Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou]

I want to clarify that I provide an expert opinion, when asked, to the Century Initiative. I have no other relationship or commitment to their goals. If I'm asked to provide my expert opinion, I provide it. This is part of my job at TMU. As I explained about the 100 million, in my view, it's a number that was cast as a slogan. It doesn't work. I think what works is that we take our plans and we look at our policy.

I want to go back to a question that was addressed to me—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor. That is well over time.

Thank you, Mr. Ho.

Next, we have five minutes for Ms. Sodhi.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to note that I will be sharing half my time with my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos.

My first question is for you, Ms. Triandafyllidou. In your research, you have examined how public trust is closely tied to whether people feel migration is well managed. Could you speak to how the federal government's recent measures that aim to restore a sense of balance and control, such as moderating intake levels or better managing temporary resident volumes, affect long-term public confidence in our immigration system?

[Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou]

Yes—and thank you to the honourable Ms. Zahid for asking me that question, which I hadn't properly addressed earlier.

I want to say that public trust is maintained and increased when there are no big shifts in policy. When we go toward one direction and then we go completely toward the other direction in any policy, that's when the public trust is eroded.

Of course, it's also when the public discourse starts being, “Oh, our immigration system is broken.” I want to emphasize the role of economic actors, of employers and big business, in Canada. In 2022 they were shouting out loud, “We don't have enough talent. We don't have enough workers. Businesses are leaving Canada because you don't bring in enough workers.” In the fall of 2023, so in about 16 to 18 months, they were saying, “You've inundated the country with immigrants.”

This wasn't helpful. The very big shifts in the policy were not helpful. They eroded the trust. I think we also need to face the reality that Canada is no longer a one-step immigration system. It hasn't been for the past 10 to 15 years. I mean, 50% of our new permanent residents have previous temporary worker or study permits in Canada. In a world in which we are connected in real time to faraway places, to expect that people will do everything abroad, come here on the first day, be permanent residents and make one decision for life—that doesn't reflect our reality. People come as temporary work permit holders or international students. They start families here and they apply for PR.

Likewise, some PRs leave. It's not because Canada is bad. It's because highly skilled people are mobile, and—

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Professor, I don't mean to cut you off. Thank you so much for your answer. I'm just trying to be mindful because I am sharing my time. I'll let my colleague ask his question.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you to my colleague for splitting her time.

Thank you to our witnesses.

So much has been said here today. Each of you is an expert in your field. That's why you're here. We appreciate that.

I'll ask each of you for a concise summary of one recommendation that you want this committee to keep in mind in terms of the study we're carrying out.

Mr. Nauta, I'll begin with you. Respond in one or two sentences. I apologize, but it has to be concise.

[Renze Nauta]

My recommendation would be to be very mindful of the role of civil society in carrying out the functions that we usually associate with government. A subpoint to that, by way of a second sentence, is that we should rebalance the cuts to refugees between privately sponsored refugees and government-sponsored refugees to emphasize the private sponsorship.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Morris, go ahead.

[Stéfanie Morris]

My recommendation is that in the immigration levels plan, protected persons should be granted permanent residence outside of the quotas, because they are already here. They are almost certainly going to become permanent residents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Could you repeat what you just said? We'll restart the time. The interpreters had a hard time interpreting that.

[Stéfanie Morris]

My recommendation is that protected persons be granted permanent residence, outside of the immigration levels plan numbers. They are already here. They are already working. They're almost certain to be granted permanent residence. The delay they experience because of these quotas causes them to live in limbo for a long time without access to family reunification and other benefits for both Canada and themselves.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Finally, we'll go to Professor Triandafyllidou.

Christós anésti, by the way.

That means “happy Easter”, for the benefit of members. We just celebrated Greek Orthodox Easter.

Please go ahead.

[Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou]

It looks like a great Canadian conspiracy.

I think we need a predictable system—no huge changes—and clear pathways from temporary to permanent residency. People are not packages. We cannot send them back if they've lived here for four, five, six or seven years.

Also, I really think we have a problem with skills underutilization. It's not about credential recognition. It's about the recognition of professional experience. We need to be more innovative in that and work more with employers. We need to focus on the employers. Our settlement services focus only on the migrants. They need to focus more on the employers to make the match.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

That was great.

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

I will be tight with the time, Monsieur Deschênes.

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

That’s fine, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

I have a question for you, Ms. Morris.

Earlier, we spoke briefly about Bill C‑12. In this case, the government acted very quickly. In fact, as soon as the bill was passed, it sent letters to asylum seekers to inform those who had applied more than a year ago and who had arrived from 2020 onwards that their asylum claims were inadmissible. I have a copy of the letters that were sent. Asylum seekers are told that they may be eligible to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment.

Do you think this way of communicating in writing is correct and in line with procedures?

[Stéfanie Morris]

Absolutely not. I think these letters lack procedural fairness.

The first statement is that people should leave Canada as soon as possible, but later it's mentioned that they may be able to submit a pre-removal risk assessment. The majority of these people, if not all, will be able to submit a pre-removal risk assessment, or they will not be removable because they're from a country that has a moratorium on removals.

I think the letters are quite misleading about what the real possibilities are for them. They're causing panic in the community. I am afraid it will cause some people to return to situations of persecution out of a lack of understanding of the system.

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

Earlier, you also said that, as a result, many asylum seekers awaiting a decision would end up in the pre-removal risk assessment process. This is a different process, which does not involve a quasi-judicial tribunal, but rather an immigration officer.

Do you believe there should be in-person hearings as part of this review, or would that add nothing further?

[Stéfanie Morris]

Absolutely. A pre-removal risk assessment assesses the same legal test as a refugee claim. They're still assessing whether someone has been persecuted or their life is at risk. They're assessing a very complex question.

Sometimes the people making these applications don't have all the evidence that someone might want to see on paper. If they have the opportunity to speak orally to present their evidence and the opportunity for their lawyers to answer any questions, then they have the procedural safeguards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.

Thank you, Ms. Morris.

We have one and a half minutes for both Mr. Davies and Ms. Zahid.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of the biggest issues in my riding is health care. We have two hospitals in my four communities that have been closed by Niagara Health. We could use 100 doctors in Niagara right now. We could fill the lost capacity.

I have a really simple question. Where is the choke point? Where is the certification bottleneck focused?

Mr. Nauta, do you have a solution or suggestion that would help unlock the roughly 18,000 doctors in Canada now who are not able to practise?

[Renze Nauta]

You're addressing a very important issue. I'll follow up with the number of immigrants who are in the working class who have not just a college diploma but a university degree, which would be the people who you're talking about. The working class are people who are in jobs that don't require any college diploma whatsoever.

In terms of a choke point, it's difficult to pinpoint except to say that it is a systemic issue, because this issue has been ongoing for decades. I remember doing policy 20 years ago, and we were talking about it then.

What this says to me, coming back to the principle of subsidiarity that I was speaking about, is that when something is of such a systemic nature, in that case, it justifies and requires a national action. Even though—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Nauta. I'm sorry; we've gone past your time.

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

We have one and a half minutes now for Ms. Zahid.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My question is again for Dr. Triandafyllidou.

When looking at global migration patterns, how impactful is climate change as a driver of migration? How is this likely to evolve over the coming times, and what steps should government be taking today?

[Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou]

Climate change has initially impacted people into displacement within their country in the hope of returning.

It usually activates a chain reaction in which people, for instance, move from a rural area to an urban area to look for employment. If they find employment, sometimes this will fuel international migration. We don't have direct climate migration or, say, climate refugees in Canada, and it's very difficult from a legal perspective to ascertain that someone has moved mainly for climate reasons, but it is very important to look ahead on how these things will affect local economies and local systems of production and what the chain reaction will be.

Also, a lot of the strongest climate impact is in places where states have less capacity to look after their citizens.

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

Thank you.