Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr.—

[Nicole Ralli]

Do I have an opportunity to comment on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

No, unfortunately, Ms. Ralli, you cannot.

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

No, it's a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

Now I have a speaking list. I have Ms. Rempel Garner, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Redekopp and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

We have heard a lot of debate so far in this study. There have been a lot of, I think, lobby groups that have come to the committee and have made comments like we need to attract the best and the brightest, without making any claim or argument that perhaps the best and the brightest might already be in Canada.

We've heard a lot of people imply that the only way to grow Canada's economy is to continue very high levels of immigration. What we haven't heard a lot of is balance from two other perspectives. The first is affected workers. We know from Bank of Canada data that wages have been driven down in Canada because of very high levels of immigration that haven't kept pace with economic growth. We also haven't heard, frankly, from.... We started to hear today from a witness who was talking about the need to focus particularly on retaining the skilled labour that's here in Canada.

I was in rural Quebec a few weeks ago, and I was in a region where the rate of unemployment was 2.3%, well below the natural rate of unemployment. The number one thing that I heard from manufacturers in that region was that they have skilled workers who have integrated into their communities. They have low unemployment compared to the rest of the country, yet their needs and the immigration policies in their regions are being subsumed by metropolitan regions with levels of high unemployment. Essentially, the government is not removing people who don't have legal reason to be there, and they're trying to remove skilled workers in regions with areas of low unemployment.

I'm reading the motion from my colleague now. Given that the government is going to undertake the unveiling of their levels plan next week, I think it would behoove the committee to put something forward to the House, given that we've had several meetings on this particular topic.

The motion recognizes that we still have a youth jobs crisis in the country. I think that we would all agree on that. Finding work for unemployed Canadians should be a top priority of the Government of Canada. Focusing on training Canadians to address labour shortages for the jobs of the future is, again, something that I don't think we've heard enough about because we've mostly had corporate lobbyists and corporate associations arguing for more immigration, but really not focusing on the training component as a counterbalance to immigration levels. I think that's a good point.

Frankly, we know that immigration levels need to come down. I think that anybody on this committee would be hard-pressed to make an argument that would be well received within the lived experiences of their communities, people who don't have the ability to hire corporate lobbyists in their own communities here.

I think this is a good motion. My colleague here and I put forward a response of the Conservative Party's position to the levels plan in the national media this morning. I would just like to, across party lines perhaps in part, take this opportunity to implore my Liberal colleagues to bring this particular point up in their caucus meeting. For a long time, we have heard the interests of corporate lobby groups be the ones that primarily drive immigration policy in the country.

Not all corporate lobbyists are the same on this front—again, I point to the example that I just gave in rural Quebec—but a lot of them, I think, are coming to us asking for higher levels of immigration because they are used to it. They have business models that are predicated on suppressing wages and creating a scarcity of jobs rather than looking at productivity, which is much harder work, or at training Canada's youth. That is like the dirty little secret tension that no corporate lobbyist really wants to talk about here. I think we started to get to that a little bit today, and that has to be disrupted. If we are not breaking that tension and we're not being honest about it in this committee, in debate in the House of Commons and in our immigration levels, then the consensus for immigration in Canada will continue to deteriorate.

I want to be very clear. It's not an immigrant's fault—who wants to come to Canada to build a better life—that we see scarcity in the job market or depressed wages. It is solely the fault of policy-makers who have decided to keep immigration levels this high for this long, particularly without consulting with the provinces on things like health care, availability of social benefits and education.

I'll speak freely to colleagues in here and a colleague who sits across the way. He's not here right now. I'm sorry. I'm not supposed to say that.

We just had a very difficult conversation in Alberta that led to referendum questions related to immigration. I don't think those questions would have been asked if the Liberal government had been more responsible with setting levels.

My concern right now is that under this Prime Minister, we still have a generationally high, unsustainable immigration rate. We don't have enough houses. We don't have enough housing. High levels of immigration have masked fundamental structural weaknesses in the Canadian economy, including productivity, that are not going to magically get better if we continue to juice immigration levels. It's that tension between having enough social infrastructure and managing integration while also meeting legitimate needs in the immigration system. That balance is just not being struck right now.

In the context of this study, I think we have to be very careful, as parliamentarians, in agreeing to a premise of hearing from one group that we need more and more immigration. I think we have to start pushing back on some of the lobby groups we see and start putting more onus on them to talk about training, the long-term pipeline development of talent and, frankly, productivity measures that are stymied by high levels of immigration.

Colleagues, I think this is a good motion. I will just say this: I think we need to have this debate in the House of Commons. I am concerned not only about the government burying the levels in the budget. I'm also concerned about the fact that there are a couple of things happening. We don't really know how many people are actually in the country right now. We don't have exit tracking data from the government, for example. I think the CBC is reporting a story today of misleading graphs coming out of the government that show population decreasing, when in fact it's increasing. If we're getting erroneous information from the government, that's problematic too. How can we set levels or know if the corporate lobbyists in front of us today are accurate if we don't have that information as parliamentarians?

I would like to see the consensus for immigration restored in this country, but we can't do that without major systemic reform. I think the start of that is acknowledging some of the premises put forward in this motion, which I've just read. I would encourage my colleagues to support it. I think it's very important that, prior to the levels plan being set....

Briefly, the Prime Minister did say to The New York Times—to an American newspaper—that he could see immigration increasing. The immigration minister herself said that levels should increase. I would like to know why. Are we working on behalf of corporate interests, which haven't put a lot of effort, frankly, into training Canadian youth?

I think there has been some brokenness, particularly in the service sector, of that social contract between employers and workers, where we see natural wage growth and an obligation to train Canadian youth, invest in the long-term development of the workforce of Canada and, frankly, not depress wages, so that Canadians can have kids.

I would like to see us support this motion. I would like to see this debated in the House of Commons. I would like to see the government recognize that until there's fundamental system reform in the immigration system.... I think there was a suggestion today of a voluntary LMIA. There's been so much systemic fraud in both the TFW system and the LMIA process writ large, with allegations of employers selling LMIAs. We just had the Auditor General's report on student fraud. None of that has been rectified, and now we have corporate groups coming in and saying that they want even more.

Guys, read the room a little. We need to have fundamental system reform in the immigration system if we want to see a social contract for immigration. Much to the detriment of Canadians and immigrants alike, it is deteriorating because of the immigration department's being treated like the armpit of cabinet for 10-plus years.

Let's support this motion. Let's get some debate in the House of Commons, and let's do the hard work, as a Parliament, of restoring Canada's consensus for immigration, rather than kowtowing to the needs of expensive corporate lobbyists.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Jackson.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll do my best not to repeat some of the things my colleagues have already said, but I think Mr. Menegakis's motion is timely.

I'm new to this committee, as you're all aware, but I have been very concerned since my arrival here—and in the couple of days we've been talking about this study—about attracting and empowering global talent. However, very few of the witnesses we've heard from have talked about the serious gaps that exist in training Canadian young people to meet the need they all come here saying exists in the tech sector—in engineering. One witness, two days ago, said, of the government's so-called ambitious building schedule, that they have all these gaps in skill that they need to fill, and the only people who can fill them are internationally educated professionals and international students.

Why is that? That makes absolutely no sense to me when we have 13% youth unemployment—and higher in some regions. We have tens of thousands of skilled workers being laid off in critical sectors not just in southern Ontario but across many provinces. I was just out in British Columbia recently. Lots of skilled people out there are being laid off in forestry and other sectors. Are these people unintelligent? Is that the view of all the witnesses coming here—that these people can't be retrained to fill the skilled-worker positions in the emerging economy and in these sectors that are incredibly short?

Rather, is there a gap in our educational institutions that doesn't allow domestic students to get into a number of these programs? Is there a gap that doesn't allow for a financial bridge for someone who's been laid off from a sector, so they can take the necessary retraining and education in order to fill these jobs?

I understand why—by default, because it's quicker—the associations, chambers of commerce and businesses come here and say, “We have to fix this problem fast, and the fastest way to do it is by allowing access to internationals.” However, is that the right decision for a country to make—leaving out the workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own? That's due to an unfair trade war by the American administration and due to other provincial government decisions. Going back to my British Columbia example, they are systematically killing an industry.

I'm not sure we're focusing on the right things. When we're in the midst of a devastating youth job crisis, as Mr. Menegakis said, the top priority has to be finding work for the youth of this country who are unemployed and for the individuals already in skilled sectors who have been laid off. I don't see a lot of that. In fact, from what we've heard from the immigration minister as recently as yesterday in question period.... She's waving the “mission accomplished” sign and thinks she's on the right track.

I'm not convinced. I'm hearing from young people in my constituency saying that if the LMIA changes go through on November 3, they might as well pack up shop. How many young Canadians have already made that decision, leaving these gaps in critical sectors of our economy? How many have already left the country? Maybe that's something Parliament should be debating. If we're talking about critical skills gaps in sectors of our economy—there's no question that this is very important—why aren't we looking to Canadian youth and pushing our post-secondary institutions? If they are offering these programs, why aren't we getting more young Canadians into them? I have yet to hear about that.

I know we have further witnesses later today, but I think this is worthy of a debate in the Canadian House of Commons. It's important—I certainly hope so—for the young people in my constituency who have been reaching out to me over the last number of days and beyond, as I'm sure they have in many of my colleagues' ridings as well.

It's time this motion proceeds, and I look forward to parties supporting it. The reality is that if we continue to rely on international students to fill the gaps that industry and university lobbyists are saying can only be filled by them, I'm not sure what hope that gives young people for the future of this country and why they should bother staying here at all.

Perhaps more will continue looking at other post-secondary options in other countries around the world. Dozens of people I graduated with have made that choice—and made it years ago—and it's getting worse, not better. That is something that falls at the feet of this Liberal government. It's not immigrants and not international students. It's the brain drain, the talent drain from Canadian institutions, from Canadian post-secondary facilities. I think it's time for a debate on this issue.

With that, Madam Chair, I know that other colleagues have a few more things to say, but I really hope to see some support for my colleague's motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

Next on the list, we have Mr. Redekopp, unless you think both of your colleagues have already said it all, Mr. Redekopp, and we can go over to Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Don't you want to hear more?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I just figured they were very thorough.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

They were, but there are a few things that I would like to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I support my colleague's motion. I think it's very important that we have this debate. I think it's important that we have this debate in the House, actually, because, as my colleagues mentioned, there are all kinds of different things.

The first thing I want to mention, to start with, is that it's very important to always remember that this is not the fault of immigrants. This is not the fault of people who left their homes and came to Canada. They were invited into something that they thought they were getting, and in many cases, they didn't get what they thought. It hurts so many people in the process: people whose expectations are not met, companies here that.... There are so many people who are impacted and face difficulties because of the way this government has implemented immigration over the last 10 years.

Nothing is really different now. Yes, the numbers are a bit lower than they were a few years ago, but to compare today to a few years ago.... I don't know if you know, but whenever you look at stats, most people ignore the COVID years, and I think it's a similar situation here, where we had some pretty crazy immigration years that were real aberrations from the long-term trends. I think that anybody with any common sense would look at that and say that those years should just be ignored because they were so strange. Compared to long-term averages, our numbers are still very high, and that's the thing that people often miss.

It's really important to remember that this problem was not caused by immigrants. This problem was caused by this government.

There's the other thing I wanted to highlight. I know that Ms. Ralli said it in her testimony. She mentioned the fact that they have skilled talent that is being lost because of some of the policies of the government to turn around and send back people who may be trained and may be integrated not only into companies like Ms. Ralli's but also into the communities they live in. Because their permits are expiring and there's no pathway for them, they go home.

At the same time, we have asylum seekers and other people who have come to our country and get to stay in our country for multiple years—three, four or five years or more—because they're meandering their way through our very porous immigration system. That doesn't make a lot of sense when companies have to go out and try to find talent that they already have when the government is making people go home. There's a lot of confusion there.

I also want to highlight that we all know that the consensus on immigration has been lost. That, again, is the fault of policies that have been implemented by this government and have resulted in these very large numbers in immigration. That's really what I want to highlight. I want to remind this committee and everybody here that we need to have this debate on increasing the immigration numbers, as proposed by the government, because I don't think that's where the country is at. It's certainly not where we are. I'd love to hear the read from the other side on how they could possibly justify increasing the numbers from where we are now, considering that even now we are at historic highs.

With that, I would encourage everybody to support this motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Mr. Fragiskatos is next.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

We will have debates, certainly, Madam Chair, on immigration policy and the levels plan in particular at this committee and in the House of Commons. We do want to hear from witnesses, however.

With that, I move to adjourn debate on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

We'll take a vote on that.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

The debate is adjourned.

I'm going to return to the witnesses and to the second round of questioning.

If it's okay with our witnesses to stay an extra seven and a half minutes, I'd like to finish up this round with five minutes for Ms. Sodhi and two and a half minutes for Mr. Deschênes.

Ms. Sodhi, you have five minutes.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I would like to start off with you, Ms. Bozynski. You mentioned a couple of recommendations in your opening statement, so I'd like to give you some time to elaborate on those, if you'd like.

[Karen Bozynski]

Certainly, and perhaps I can also respond to some of the dialogue here today.

Canada's Semiconductor Council is committed to training Canadians. In fact, we've partnered with CMC Microsystems, which launched just weeks ago, just this fall, so the impact is brand new—and this is something we included in our recommendations in our talent report, which we published last year. It is bringing more Canadian students into semiconductor roles. We committed, with one of our recommendations from this, to work with firms like CMC Microsystems to deliver training for students graduating from bachelor's programs and master's programs, and to bring training opportunities to them.

This September, there were three courses introduced, and there are seven more coming up in January. In 2027, we'll have 10 courses that give Canadian students graduating with a bachelor's degree the opportunity to upskill and fill the gap that's been identified in going from a university program to being hire-ready in industry. This will increase the ability for Canadian students to land more industry jobs. We at Canada's Semiconductor Council, on behalf of our members, are excited that, having heard that there is a gap, we've been able to bring forward something that's going to benefit Canadians as well as add, strategically, international hires with experience, so they can learn additional skills from and be mentored by a great global network of talent with more experience.

In fact, both the strategic direction of training Canadian students plus strategic international hires will build stronger Canadian career opportunities for Canadians. That's been highlighted by some of these member committee—

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

I'm really sorry, Ms. Bozynski. I just want to ask Ms. Ralli a question as well. Thank you so much, though.

Ms. Ralli, I believe you made a statement earlier, after Mr. Redekopp presented his motion, and said that you wanted to respond to it. I'd like to give you some time to respond to it now.

[Nicole Ralli]

Yes, I just wanted to comment on the fact that, as Dishon Limited, we are highly invested in hiring Canadian youth, to the point that we are embedded into Centennial College, which is the local college around here that has our CNC machining skilled trades. We're helping them develop curricula around what some of these future machining materials and components look like.

You know, I don't want to take it, in breadth, that we're looking for insertion of immigrant labour. We are trying to grow at a rate that is beyond what these colleges are able to graduate their Canadian and permanent resident people. This isn't “hiring one instead of the other.” We need to bolster our hiring with those trained, skilled immigrants in order to complement the current existing PR residents and Canadian citizens.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Going back to you, Ms. Bozynski, are there any further recommendations that you haven't yet mentioned that you would like to make to the committee today?

[Karen Bozynski]

Certainly. Thank you so much.

As we mentioned and as was raised by some of the members of this committee, who are hopefully still able to hear the message that we are bringing, we're seeing an 80% to 90% retention rate through sticky programs. Earlier this week, on Tuesday, at this committee, there was a university speaking about their co-op education program and how that provided stickiness in the market. Programs like talent innovation Canada provides the opportunity for stickiness, for bringing talent into the industry. There have been many great internship programs and co-op programs across Canada stimulating this. Increasing the opportunities for students to get into programs in the industry increases the stickiness for these students in Canada. As I mentioned, there's 80% to 90% retention, so I recommend that this program continue.

Also, to respond to how we can help Canadians, this helps Canadians. The strategic immigration recommendations we are bringing are strategic and complement the Canadian talent development of Canadians in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Bozynski. That's time.

Thank you, Ms. Sodhi.

Mr. Deschênes, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let's talk a bit about the point that was raised. I would like to hear what both of you have to say about the idea that, ultimately, young people in Quebec and Canada are not being offered jobs that are going to immigrants. We're told that young people are unable to access those jobs.

We could start with Ms. Ralli.

What efforts are you making to hire locally before resorting to immigration?