Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[Tony Fang]

Yes. I would say that, really, those kinds of one-size-fits-all policies don't work, as my colleagues also mentioned, and it depends on which sector you're talking about. In agriculture, fisheries and the care economy, they rely on temporary workers quite significantly.

The other thing it depends on is the region. If you look at urban centres, you have all this housing, transportation, health care and all the issues, but in the smaller rural communities you don't have a large population, and I don't think you have similar kinds of issues. Really, we need to address the regional dichotomy in terms of immigration policy and impacts.

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

Yes.

We've seen the Liberals lose control of temporary worker streams in recent years. You mentioned earlier that temporary residents have had a “substitution” effect on employing Canadians. Youth unemployment is now 14% to 15%, in this last year since the Prime Minister took office.

At what point does the temporary foreign worker program, which is supposed to address genuine shortages, begin to function instead as a tool for preserving a dependency on a low-wage business model?

[Tony Fang]

Again, we have to be very careful when we talk about different streams of residents. For example, if you look at youth employment, it's not temporary foreign workers who are replacing local youth in jobs, because they're not working in these industries—for example, agriculture and fisheries. You ask them, and no one is working there—

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

There are many working at, say, Tim Hortons in major urban centres.

[Tony Fang]

Yes. It really depends on how they were brought into the country in the first place. It's really the intention to fill skilled labour shortages. Again, we need evidence to say.... As you know, people are mobile—

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

It's 15% unemployment, and it's even higher in the GTA. Then there are Tim Hortons and other retail sectors that rely on temporary foreign workers—

[Tony Fang]

Do they have data on whether all of them are temporary foreign workers and not international students? We know that there are a lot of international students working in those kinds of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Fang.

Thank you, Mr. Ho.

Now we have three minutes for Ms. Zahid, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I will share my time with Ms. Sodhi.

My first question is for Mr. Fang.

Can you please share your view on the federal government's budget 2025 commitment to convert the status of the 33,000 workers already living and working in the country to a PR status, a permanent status, primarily in rural areas, so that it will help support an economy such as Newfoundland's?

[Tony Fang]

It's a very good question.

My understanding is that the federal government tried to observe the temporary residents already in the country, and I think it's a move in the right direction to do that. It's good for it to be targeted. I mentioned strategic sectors—agriculture, construction, health care, fisheries and so on—and rural and remote areas, because they have recorded the most severe skilled labour shortages and population declines. It fits into the recommendations I gave earlier: A one-size-fits-all policy doesn't work.

The issue is that we need more transparency. It's lacking criteria. I don't think they're very clear at the moment. The number looks reasonable, at 33,000, but if you look at the percentage of the 33,000 in the total amount of immigrants or temporary foreign workers, it's still relatively small.

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

I will turn to Ms. Sodhi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Go ahead, Ms. Sodhi.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Proulx.

I was wondering if you're able to tell us what trends you have personally seen when it comes to immigration and entrepreneurship. Also, what recommendations might you have for the committee to ensure the immigration system supports the work you're doing in fostering entrepreneurship?

[Philippe Proulx]

As I mentioned earlier, one of the trends we're seeing is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to obtain LMIA approvals. The administrative process, which is already robust, has become much more complex recently. In particular, processing times are lengthening for no apparent reason. Furthermore, it's hard to get answers.

As I mentioned, even employers with good compliance records—employers with well-documented labour needs—are being questioned. A lot of questions are being asked. In this regard, the agents' work can be so intensive that businesses feel like they're doing something illegal.

There are also Service Canada agents who contact clients directly, even when those clients have chosen to be represented. These agents demand answers as quickly as possible or refuse to accept submissions from business representatives.

There have also been changes introduced without notice, such as the eight-week posting period that was announced recently overnight.

Many administrative issues could be resolved if there were a little more predictability and a comprehensive approach tailored to the needs of businesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Proulx.

Thank you, Ms. Sodhi.

That concludes our hearing with the first panel of witnesses for today.

I want to thank the witnesses for their time.

We'll take a five-minute break so that the witnesses can leave the room. We'll be back with the second group of witnesses.

Thanks so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Welcome back to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the second panel of today's meeting.

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

We do have someone joining us online, so I want to mention, as a reminder, that at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation, either English or French. For those in the room, of course, you can use your earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will let everyone know when you have one minute left. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I remind you that all comments should be made through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel.

We have Stéfanie Morris, who is a lawyer. Welcome.

We have Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou, who is a professor and the Canada excellence research chair in migration and integration at the Toronto Metropolitan University. Welcome.

We have Renze Nauta, who is a program director for work and economics at Cardus. Welcome to you as well.

Each one of you will have five minutes for opening remarks, and then we will begin with our rounds of questions.

We will begin with Ms. Morris for five minutes.

[Stéfanie Morris, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to appear today.

My name is Stéfanie Morris. I'm an immigration and refugee lawyer with Community Legal Services of Ottawa, which is a legal clinic aimed at addressing access to justice issues for low-income residents. I appear today in my individual capacity to discuss major issues faced by refugees waiting to be reunited with their families.

In the fall of 2017, I was part of a research team that conducted interviews with refugees resettled by the Canadian government and by sponsor groups in the aftermath of the Syrian refugee crisis. One of our key findings was that resettled refugees identified separation from family members, including extended family members, as a primary driver of poor physical and mental health, financial instability and stalled social integration. Conversely, reunification is a powerful tool to foster refugee self-sufficiency.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that one of its primary objectives is this:

to support the self-sufficiency and the social and economic well-being of refugees by facilitating reunification with their family members in Canada

Unfortunately, Canada's current immigration system increasingly prioritizes economic immigration, sometimes seemingly at the expense of its family reunification objectives. Key examples of this include that processing times exceed three years for reuniting protected persons with their dependent family members and that programs often used to reunite family members are currently closed, including the groups of five and community sponsorship streams for the private sponsorship of refugees program, and have been since November 2024.

I'll start by addressing family reunification for protected persons in Canada.

When a person obtains status as a protected person in Canada, they are entitled to apply for permanent residence and include their dependent family members in their application. In recent years, protected persons have faced average processing times exceeding two years, simply to be granted permanent residence themselves. Then they wait, sometimes an additional two or more years, for their spouse and/or children to join them in Canada.

The delays in family reunification are not merely about processing capacity. They are a direct consequence of quotas set in Canada's immigration levels plan. In the most recent levels plan, the government announced permanent resident targets of only 20,000 spaces annually for protected persons and their dependents, despite an existing backlog of what I calculate to be more than 250,000 applicants. The government is effectively planning for these families to remain separated for years by setting quotas far below the actual number of applicants.

I echo the call of civil society organizations for protected persons to be removed from the quotas set in the immigration levels plan and to be granted automatic permanent residence as soon as they become protected persons. This would eliminate redundant applications and would fulfill the minister's mandate to prioritize family reunification. The dependents of protected persons should also be removed from these quotas and should be issued temporary resident permits so that they can come to Canada while they await the processing of their PR applications.

I also want to address family reunification for privately sponsored refugees in Canada. Private sponsorship is a time-honoured Canadian tradition in which communities pull together to provide refugees with full financial and emotional support during their first 12 months in Canada. In November 2024, IRCC suddenly announced a pause on community sponsorship, which has been extended until the end of 2026. Many fear the closure will be further extended.

In addition, the government has repeatedly decreased quotas under the private sponsorship category. Just three years ago, Canada committed to resettling 28,000 privately sponsored refugees in 2026, this year. The newest quota has been reduced to 16,000 for this year, representing a 42% decrease in privately sponsored refugees in 2026.

The demand for private sponsorships shows that Canadians are willing and able to welcome refugees by covering the full costs and by providing full support during refugees' first year in Canada. Why reduce quotas for a program whose costs are voluntarily borne by Canadians?

Outside of exceptional moments of crisis and public interest, the private sponsorship program is often used as a family reunification tool. It is often the only way for resettled refugees to reunite with their extended family members, who they long to be with.

I ask that family reunification be prioritized in your study of the immigration system. Prolonged family separation has long-term economic and social implications for our country and our communities. I would be happy to speak further about my research on this topic.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Ms. Morris.

Next, we go online to Professor Triandafyllidou for five minutes.

[Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou, Professor, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for having me. My name is Anna Triandafyllidou. I hold the Canada excellence research chair in migration and integration at Toronto Metropolitan University, and I myself am an immigrant to Canada.

I want to speak today less about our selection system in Canada and more about our talent utilization system.

Canada is the most educated country in the world, thanks to immigration. We are the country with the highest percentage of people who have college or university, or higher education, in the OECD, so I take it that it's probably the highest in the world. However, we know that immigrants are overqualified by 35%. They do a job that requires fewer qualifications than they have, compared with about 18% of Canadian-born people. It's double the rate.

Time and again, when we look at studies by colleagues and economists who crunch the numbers—I'm a sociologist, so I don't crunch the numbers that much—we see that the economic and social outcomes of new permanent residents improve through the years. The express entry system is proving to be working.

We know that, right now, immigrant men meet their Canadian-born peers four years after landing, in terms of employment rates and earning outcomes. Immigrant women improve, but they don't meet those of Canadian-born women. Even four or five years after landing, they remain penalized. However, when we look at college-educated men and women—this also holds for university-educated men and women—we see that immigrant men do less well than their Canadian-born peers. Even after five years, a 15% gap remains. Immigrant women who are college-educated start with a big gap at about 40% and never catch up with Canadian-born women.

Long story short, our system has improved. We're doing much better. We're bringing in people who are highly educated; they have talent and resources, and they help build our communities and our economy. However, we have a gender problem. Immigrant women are penalized, whether they're university-educated or college-educated, so we need to look at our population policy in terms of child care support, family support, and pre- and post-school-time support.

My second point is about broader skills underutilization. We have a bit of an AI power tool hype in human resources these days. Of course, in order to make up for their lack of familiarity with the system, newcomers to Canada use AI-powered tools to write résumés and prepare for interviews. Then our businesses use AI-powered tools to read those résumés and to longlist or shortlist candidates. It seems as though we're going full circle in our excitement over AI, but we have a problem recognizing skills and professional experience.

So far, our settlement services focus on the migrant. We tell the migrant, “You have to improve yourself. You have to learn better English or French. You have to acquire a Canadian credential. You have to acquire Canadian experience.” I want to say that we need to focus more on the system. What makes their skills and talent not visible? Part of the issue is with employers. We don't recognize the reality for employers. We heard about this in the previous panel. There are small employers and big employers. They have very different needs and capacities. There are employers in big cities like Toronto and the smaller places like Drummondville that we've heard about. We need to work with them more because, for them, hiring is risk management. They often don't go for the best person; they go for the least risky person. This is very important. We need our settlement services to work with employers and to put AI-powered tools to work for this purpose—to help us prove and move the skills and experience of our newcomers.

We know that more than 50% of new permanent residents were temporary residents in Canada and that those who had higher earnings before landing will do much better in the labour market. We need to work on job offers, internship offers and entrepreneurship opportunities. We have a silver tsunami on Canadian farms—we could have migrants buying those farms and investing in them.

I think we need to work more in this field as a priority for building a better and stronger Canada.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Professor Triandafyllidou.

Lastly, we have Mr. Nauta for five minutes.

[Renze Nauta, Program Director, Work and Economics, Cardus]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Renze Nauta, and I am representing Cardus, a public policy think tank where I run a research program on work and economics.

Cardus recently completed a research study on the integration of refugees into Canadian society.

Canada, as you know, has two main streams for refugee resettlement. The first is the privately sponsored refugee program, in which refugees are integrated mainly by Canadian civil society. In this stream, Canadian families, churches and diaspora communities are responsible for raising funds and providing the necessary assistance to newcomers to help them integrate.

The second involves government-assisted refugees, who are integrated with the help of settlement agencies funded by the Government of Canada.

Cardus’s study focused on the large body of research showing that privately sponsored refugees tend to have better economic outcomes than government-assisted refugees. For example, a Statistics Canada survey of Syrian refugees to Canada from 2016 found that more than half of those sponsored by civil society had found employment within one year of their arrival. This is compared to under 10% of those assisted by government-funded settlement agencies.

Privately sponsored refugees also have higher incomes on average than government-assisted refugees. These trends persist in the long run, even when you control for factors such as education level, language skills and vulnerability, suggesting that refugees sponsored by civil society have a real advantage in integrating.

Researchers have offered several explanations for why privately sponsored refugees have this advantage. For one, they receive personalized assistance by people close to them. They also have access to more social capital that their sponsors lend them. They also have a built-in community that leads to welcoming and genuine friendships. There is also some suggestion that private sponsors tend to prioritize employment over other forms of integration.

I believe that these are all plausible explanations, but one deserves greater attention. This is the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a cornerstone principle of social organization; it says that actions and decision-making should be taken by the level of authority that is closest to an issue and competent to deal with it.

It is a principle that supports federalism and strong provinces and municipalities. But it emphasizes even more the role of civil-society institutions between the individual and the state.

It recognizes that people and institutions closer to an issue usually have better information about the individual circumstances and can provide personalized supports and solutions.

However, even more fundamentally, subsidiarity is about giving the space to people to care for each other. This is what our research uncovered. In surveys, government-assisted refugees described relationships with settlement workers as friendly, but they were not friends. By contrast, refugees and their civil society sponsors tended to use the language of family, even love.

The thick bonds formed between refugees and sponsors lead to relationships of care. This in turn leads to more personalized assistance and a stronger community to welcome the newcomers. All of this helps to produce better economic outcomes for the refugee and, ultimately, a stronger confidence on the part of the Canadian public in our immigration system's ability to accommodate them.

Canada will always need a government-assisted refugee stream, but government should do all it can to celebrate the distinctively Canadian option of private sponsorship and should encourage the participation of civil society.

Unfortunately, the government has announced steeper cuts to the privately sponsored refugee program than the government-assisted refugee program. This means that the proportion of those sponsored by civil society will decline. I believe that this is a mistake and that we should return to a mix with stronger participation of civil society.

In addition, the principle of subsidiarity is a useful guide for decision-making on all matters of public policy and should be applied to other aspects of this study as well. Our research report includes a series of questions to guide policy-makers in their application of subsidiarity to these and other public policy questions. I recommend those questions to you in this study.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

Thanks to everyone for their opening remarks. That was excellent. We are now going to begin with our first round of questions, which is for six minutes.

We're going to start off with Mr. Menegakis for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for your excellent testimony today. I'm delighted to see Prof. Triandafyllidou here with us. She is a prominent academic from the great Greek community of Toronto. I'm delighted to see you here.

Mr. Nauta, welcome back to the Hill, sir. I'm going to start with you today.

This is something you wrote, sir: “Many in the over-credentialed working class are recent immigrants, whose professional credentials we don't accept.”

Do you think speeding up the processing of transferable credentials for high-demand fields, such as nursing, would be beneficial?

[Renze Nauta]

The short answer is absolutely. I can refer to another paper I wrote on the over-credentialed working class. The paper studied the phenomenon of a large number of Canadians who are in the working class, which we defined as people who are in jobs that don't require a university or college diploma. We found that more than half of them actually have a college diploma and almost 20% have a university degree. Not surprisingly, many of them, but not all, are recent immigrants. In fact, some are long-standing immigrants to Canada as well.

Our report highlighted a very significant opportunity cost to both the Canadian economy and the immigrants themselves. There's an inability for them, because of structures that exist here, to exercise their trade. I absolutely believe it is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed.

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

In your opinion, what would be the greatest obstacle for internationally trained immigrants practising in their field in Canada?