowable limit. Yet this measure applies only to employers located outside a CMA. This means that businesses located in rural towns with 1,000 to 5,000 residents can't benefit from the measure, simply because they fall within the administrative boundaries of the Drummondville CMA. This approach makes no sense and serves neither Service Canada's objectives nor the real needs of regional businesses.

We're currently receiving many reports from businesses whose operations are at risk owing to a lack of skilled workers. Our first recommendation is clear. The restrictions should apply only to CMAs that are major urban centres.

The second major issue that we wanted to discuss today concerns the freeze on labour market impact assessment, or LMIA, applications for low‑wage positions in CMAs with unemployment rates above 6%.

Our goal today is to draw your attention to the reliability of the data used by Statistics Canada to establish unemployment rates, particularly for the Drummondville CMA. Since the recognition of Drummondville as a CMA, we've noticed a wide variation in the unemployment rate calculated by Statistics Canada. It's often completely at odds with our observations on the ground.

In April 2025, we were surprised to see that the unemployment rate in the CMA was 8%, according to Statistics Canada. This figure was even more surprising given that the unemployment rate for the entire region was around 4.2%, according to Statistics Canada. Even Statistics Canada questioned this data.

Under these circumstances, we sought the advice of Frédéric Laurin, a researcher from the Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières. He analyzed the data and gave us a report saying that the data wasn't accurate. The Institut de la statistique du Québec did the same.

Given the serious doubts regarding the accuracy of the unemployment rate reported for the Drummondville CMA, employers within its territory should be exempt from the refusal to process LMIA applications. We're asking Service Canada to suspend the freeze on LMIA applications for low‑wage positions in the Drummondville CMA until Statistics Canada can confirm the validity of the data used to determine the unemployment rate. At the very least, manufacturing companies should be excluded from the restrictions.

The issue isn't just theoretical. Since 2024, businesses in our region have been reporting shift closures, loss of expertise, project delays and financial losses. The situation is already precarious right now. It will become critical without swift corrective action.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Biron.

We'll now move online to Ms. Woolger from Matthew House.

Your five minutes start now.

[Anne Woolger, Founding Director, Matthew House, Toronto]

Hello. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Anne Woolger, and I'm the founder of Matthew House Toronto, a group of homes that welcome, shelter and assist newly arrived refugee claimants. We have also served as a catalyst for the opening of more than half a dozen other refugee claimant shelters across Canada, some by the same name, including Matthew House Ottawa.

I've personally been working with refugee claimants since 1988—a long time—and have helped with the hands-on settlement of more than 4,000 refugee claimants. I've served on various local and national refugee advocacy committees, including the Canadian Council for Refugees.

In my nearly 40 years in the sector, I have witnessed a lot. My long service has given me a deep, first-hand understanding of the issues and, more importantly, the people involved in the shelter and support of refugee claimants.

I recognize that, for some, the conversation around investing in refugee claimants is fraught with negativity, particularly in light of today's housing challenges. Let me be clear: Refugee claimants are not the problem creating our housing shortage; a lack of vision is the problem.

Today, I want to share a good news story and assert that the arrival of refugee claimants in Canada is a profound asset to our nation, offering immense opportunities. Our challenge is simply recognizing their arrival as an opportunity, not as a threat or burden, and turning it to our national advantage.

Historically, refugee claimants have been the most misunderstood and scapegoated group, but the claimants I have served bring a wealth of employment, skills, education and entrepreneurial drive—gifts we should be eager to leverage. Their success stories are numerous, and I could spend an entire 24 hours telling stories of unaccompanied refugee youth who are now nurses and engineers—even nuclear engineers. They are not the exception; they are potential waiting to be unlocked.

While we as a nation are obligated as a signatory to the Geneva Convention to allow anyone seeking protection to remain here for a fair hearing, from my personal experience, unfortunately, the proactive provision of shelter for these vulnerable people has often been treated as a political hot potato, with federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions continually arguing over who pays. This jurisdictional friction is the single most persistent failure in our system.

This gap has successfully been filled by privately funded entities, such as Matthew House and many other small community-based shelters across Canada. Currently, there is a network of more than 35 homes and shelters across the country filling this gap with excellence while the jurisdictions argue about responsibility. These non-profit community-based organizations have developed decades of expertise and established systems that are far more cost-effective and have much better outcomes.

In recent years, we have been pleased to see that the federal government has stepped up to the plate and provided some direct support for shelter for the increased number of claimants arriving on our doorstep, through initiatives such as the interim housing assistance program, or IHAP. While this support is appreciated, these are often short-term programs. These models are very costly and are not long-term solutions. For any initiative like the IHAP to be truly successful, there needs to be a long-term commitment to a national vision. Last year, the Canadian Council for Refugees launched a campaign entitled “Asylum with Dignity”, which outlines many of the points I'm expressing here today.

The solution for successful refugee reception lies in leveraging the expertise of existing shelter networks and working together with all relevant jurisdictions. If all jurisdictions—federal, provincial and municipal—and civil society commit to working together on a clear shared strategy, we can create a world-class system that is not only cost-efficient but also a model....

The potential for great things is there. The only thing we lack is a collective vision and the commitment to implement it. Let us give these newest Canadians the stable foundation they need to thrive and, in doing so, enrich the whole country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Woolger.

Thank you all for your remarks.

We'll now start the first round of questions.

We will begin with Mr. Menegakis for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I give a big thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today and for their testimonies.

I'd like to start with you, Professor Fang, if I may.

A recent labour report shows a significant decline in the hours worked by Canadian youth. To what extent do you think federal policy changes—and, more specifically, the decision to increase the work-hour limit for international students—correlate with a decrease in youth employment opportunities?

[Tony Fang]

It's a good question.

Our most recent study, using both census data and labour force survey data, shows that the reduction—due, of course, to the historical 2014 reform of the temporary foreign worker program—had some effects, with higher wages for similarly low-wage workers in Canada. Yes, there is some kind of substitution going on. This is not the case for temporary foreign workers, because they were working in sectors in which Canadian youth are usually not working—for example, fisheries, construction, agriculture and so on and so forth.

The study shows that, yes, to some extent, the reduction in international student hours has had some impact. It's a moderate effect, I would say. It's not highly significant for the employment and wages of someone who is otherwise low-wage, including Canadian youth, who have suffered quite significant unemployment in recent years. This is not only because of the immigration program, of course—we have to be clear on that—but also because of the Trump tariffs, for example, and economic cycle effects, among other things.

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

Thank you, Mr. Fang. I have limited time, and I have more questions I'd like to ask.

Would you agree that the number of international students in Canada affects the wages of young workers?

[Tony Fang]

Although our study focused not only on international students but also on other low-wage workers in Canada, we found some substitution effects among Canadian low-wage workers, including Canadian youth. I have to make that clear.

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

Would you agree that the number of international students in Canada affects Canadian youth unemployment?

[Tony Fang]

I think so, to a moderate extent, yes.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to ask a question of you, Ms. Woolger.

You flagged a lack of affordable housing for new immigrants and asylum claimants in your testimony today. It is not uncommon for them to arrive at a homeless shelter and stay for longer than normal periods of time due to an inadequate amount of affordable housing, resulting in the numbers piling up. In fact, today, the asylum claim backlog has some 300,000 people, and housing costs have gone skyward, particularly in the greater metropolitan areas across the country.

How many weeks are asylum claimants having to stay in homeless shelters now?

[Anne Woolger]

I want to clarify that, of the number you named—300,000—the vast majority are not living in any form of shelter. The vast majority find places to live, often with friends, family or other people upon arrival. It's a much smaller percentage who ultimately need shelter.

I'm sorry. Now I've forgotten your question.

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

My question was, how many weeks, on average, are asylum claimants having to stay in homeless shelters?

[Anne Woolger]

I would say that it is probably three to six months.

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

Would you say—

[Anne Woolger]

Sometimes it can be three months, easily. It all depends on the type of shelter and the type of support in place.

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

I understand.

Would you say housing affordability has significantly worsened since 2018 for asylum claimants?

[Anne Woolger]

Yes, it certainly has. It has for everyone, I believe.

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

Okay.

[Anne Woolger]

I don't think we should point our fingers at them. This has been a problem for everyone.