Public Accounts Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gallivan, according to the figures, 153,000 students do not meet the criteria for their study permits. What are the consequences for these individuals?

Apparently, you have funding to investigate only about 2,000 cases per year. In my view, what is becoming unacceptable is the absence of these students, who simply have to suddenly cut off all contact with you. By not responding to you, there are no consequences.

Exactly why wouldn’t a permit be suspended immediately?

Is there a procedure in place when a student or worker no longer has a valid study or work permit?

What will happen to that individual? Can you tell them that, since they didn’t respond to you and don’t meet the criteria, their permit is no longer valid? Does that happen?

[Ted Gallivan]

Right now, it doesn't exist in the way you describe it. That's why we submitted an action plan to properly document the cases. It's also why we made a commitment to accountability and to implementing that plan.

With regard to the 153,000 students, after doing the review, which hadn't been done when the Auditor General's office came to see us, we found out that they had changed schools. These are not instances of fraud; they're paperwork issues. That has been corrected. Their status changed. They got a work permit, and there's no problem. However, in a significant number of cases, there is a problem.

We didn't know how many cases needed to be reviewed, so the department allocated funds for about 2,000 cases.

We are committed to investigating all cases that have no reasonable explanation and that are actually problematic, such as someone who stays in the country when they shouldn't, who isn't studying, who isn't working, and so on.

We are committed to finding them and contacting them. You're absolutely right that, when someone doesn't answer, we should try to contact them again several times, not close their file. That's essentially what it says in the detailed action plan that IRCC submitted to the committee.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

I appreciate your forthrightness and, of course, your willingness to respond to the concerns raised by the Auditor General.

Mr. McCrorie, I have a question about a case that happened in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

If a student committed a crime and lost the right to be in Canada, what steps would have to be taken for that person to leave the country?

How long would it take from the time that person is released from prison until they are removed from the country?

[Aaron McCrorie]

Thank you for the question.

I'll have to speak in generalities because it's a hypothetical case.

As a general rule, we allow the criminal justice system to take precedence over the immigration system. Depending on the nature of the crime, there may be serious criminal consequences, and we'll allow the criminal justice system to take place. We'll be ready at the end of that to begin removal processes. In some instances, we'll work with local law enforcement, depending on the nature of the crime, and we'll say that we can do removal quicker than they can in working through the criminal justice system.

Think of extortion, for example, and the cases that we've seen in British Columbia, Edmonton, Winnipeg and the Toronto area. We've been using our immigration tools to take individuals who have been involved in extortion and have removed them from the country. We've removed them fairly quickly.

It's hard to say though, in terms of the average time, because a lot depends on the circumstances. Are they going to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment? Will they ask for a delay for health reasons? Will they appeal our decision to the courts? Do they have a travel document? Is there an administrative deferral for removal in terms of where we take them?

There's no hard and fast rule, but I would say that we have a legal obligation to remove people as quickly as possible, and we do. We did about 23,000 removals last year. We prioritize those who are involved in criminality or what we call serious inadmissibilities. Our second tier is those who are failed refugee claimants, and then the third tier is everybody else.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Up next we have Mr. Kuruc for five minutes.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming here today. I'll start with the new deputy minister.

It was brought to my attention that you just started four weeks ago. Is that correct? I'll take your nodding as a yes.

The IRCC gave testimony on Monday. I don't want to say there were a lot of excuses, but the words “funding” and “budget” were used repeatedly. My thoughts and questions today will come from the public accounts perspective of protecting taxpayer money or acting for the taxpayer. There are some numbers here that I'd like to share with the committee and the witnesses.

The funding for the IRCC has gone from $3.16 billion to $6.5 billion in about five years. That includes doubling the labour force from about 6,300 to 14,000, between 2015 and 2023. Those are big numbers. The budget for IRCC is massive. We started to investigate, after testimony by the Auditor General, which I found great but concerning.

The Office of the Auditor General's funding is about $127.5 million a year. They were able to help find the 39,500 individuals who were not supposed to be here. Their office did that with the help of all the other offices, and they took it upon themselves to find those numbers. What's concerning is that their budget is very small, and IRCC's very big. Obviously, IRCC does a lot more than just that, so I'm not going to dwell on that. However, that's why I wanted to start with figuring out the dollars.

A few things came up today. My colleague from Hamilton raised some great concerns and valid questions. The member from the Bloc Québécois also raised some interesting questions. We also heard from the vice-president of CBSA. One thing I want to touch on is fraud, which leads to screening and communication between agencies. The gentleman said that they are figuring out how to balance efficiency and time, and manage bigger volumes. These are all valid issues.

As a member of the public accounts committee, I would now like to move a motion, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You certainly have the right to state your motion. I'll have to decide if it's in order, Mr. Kuruc.

Have you've submitted it in both official languages to the clerk?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes. Can I read my motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

If it's all right with you, I'm going to have the clerk distribute it. That way we can keep on track.

Go ahead, Mr. Kuruc. You may read your motion.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'm moving this motion because I think we need to look—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Kuruc, please just give us the motion.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I move:

That, in light of the findings in the 2026 Report of the Auditor General of Canada entitled “International Student Program Reforms,” and given the additional concerns identified regarding oversight, enforcement, and integrity within the international student visa system, the committee write to the Auditor General to request that she expand the scope of her International Student Program Reforms performance audit to include:

(a) the processes and effectiveness of coordination between the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Canada Border Services Agency in tracking international students with expired visas, including data collection, information sharing, assessment for removal, and actual removals from Canada;

(b) the extent of non-compliance by designated learning institutions, including failure to report on student compliance, the identification of repeat offenders, and the application and effectiveness of enforcement measures;

(c) the adequacy of procedures for verifying financial documentation submitted by applicants, including the detection, flagging, and subsequent use of fraud indicators across immigration applications;

(d) the extent to which processing officers fail to act on or record indicators of potential fraud identified by learning institutions, and the implications for reapplication and enforcement measures;

(e) the effectiveness and integrity of risk assessment processes across all international student application streams, including the identification and mitigation of risks prior to and following permit approval;

(f) the handling of confirmed fraudulent cases identified by risk assessment units, including the absence of file flagging, enforcement actions taken or not taken, and the approval of subsequent immigration applications;

(g) the approval practices for study permit extensions, including the use of a “light touch” approach and the extent to which prior risk indicators or concerns are reassessed; and

(h) the scale of non-compliance among international students, including the adequacy of departmental resources for investigations, the thoroughness of those investigations, and the effectiveness of follow-up actions;

And that the committee further write to the Auditor General to undertake an additional audit into the overall, holistic security screening processes across all program streams and how the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Canada Border Services Agency, and the Immigration and Refugee Board share information, interact with each other, and follow up on all cases of misrepresentation, fraud, serious criminality, terrorism, illegal border crossings, and all other reasons to deny permit approval from application and port of entry to final approval of permanent residency status or citizenship including possible claims of asylum, expired permits, removal orders, detentions, pre-risk removal assessments, judicial proceedings, and all other steps inherent in the processes;

And that the committee report this request to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

The motion's been distributed. It is a “matter at hand” issue. It is in order. I'm going to go back to Mr. Kuruc, because I did cut him off during his intro. He does have that right, but I wanted to keep him in his time. I didn't actually know that it would be quite that long, so I'm glad I did that.

Then I'll come right after to you, Ms. Yip.

Mr. Kuruc, do you have a brief statement to go along with it? If you don't, that's fine. We can move things along.

We'll go back to you, and then I'll recognize Ms. Yip.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I moved this motion in the spirit of true non-partisanship that this committee represents. I do believe that we've heard many questions across the board and valid concerns from everyone around this table. I believe this motion, and the further reporting that this motion requests, is going to be very important information for the deputy minister, who is brand new, to help him do his job better and to help us help him.

That's my intent. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Before I recognize Ms. Yip, I will just let everyone know what I do in these situations. I'm just going to take the temperature. I'm going to see if this is something that committee members will resolve relatively quickly, or if it's going to go on for a while, at which point I will make a decision about what to do with our witnesses.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'd like to suspend. There is a lot of information in Mr. Kuruc's motion, and I would just like to discuss—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm open to doing that in a second.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'd like to do one round, though.

I saw Mr. Lemire, and I'll come back to Mr. Osborne. Then I will look to suspend, Ms. Yip—for a couple of minutes at least—for discussion. Let's just do a quick round here first.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Parliament needs more people like Mr. Kuruc to put forward motions in a spirit of collaboration with the intent of getting to the bottom of things and making our studies more authoritative.

For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mr. Osborne.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always take the approach that if you act in haste, you repent at leisure. I think this is a rather lengthy motion. I agree with my colleague to not just suspend but give us some time to analyze this motion.

The other thing that I would ask and request is this: We have witnesses here. Are we able to continue with the witnesses and deal with this after we're done?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Those are all good questions.

I don't have, on my own, the authority to suspend a motion. It's now before the committee. I will suspend for three to five minutes, and I'll actually join the discussion about the witnesses. However, the opposition member does have the right to proceed with this, should he choose to do that.

I'll just state that up front. You have to yield that to the committee.

I'll suspend for five minutes.

Witnesses, you can get up and stretch your legs, but I would ask you to come back, though, in five minutes.

We'll have a discussion to see where we're going to go. This meeting is suspended.