EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration NUMBER 026 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Wednesday, March 25, 2026 Le mercredi 25 mars 2026 Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE March 25, 2026 Committee NUMBER 026 NUMBER 026 NUMÉRO 026 26 25 03 2026 2026/03/25 16:30:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration CIMM Chair Julie Dzerowicz 1 45

(1630) [ English ]

The Chair (Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone. Before I begin, I will say happy Greek Independence Day. I want to make sure that Mr. Menegakis gets an extra special shout-out today, and Peter Fragiskatos, of course, and anyone else who is celebrating this very important day. Welcome to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Today's meeting will be taking place in a hybrid format. As always, I'm going to provide a few comments for the benefit our witnesses and members today.

For those who end up on Zoom, please click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for

interpretation: English, French or floor. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I will let everybody know when they have one minute left, whether it is in your remarks or the rounds of questions. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I will remind everyone to kindly not speak over each other, as it is hard for our interpreters to translate. It makes it difficult for them to do their job. Of course, please ensure that all your comments are addressed through the chair. Members, as you know, please raise your hand if you wish to speak.

The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. Thank you for your co-operation. Before we begin, as promised, the clerk distributed the final copy of the international student program report on Friday. If everyone is in agreement, we can adopt two motions. Could I have someone move that the draft report be adopted? Who would like to move that?

Sameer Zuberi (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) :

I will.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi. Does anybody have any issues with us adopting the draft report? (Motion agreed to)

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Does that sound good to you, Mr. Simard?

Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

Yes. That sounds good.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Who would like to move that the chair present the report to the House?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

I so move.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. Are there any objections to that? (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you so much. 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. I would now like to warmly welcome our witnesses for today's meeting. We have Adam Hummel, lawyer, Hummel Law PC. Welcome. We have Zhixi Zhuang, associate professor, Toronto Metropolitan University. She is joining us virtually. Welcome, Ms.

Zhuang. [ Translation ] From the Société nationale de l'Acadie, we're joined by Émilie Caissie‑Richard, chief executive officer of the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone; and Michel Denis Richard, administrator, Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone. Welcome. [ English ] With that, up to five minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions. I will begin with Mr. Hummel for five minutes. I now invite you to begin your opening statement.

Adam Hummel (Lawyer, Hummel Law PC, As an Individual) :

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of this committee, for this invitation to appear. My name is Adam Hummel. I'm an immigration lawyer in Toronto. I am a litigator specializing in criminal inadmissibility and discretionary immigration applications. I was born in South Africa, and I came to this country as an immigrant myself, so I understand in a personal way what it means to choose Canada and what it means to trust that the system you're entering will treat you fairly.

I appear today as an individual practitioner who spends his days navigating the system on behalf of workers, families, refugees and employers trying to fill genuine labour shortages in Canada. I recently published a paper for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on Canada's immigration security screening. I wish to be direct: The problems I'm going to describe hurt both sides of the equation. A broken screening system endangers Canadian public safety, but that same system also fails the legitimate applicants stuck in years-long limbo, whose lives are on hold and who increasingly regret choosing Canada.

A system that works properly protects Canadians and treats applicants fairly. Right now, it does neither. Let me start with the security problem, as the structural issues are straightforward. Four agencies—IRCC, the CBSA, CSIS and the RCMP—have a hand in immigration security screening. Each maintains a separate database. Each uses different risk indicators. Each operates on its own timeline. When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable.

A 2023 evaluation of Canada's national security screening program found that IRCC granted approval to enter or stay in Canada in 46% of cases where applicants had been assessed as inadmissible by the CBSA. In nearly half of the cases where one agency said no, the decision-maker said yes. That's not a difference of opinion; it's a system at war with itself. These security concerns are not abstract. As a Jewish Canadian, I belong to a community that has faced a sharp rise in targeted threats since October 2023.

I raise this not because any one community's experience should drive immigration policy, but because it underscores something that this committee already knows: When screening fails, the consequences land on real families and neighbourhoods across this country. Let me tell you what this looks like from a practitioner's side. Between June 2022 and December 2023, the inventory of CBSA security assessments surged from 11,000 to over 103,000. Referrals for screenings are dramatically outpacing completed assessments. In 2024 alone, CSIS received over 538,000 screening requests.

A CSIS check that once meant in-depth inquiry now means running names through databases under pressure to clear significant backlogs. By mid-2025, processing times exceeded 50 years for certain pathways—50. Even common streams face delays of nine, 10 and 20 years. These aren't just numbers. These are my clients, whose careers, families, mental health and savings deteriorate while they wait for a system that can't tell them when or whether it will render a decision. In my paper, I proposed four reforms.

The first is to create an immigration security coordination centre, a unified hub where all screening partners access the same information in real time. The second is to implement continuous vetting. Right now, we check backgrounds at submission but have no mechanism for ongoing monitoring. The third is to modernize sections 34 to 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which were drafted many years ago and don't capture modern threats like foreign interference and cyber-espionage. Fourth, we have to fund it properly.

Current backlogs stem from understaffing, insufficient analysis and outdated IT systems. I believe in immigration. I chose this area of law because Canada is made stronger by the people who come here to work, build and contribute, but the current system is failing the people it has promised to serve. I often joke that no one taught us in law school how much of this job is spent just answering emails. As an immigration practitioner today, I can tell you that 75% of those emails ask the same questions: When will my application finally be processed? When can I see my kids? When can I see my spouse?

When can I start to work? We are breaking faith with applicants who follow the rules and who chose Canada in good faith, but we are simultaneously leaving Canadians exposed to threats that a properly functioning system should catch.

(1635) Fixing this is not about closing doors. It's about making sure that the doors we open lead somewhere and that we all know who's walking through them. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Hummel. Next, for five minutes, we have Professor Zhuang, who is online. Please go ahead. Your five minutes start now.

Zhixi Zhuang (Associate Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual) :

Dear Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Zhixi Zhuang, associate professor at the School of Urban and Regional Planning and associate director at the Global Migration Institute, Toronto Metropolitan University. I'd like to address one critical issue in Canada's immigration levels planning, and that is the need to better align immigration levels with municipal infrastructure planning. Immigration success depends not only on how many people we meet but also on whether our cities and communities are prepared to support them once they arrive.

At present, Canada's immigration system faces a structural coordination gap. Immigration targets and mobility policies are set at the federal level, while settlement and integration take place locally, where capacity is uneven and often strained, especially in smaller communities that lack sufficient housing supply, transit networks and culturally appropriate services to support long-term settlement. The settlement experiences of both international students and immigrants highlight this shared structural challenge.

When immigration targets, study permit allocations and institutional recruitment strategies are not aligned with local infrastructure and service capacity, the results are increased pressure on local infrastructure and greater vulnerability and inequity for newcomers. Although federal policy has increasingly encouraged regionalization to advance economic development and demographic renewal, only 16.6% of newcomers settle across 140 small and mid-sized Canadian cities.

This disconnect raises a broader policy question: How can municipalities, especially small and mid-sized communities, be supported to receive and retain newcomers at the levels currently being planned? Municipalities are on the front lines of this issue. They are responsible for housing, transit, land-use planning, community services and public spaces that shape everyday life. Many smaller communities operate with limited transit and fewer culturally appropriate services and federal funding structures. Immigration levels are not just about housing units, jobs or population numbers.

They are about the broader infrastructure ecosystem that allows people to settle, stay and thrive at the community level. Higher education institutions also play a direct role in attracting international students and shaping local population growth. However, in many cases, student recruitments have outpaced the development of housing supply, settlement supports and pre-arrival information systems. Without coordinated planning among institutions, municipalities and governments, responsibility becomes fragmented and accountability unclear.

To address this gap, I would respectfully offer four recommendations for consideration. First, Canada would benefit from a formal federal-provincial-municipal coordination mechanism that links immigration planning with housing, infrastructure, and service capacity. A dedicated task force that brings together representatives from immigration, housing, education and municipal governments, as well as from student and newcomer advocacy groups, could help map local assets, identify infrastructure gaps, and support coordinated planning and funding across jurisdictions.

Second, municipalities should be given a clearer and more formal role in integration planning. Planning processes, zoning frameworks and service delivery should systematically integrate newcomer considerations into housing, transit, health and workforce planning, supported by dedicated funding streams for settlement integration. Third, higher education institutions that recruit internationally should be recognized as key partners in immigration infrastructure.

Institutions should be expected to demonstrate housing planning, pre-arrival guidance, and talent education supports as part of responsible recruitment strategies and practices. Last but not least, immigration levels planning should incorporate measurable indicators of local capacity, not only through housing availability, transit access, service provision and labour market needs, but also by systematically mapping local assets, resources, and key institutional and community actors to ensure that population growth is sustainable, coordinated and equitable across communities.

Immigration policy does not end at the border. It continues in the places where people live their lives: in neighbourhoods, classrooms, transit systems and housing markets across the country. Municipal leadership, institutional accountability and coordinated planning are essential if we want immigration to succeed not only in numbers but in meaningful outcomes at the community level. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your questions.

(1640) The Chair :

Thank you, Professor Zhuang. Thank you to our interpreters, because that was a marathon translation. (1645) [ Translation ] Ms. Caissie‑Richard, you now have five minutes to give your opening remarks.

Émilie Caissie-Richard (Chief Executive Officer, Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone, Société nationale de l'Acadie) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the committee members for inviting us here today. For 145 years, the Société nationale de l'Acadie has represented the Acadian people on the Atlantic, national and international stages. It plays a structuring role in francophone immigration, in particular through the coordination of the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone. This committee encourages stakeholders in the four Atlantic provinces to take concerted and consistent action. I'm joined today by Michel Denis Richard, the administrator of this committee. Let me be quite clear.

Canada has made great strides in terms of policies, targets and commitments regarding francophone immigration. However, it lacks a consistent and regionalized approach to implementation that fully reflects the realities of francophone minority communities. We showed this in the brief submitted to your committee. Recent developments confirm this on an even more urgent basis. On the one hand, the Government of Canada is modernizing the Official Languages Act, recognizing francophone immigration as a key to vitality and setting ambitious targets.

On the other hand, on the ground, we're seeing programs disappear, positions eliminated and organizations grow weaker. Moreover, no additional funding is planned for the 2026‑27 fiscal year. We aren't seeing a simple administrative adjustment. It's a contradiction. Immigration is currently the main driver of demographic growth in Atlantic Canada. For our communities, it represents a key factor in economic, social and community development. Yet despite taking in more immigrants than its demographic weight, Atlantic Canada has one of the lowest retention rates in the country, both in the short and medium term.

This situation directly compromises the restoration of the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec to 6.1%, as set out in the Official Languages Act. This issue doesn't stem from a lack of effort on the part of the communities. Rather, it stems from a governance framework that remains too centralized, too uniform and too poorly adapted to the distinct realities of Atlantic Canada. We can't overlook this structuring challenge. Francophone immigration isn't just another program. It stems from clear legislative obligations. The Official Languages Act recognizes its restorative role.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that immigration contribute to the development of official language minority communities. This brings us back to the principle of substantive equality. Substantive equality doesn't mean providing exactly the same services to everyone. It means providing services adapted to the specific realities of the communities. The current model doesn't fully uphold this principle. It treats different realities as if they were identical. As a result, the francophone integration process remains too fragmented.

The recruitment, settlement, integration and retention process lacks continuity. Expertise in the field receives too little recognition. Yet we know what works. The francophone integration process must be seen as a continuum, from discovery to citizenship. It must be approached with a regional lens and supported by francophone players who understand local realities. In other words, we really need an approach based on services provided by and for francophones. This capacity already exists.

For over 20 years, the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone has facilitated interprovincial coordination and ensured a consistent approach to the attraction, settlement, integration, retention and economic immigration of newcomers. This isn't about creating a new structure. It's about truly recognizing an existing structure that has proven its ability to meet the demands of this role over the past few years. That's why we aren't asking for a new strategy. We're asking for the consistent application of the current strategy.

We're asking you to recommend the official recognition of the Société nationale de l'Acadie, which includes the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone, as the umbrella organization for francophone immigration in Atlantic Canada. We want you to give it a clear mandate for regional coordination at the local level, to recognize its truly regionalized approach and to give it stable and predictable funding. Atlantic Canada's Acadian and francophone communities are ready. They have the expertise. They're already achieving results.

Today, they're asking for the system to fully recognize their role and to give them the resources to make francophone immigration a real driver of sustainable vitality. Ultimately, the issue is simple. Do we just want to set targets, or do we truly want to strengthen the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities?

(1650) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Caissie‑Richard. We'll now begin the first round of questions. [ English ] It will be for six minutes. I believe we have Ms. Kronis. Welcome to our committee.

Tamara Kronis (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, CPC) :

Thank you.

Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC) :

She's just visiting.

The Chair :

Okay. Then we have Mr. Redekopp. I'm sorry; I had a different name. Mr. Redekopp, you are very welcome to begin. You have six minutes.

Brad Redekopp :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to cede my time to Monsieur Simard, who will then cede back to me in his round—just to mix things up a little today.

The Chair :

That's not a problem. [ Translation ] Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank my Conservative colleague. How kind of him! I appreciate it. He let me use his time because I was perhaps too eager to speak to the witnesses. Ms. Caissie‑Richard, I believe that we can make some quite useful connections between your comments and Ms. Zhuang's earlier remarks regarding integration. We must keep in mind that the integration of migrants differs depending on whether they belong to a national minority group or a linguistic minority group. You clearly illustrated this point. I'll quickly give you some figures that struck me.

In 2024, 57,000 temporary migrants arrived in Quebec. Before that, in 2023, the figure was 65,000. In 2025, I believe that one-third of Canada's asylum seekers, most of whom are temporary migrants, came to Quebec. In Quebec, we prioritize the integration of French speakers, with language being a key factor. I wonder whether a certain mechanism could be developed. As Ms. Zhuang clearly explained, our intake capacity depends on our infrastructure. When we have too many temporary migrants or asylum seekers, this places pressure on public services and infrastructure as a whole.

Wouldn't it be possible to adjust the migration of francophones to ensure that the Atlantic provinces take in a slightly higher proportion? What could the federal government put in place? I don't want to say it this way, because it sounds a bit insensitive. However, it seems that, from a volume perspective, the figures are disproportionate. You'll agree with me. Couldn't a mechanism be implemented here? I would like to hear your opinion on this.

Michel Denis Richard (Administrator, Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone, Société nationale de l'Acadie) :

Thank you, Mr. Simard. Good question. I completely agree with the points that you just made. When it comes to the reality, the specific features or the characteristics of francophone minority communities in Atlantic Canada, various initiatives have been implemented in recent years. These initiatives include the welcoming francophone communities, which play a key role in connecting municipalities, educational institutions and health care services. These structures have been set up to try to connect these different bodies.

At the Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone, we work with all direct and indirect settlement service providers that have contribution agreements with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC. This can include educational institutions or municipalities, for example. Our job is to mobilize all these players in order to implement solid intake structures and ensure a better retention of newcomers. We can currently see that Atlantic Canada has the lowest retention rate in the country. As the chief executive officer said, this mainly stems from an overly centralized and nation‑centric approach.

Our goal is to make people aware of the characteristics, specific features and realities of francophone minority communities in Atlantic Canada. The Comité atlantique sur l'immigration francophone benefits from its proximity to the four provinces and to service providers. We believe that IRCC's recognition of the committee as an umbrella organization would serve as an excellent model initiative.

(1655) The Chair :

You have one minute left, Mr. Simard.

Mario Simard :

I'll be brief, Madam Chair. Mr. Richard, you probably know that immigration is a shared jurisdiction in Quebec. This isn't the case everywhere. That said, in a way, this helps to establish connections, even though some aspects remain contentious. I must be quick. I don't want to put words in your mouth. However, you're seeking official recognition for your organization. You would like to become key contacts for the federal government when it comes to immigration. This would be a good first step for you, wouldn't it?

Michel Denis Richard :

This would be a good step for us. I would like to ask the chief executive officer of our committee to add to my response.

Émilie Caissie-Richard :

I would simply add the following. One way that the federal government could support us would be to recognize an economic immigration program. When it comes to regionalization, if we want people to stay, we need a program that focuses on the regions and that helps to attract the talent that we need. With Express Entry, we'll never be able to meet the regional needs. I think that we need a French‑speaking workforce to meet specific needs in fields with labour shortages. I think that an economic immigration program of this nature should also be adapted to the francophonie countries. So we also need an economic immigration program.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Caissie‑Richard. Thank you, Mr. Simard. [ English ] Now we have six minutes for Ms. Sodhi. Your six minutes start now.

Amandeep Sodhi (Brampton Centre, Lib.) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll give a big thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. Ms. Zhuang, you have conducted extensive research on immigration integration and settlement, including your case study on Brooks, Alberta. In that study, you conclude, “Municipalities must play a proactive role in preparing for immigrant settlement by addressing the long-term implications of integration in the community.” Could you expand on this conclusion, specifically the role municipalities play in ensuring successful immigrant settlement?

Zhixi Zhuang :

Thank you so much for this question. It's a great question. What I'm trying to argue in the statement, based on my research findings, is that municipalities need to have a seat at the table before immigration levels planning is decided, not after. Why? It's because they should not be in a position of reactively responding to settlement and integration. Rather, we need to switch that mindset to give municipalities the role of proactively preparing their communities.

For example, Brooks, Alberta, a small community with only 15,000 residents, is ranked number one when it comes to the social diversity index across the country, which means almost half the population is made up of visible minorities in that small town. A lot of this increased diversity is manifested across many smaller communities. We know that municipalities have their own data to map out local assets or the key actors, like housing data, rental vacancy data and job market data, but it is not channelled back into informing the decisions on immigration targets, for example, or immigration planning.

My argument here is not about the number. It's not about reducing immigration. It's about how this process can be coordinated to give municipalities a clearer and more formal role in shaping decisions, because they have the data and work closely with local communities. Also, we have witnessed the very successful implementation of local immigration partnerships over the last two decades. That's a great program compared to what's in other countries in the world. It prioritizes place-based strategies and enhancing the coordination among local stakeholders and agencies.

However, while the local immigration partnerships, or LIPs, are housed in the municipality or municipal government, they don't necessarily take on the initiative or leadership to lead the LIPs. Rather, many LIPs are actually initiatives of local community organizations. How do we support municipalities when they are at the front lines of settlement integration? How can we support them and channel data, information and community partnerships into the decision-making process? This needs to be coordinated. That's what I'm trying to advocate for.

(1700) Amandeep Sodhi :

That gets into my next question. When we look at the federal role, how do you believe, in your personal opinion, that the federal government can better support municipalities in planning for and managing immigration settlement?

Zhixi Zhuang :

As I mentioned earlier, we really need a permanent federal, provincial and municipal task force, a coordinated mechanism, to make this decision and inform decision-making when it comes to the targets and infrastructural gaps. The federal government has a regionalization policy, but on the ground, whether or not newcomers want to stay or want to leave depends on many individual or family reasons. They have different trajectories, which are beyond our control, but what we can do to manage and support immigrant settlement and integration is to create welcoming infrastructure. That should be place-based.

That should be co-created through partnerships with local partners, stakeholders and municipalities. That's why the most important thing is coordination. Right now, we have structural coordination gaps in the system. By giving a clear role to municipalities so they can channel the data back into the decision-making process but also amplify the voices of local communities, especially newcomer communities, we will gain a better understanding of their lived experiences and their needs, and their voices can be heard.

The Chair :

Thank you, Professor Zhuang. Thank you, Ms. Sodhi. Next we have six minutes for Mr. Redekopp, please.

Brad Redekopp :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move the following motion. It was put on notice last week and reads as follows:

That the committee request that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada provide the committee, by no later than the 15th day of each month, a written report, in both official languages, covering the preceding calendar month, setting out, in aggregate form, the following regarding citizenship by descent—substantial connection (Citizenship Act, paragraph 3(1)(

b) as limited by subsection 3(3)):

the number of citizenship certificate (proof of citizenship) applications received in which the applicant’s claim to citizenship is assessed under paragraph 3(1)(

b) and the substantial connection framework in subsection 3(3);

the number of such applications finalized, including approved and refused;

the applicant’s country of birth (by count); and

any other citizenship(

s) declared by applicants in those files (by count);

and that the committee request such a report be provided for each month since Bill C-3,

an act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) (S.C. 2025, c. 5), received royal assent, and that this report be deposited in both official languages with the committee by no later than April 15, 2026.

This is a critical situation and a critical issue that we're concerned about. We want to see the impact of Bill C-3 , and I believe that having this reported regularly to the committee will be helpful to us. I move that motion, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you so much, Mr. Redekopp. Monsieur Simard, go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Mario Simard :

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. Maybe the translation didn't have the correct documents. I just want to check the wording of the second paragraph. I want to make sure that what I have in front of me matches what my colleague, Mr. Redekopp, read out. I see the following in the second paragraph:

the number of citizenship certificate (proof of citizenship) applications received in which the applicant's claim to citizenship is assessed under paragraph 3(1)(

b) and the substantial connection framework in subsection 3(3);

I don't know whether it constitutes an amendment or whether it's included in what my colleague, Mr. Redekopp, read out. When he said that it's to include, in particular, applications from the United States based on ancestral ties of French‑Canadian origin, I don't know whether it's an amendment that needed to be added—

Voices: [ Inaudible—Editor ]

(1705) Mario Simard :

Okay. It's an amendment that needed to be added. I'll move this as an amendment. I'm sorry. I thought that this had already been done.

The Chair :

No. It hasn't been done yet. Would you mind reading this one more time?

Mario Simard :

I'll reread what I would add after “3(3)”: “to include, in particular, applications from the United States based on ancestral ties of French‑Canadian origin”. So this would be found in the second paragraph. There would also be a small addition in the first paragraph.

After “That the committee request that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada provide the committee, by no later than the 15th day of each month, a written report, in both official languages, covering the preceding calendar month, setting out, in aggregate form”, we would add “broken down by the country of origin of the applications” and then continue with the subsequent wording in Mr. Redekopp's motion. So we would add “broken down by the country of origin of the applications”. This would be the proposed amendment.

The Chair :

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simard. [ English ] There are two changes for us to review. In the first paragraph, we're adding the words “broken down by the country of origin of the applications”. Then, for the first bullet point, at the very end we're going to include “to include, in particular, applications from the United States based on ancestral ties of French-Canadian origin”. Is there any discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos (London Centre, Lib.) :

I'll speak for myself here. I haven't talked to colleagues about it. It's fine, as far as I can tell. It's very specific, but our friends in the Bloc have very specific concerns. I'll keep it at that. I don't know whether colleagues want to offer something else.

The Chair :

Are there any comments from our Conservative friends? No. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Zuberi.

Sameer Zuberi :

I'd like to know what percentage we are talking about with respect to ancestry. Are we talking about great-grandparents? Also, does the Francophonie count in general?

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Mr. Simard, I don't know whether you have the answer.

Mario Simard :

Mr. Zuberi, I'm not trying to say that your question is unclear. However, I gather that you want to know the percentage. We won't know. We'll find out at the end of each month. We want to know in particular whether applicants from the United States are descendants of French‑Canadian origin. We can't assess this on the basis of a percentage, as you're asking. Will there be a percentage at the end or on the 15th day of each month with a written report? I can't tell you. I can't see into the future. There isn't any percentage per se.

Sameer Zuberi :

I imagine that “French‑Canadian” includes anyone who speaks French.

Mario Simard :

That's right. We're talking about people whose ancestors are French‑Canadian. I don't think that there's any

interpretation here in terms of ethnic origin.

Sameer Zuberi :

I imagine that we want to interpret it in a broad and “liberal” sense, not in the sense of the Liberal Party, but in the sense of a definition that includes a broad

interpretation.

(1710) The Chair :

Does that sound good, Mr. Simard?

Mario Simard :

Absolutely.

Sameer Zuberi :

To be clear, this includes anyone who speaks French or whose ancestors spoke French.

Mario Simard :

It means people who apply on the grounds that they have French‑Canadian ancestors. That's what it means. I'm sorry. I don't know whether I'm the slow one, but I don't understand the meaning of your question. For me, one of your concerns is whether a link can be made with ethnicity. The addition attempts to introduce the possibility of applying on the basis of having a French‑Canadian ancestor.

Sameer Zuberi :

Take, for example, immigrants from North Africa or other francophonie countries. Their descendants would be francophones or people with francophone roots.

Mario Simard :

I understand, but it says “French‑Canadian”. If I immigrate from North Africa, I'm not a Canadian, I'm a North African, unless I had Canadian citizenship in the past. That seems clear. I don't see what the debate would be about.

Sameer Zuberi :

To be clear, we want to include everyone. [ English ] All the people from the Francophonie who have descendants can be included in this....

The Chair :

Hold on a second, Mr. Zuberi. It says very clearly, “based on ancestral ties of French-Canadian origin”. [ Translation ] It's quite clear.

Mario Simard :

Madam Chair, I would just like to point out that, if you're North African of francophone origin, you aren't a Canadian, you're North African. If you're French of francophone origin, you aren't Canadian. If our ancestors are French people who didn't live in Canada, they aren't francophone Canadians. They're French people who are francophone. It's a bit of an Elvis Gratton‑style discussion, so I'll stop there.

The Chair :

Mr. Zuberi, you have the floor.

Sameer Zuberi :

I want to thank the member for his explanation. That's what I just read in the text, so it's correct.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Is everybody okay with the amendment? (Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Next we go back to the motion as amended. Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead.

Peter Fragiskatos :

I'll propose an amendment asking that, in the second line, “by no later than the 15th day of each month” be stricken and replaced with “on a quarterly basis”.

The Chair :

Are there any comments, thoughts or suggestions? I got a thumbs-up from Ms. Rempel Garner. Mr. Redekopp, go ahead.

Brad Redekopp :

I'm fine with it. Do we need to specify when the report should be done, or that it be done in a timely manner?

Peter Fragiskatos :

I think if it's on a quarterly basis, it's on a quarterly basis. We're indulging your motion much farther than you would have anticipated.

Brad Redekopp :

I'm grateful.

Peter Fragiskatos :

We ask for your indulgence in return.

Brad Redekopp :

Okay.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Mr. Simard, does that work for you?

Mario Simard :

That works. I just want to understand why you said April 15. It doesn't say April 15. It says no later than the 15th day. I don't know whether there was a slight issue with the

interpretation. I don't have a problem with your proposed amendment, but—

[ English ]

Peter Fragiskatos :

I said “quarterly basis”.

[ Translation ]

Mario Simard :

Okay. Sounds good.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Right now, we have a motion as amended, and we're replacing “by no later than the 15th day of each month” with “on a quarterly basis”. Is everyone in agreement with the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos? (Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now I'd like us to vote on the motion as amended. (Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you. Now we go back to our excellent witnesses and their testimony. Mr. Redekopp, you have six minutes.

(1715) Brad Redekopp :

Thank you. Based on what I've heard here today, Madam Chair, I would like to move the following motion.

The Chair :

I just said we were going back to the witnesses, but okay.

Brad Redekopp :

I move:

That, further to its study on Canada’s immigration system, and in light of the findings of the Auditor General’s report on international student permit reforms tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2026, the committee report to the House its grave concern regarding the integrity of Canada’s international student program and the potential for mass fraud and call on the government to restore trust, control, transparency and accountability to Canada’s immigration system, and:

a. Require Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to investigate all alleged cases of international student permit fraud or non-compliance, and provide the committee, by the 15th day of each month, with a report detailing the results of these investigations from the previous month and how many full-time equivalent employees of the government are working on them, with the first such report provided to the committee by no later than May 15, 2026;

b. Provide a report to the committee, by no later than 30 days following the adoption of this motion, detailing the number of the 153,324 individuals referred to in the Auditor General’s report on international student permit reforms tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2026, suspected of international student permit fraud and non-compliance who were given further visas or otherwise remain in Canada;

c. Direct IRCC to provide the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) with the identities of the 110 asylum seekers mentioned in the Auditor General’s report who entered Canada using fraudulent documents as part of their application for a study permit, so that this information can be added to their asylum claim files; and

d. Call on the government to ensure that all those who enter Canada on a fraudulent basis are not issued further visas.

e. The next meeting of the committee’s study be scheduled to investigate fraud identified by the Auditor General in Canada’s international student permit system, and the committee invite the following witnesses to appear on a panel, together, for two hours: the ministers responsible during the audit period, including the Honourable Lena Diab, the Honourable Sean Fraser and the Honourable Marc Miller, as well as IRCC officials, and the IRB.

The Chair :

You are definitely very active today, Mr. Redekopp. Does anybody have anything? Yes, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

I have two amendments. They won't be introduced at the same time, because they're different. The first one relates to paragraph (e). We heard from Minister Diab yesterday that the matter of the Auditor General's report was taken up, I would say extensively, and we are seeing a new policy unfold. The relevance of having previous ministers come to the committee is questionable, to be charitable about it, and for that reason, I would suggest that paragraph e be struck.

The Chair :

I'm going to ask a technical question. Has the motion been distributed, Mr. Redekopp?

The Clerk of the Committee (Rémi Bourgault) :

It has been. I just did that. I think there are delays for email today.

The Chair :

No worries. We are just in time here. I want to make sure Monsieur Simard and others have a copy. Do you have any comments on what has been suggested, Mr. Redekopp?

Brad Redekopp :

I do not accept that change.

The Chair :

You do not accept that change. [ Translation ] Mr. Simard, do you have a copy of the motion?

Mario Simard :

Yes. It's good. I think that we should keep paragraph (

e) as well.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos, do you have any other comments?

(1720) Peter Fragiskatos :

Let's vote.

The Chair :

We will wait a couple of seconds until everybody gets their copy of the motion. Ms. Kronis is correct that everybody should get a copy and see it. Now we will proceed to the vote. We are voting on whether we should strike paragraph e from the motion proposed by Mr. Redekopp. It will be a recorded vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Now we'll go back to the discussion on the motion as proposed by Mr. Redekopp. Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll move that in paragraph a, the part that reads “by the 15th day of each month” be replaced with “on a quarterly basis”.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. Shall I suspend for a couple of minutes so we can have that discussion? What do you think? Monsieur Simard, do you have any comments on that? Do people need time to discuss it? It seems that Ms. Rempel Garner has some agreement to that. Mr. Simard has given me a thumbs-up. It looks like that amendment is being made. It would be changing “by the 15th day of each month” to “on a quarterly basis”. I'm assuming everybody agrees with that amendment. (Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: That's excellent. Now we'll go back to the motion as amended in paragraph a. Is there any more discussion on the motion as amended? Since I see none, shall we vote on it? I see a thumbs-up from everyone. (Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We'll go back to our witnesses. Next on my list is Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I apologize to the witnesses, but that's committee business. It's part of the process. Those of you who have been to committees before have probably experienced it. In any case, Mr. Hummel, thank you very much for being here today and for the work you're doing. I want to ask you about your recommendations. We probably won't get past the first one, which I thought was very interesting.

Are you proposing, if I understood you correctly, sir, that IRCC collaborate with the CBSA and perhaps the IRB—I didn't get the full understanding, but correct me if I'm wrong—and that an effort be made to bring them together to assess applications and create greater efficiency? Can you go over that recommendation again?

Adam Hummel :

Thank you for the question. It's always interesting to see how the sausage is made. The recommendation we made is not asking for the bodies themselves to integrate one into another, but for their intelligence collection or background checks to be done through a central repository. What we have right now is a procedure. What I am advocating for is to have more of a framework or an actual system where all of the background checks, the intelligence and everything else get put into a central framework, the central intelligence system.

Then these different bodies can both contribute to and use that information together so that it's not.... The analogy that I like to use is that it's like going down a highway and there are four different toll booths, one for each agency—IRCC, CBSA, CSIS and the RCMP—and that's creating the delay. What we'd be doing here is making, basically, one toll booth and seeing whether they can all sign off on one thing, rather than having to collect this disparate data and being unsure about when it actually gets applied.

Peter Fragiskatos :

That's very interesting, but give me a practical example of how this could work—in theory, of course—with a visitor visa, student permit or work permit application. Choose which one you want, but talk about how it could work under what you're envisioning, as opposed to the status quo.

Adam Hummel :

If I may be so bold, if you were to propose legislation along these lines, a way that it could work would be to have basically a checklist so that when someone is applying for, let's say, an asylum claim—100% of asylum claims get referred for security clearance or a background check—you'd have a system where you'd need each of the four agencies or three agencies to sign off on the security background check within a set, legislated period of time. Once that's all done, only then can a decision be made on that application.

We're not then waiting for one hand to do something while the other hand is still out there collecting information. To go further, after that is approved—let's say it's a temporary application, a visitor visa or something initial—we'd have ongoing monitoring that can be added into this framework. That would also be checked off every now and then to make sure we are meeting security requirements.

(1725) Peter Fragiskatos :

I wish we had more time, but I'm glad to follow up with you, perhaps afterwards when we'll have a conversation. Ms. Zhuang, you raised an interesting point about municipal infrastructure and immigration levels. Can you go over that point again and specifically address how this could be done? I take quite seriously the point you're making that—

The Chair :

You have one minute.

Peter Fragiskatos :

Okay. I'll stop talking. I think you understand the question.

Zhixi Zhuang :

In this specific scenario, we can give municipalities a clearer and more formal role to play. We can imagine, for example, developing a few of the local community partners and a community readiness dashboard, portal or system that can track housing supplies, vacancy rates, transit services, health care services, any other settlement agencies and available services and their caseloads, and labour market demands. We have all kinds of local data, but they are fragmented; they are stored in a silo system. If we have a kind of ongoing and systematic mapping of local assets and understand the strengths in local infrastructure but also the gaps—

The Chair :

Thank you, Professor Zhuang. Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. [ Translation ] Mr. Simard, you have two and a half minutes.

Mario Simard :

Thank you. Mr. Richard, I would like to come back to the earlier discussion. You know, immigration to Canada isn't currently geared towards integration into host communities. There are collective identities in Canada. Quebeckers have a collective identity that may be different from the identity of all Canadians, just as Acadians have a collective identity separate from the identity of Quebeckers and other Canadians. So, we have to think it over. I suggest that we think about integration in terms of the collective identities that apply in our case, meaning francophones like you and me.

I currently have the impression that the Canadian immigration system completely overlooks this. In my opinion, the role that you can play is to provide this integration structure. I would like to hear your comments on how to ensure a smoother integration based on specific collective identities.

Michel Denis Richard :

Thank you for the question, Mr. Simard. Francophone minority communities in Atlantic Canada are currently extremely concerned about their future and their vitality. The government says that francophone service providers haven't been affected by the cuts announced in recent months. However, on the ground, we can see that this isn't the reality. We would like Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to build capacity and invest more in communities in Atlantic Canada. IRCC has indeed invested over the past few years and met some fairly impressive targets in a short space of time.

However, we need to think about how to strengthen these new structures implemented over the past few years. We're currently concerned about their sustainability. Thank you.

(1730) Mario Simard :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Richard. Thank you, Mr. Simard. I want to thank the witnesses here today. [ English ] We're now going to suspend for about five minutes so that the current witnesses can leave. We will come back to a second panel.

(1730) (1735) The Chair :

Welcome back, and welcome to our new panellists. I want to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses. As you all know, you can use the earpiece that's in front of you and select the channel you want to listen to. I think it's fairly self-explanatory. You can choose English, French or the floor. For those who are giving opening remarks and for those who are asking questions, I'll let you know when you have only one minute left. Of course, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to formally welcome our witnesses for the second panel. [ Translation ] I would like to welcome Luisa Veronis, professor and research chair on immigration and Franco‑Ontarian communities at the University of Ottawa. [ English ] From the Hong Kong Pathway Ontario Committee, we have Sheung Ching Cheng, organizer. Welcome to you. From the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, we have Alexandra Chyczij, president, and Ihor Michalchyshyn, chief executive officer. We give a warm welcome to you. Five minutes will be given to each group for opening remarks, and then we will proceed with rounds of questions.

I will start off with Professor Veronis. [ Translation ] The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

Luisa Veronis (Professor and Chair in Immigration and Franco-Ontarian Communities, University of Ottawa, As an Individual) :

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to be here today. I teach social geography at the University of Ottawa, and I hold the research chair in immigration and Franco-Ontarian communities. I have spent more than 15 years researching francophone immigration in minority communities. I work closely with francophone immigration networks, settlement agencies, host communities and immigrants themselves. That on-the-ground expertise informs my remarks today. Canada recently met, even surpassed, its francophone immigration targets outside Quebec.

That significant achievement deserves to be recognized. Keep in mind that the 2003 targets weren't met until 2022, some 20 years later. However, this progress must not mask an ongoing fundamental structural problem in the way we select francophone immigrants. Currently, francophone immigration is largely based on the express entry system, but the system was designed for the selection of economic immigrants. It ranks applicants according to their human capital, education, work experience and language proficiency.

While important, those factors do not take into account the community-based and language-driven mandate that is central to francophone immigration. Francophone immigration is more than just an economic program. It is a social vision that builds on the Official Languages Act and seeks to restore the demographic weight of francophone communities to 6.1%. That demographic weight sits at 3.5% today. Francophone immigration is also a commitment in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, recognizing the importance of enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

The express entry system cannot fulfill that dual mandate. It selects individuals without regard for host francophone communities. The system steers candidates to regions that may have limited French services. It does not take into account communities' actual capacity to accommodate newcomers' needs and provide housing, French or bilingual employment, or French settlement services. In fact, the committee has heard from stakeholders about the pressures this is currently causing within the express entry system itself. I agree with them. Reducing francophone immigration is obviously not the answer.

The answer is to develop a program tailored to francophone immigration and its purpose. My main recommendation is this: Francophone immigration needs a stand-alone program, separate from express entry, with its own selection criteria, a program that takes into account both the skills of candidates and the needs of host communities. A program like that would ensure alignment between the selection process and francophone communities' actual capacity to welcome, integrate and retain newcomers. A number of complementary pathways also need strengthening.

First, the francophone community immigration pilot, which uses a community-based approach to selection, could and should be strengthened and expanded. Second, the pathway for French-speaking international students opens the door to an ideal pool of francophone immigrants: people who speak the language, know the community and have networks there. The government should make it easier for them to become permanent residents. The provincial nominee program should also be leveraged more effectively to meet francophone needs.

Lastly, family reunification should be recognized as a tool for retention; an immigrant whose family has settled is much more likely to stay and lay down roots in their host community. In addition, I want to point out that the current economic situation—the cost of living, the cost of housing and the limited bilingual labour market—make integration harder for all immigrants, but especially French-speaking immigrants. They face an even greater challenge, given the limited number of French and bilingual jobs outside Quebec.

That is why it is so vital that selection go hand in hand with the necessary supports and infrastructure—French settlement services, employment assistance and access to housing—ensuring that francophone immigration truly does what it's supposed to: enhance community vitality. In short, francophone immigration has a dual mandate of supporting the economy and communities. A program tailored to that dual mandate is needed, a stand-alone program that takes communities' needs into account. The program also needs to be supported by complementary pathways and proper infrastructure.

That is the key to turning the achievement of targets into the lasting vitality of francophone minority communities. Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.

(1740) The Chair :

Thank you, Professor Veronis. [ English ] We are now going to hear from Mr. Sheung Ching for five minutes, please.

Sheung Ching Cheng (Organizer, Hong Kong Pathway Ontario Committee) :

Good evening, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you so much for inviting me to participate in the study today. I would like to extend my special thanks to MP Salma Zahid and MP Brad Redekopp, who have supported the Hong Kong community for a long time. I'm sincerely grateful for your work in Parliament. My name is Sheung Ching Cheng Donald. I'm the organizer of the Hong Kong Pathway Ontario Committee, HKPOC, and I've also been a permanent resident applicant under the Hong Kong pathways stream B since February 2024.

The backlog for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, H and C, has existed for more than two years, since August 2023. As a result, many applicants are living in immigration limbo. According to the latest immigration levels plan, released in 2025, the immigration target for the H and C stream is only 6,900 in 2026 and 5,000 in 2027, which is a sharp decrease from 10,000 in 2025. Under this plan, many applicants are suffering from prolonged waiting times. According to the IRCC website, processing times for permanent resident applications may extend up to 10 years.

Consequently, more than 60,000 applicants, including those from Hong Kong, Ukraine and Sudan, have become uncertain about their future in Canada. To address these issues, the Hong Kong Pathway Ontario Committee was established in September 2025. It is committed to working with Parliament to explore solutions to the PR backlog. To achieve this mission, we have reached out to various members of Parliament to present our proposal and a solution. I have submitted a proposal for solutions to the permanent resident backlog under the humanitarian and compassionate stream. I hope you will take it into consideration.

Here are my recommendations. First, we recommend establishing a priority system for applicants who have been waiting for more than two years. According to data from IRCC, there are approximately 1,000 applications per month from both Hong Kong and Ukraine. Currently, IRCC is still processing the applications from November 2023, which means that around 8,000 applicants have already waited for more than two years, without updates.

We suggest that the government prioritize these applicants by transitioning them from temporary resident to permanent resident status, or TR to PR, and waive the requirements for work experience and the language test. Second, we recommend facilitating the transition into the skilled trades and key occupations. The Government of Canada aims to address the critical labour shortage in sectors that include research, transportation and the military. Many new immigrants are eager to contribute to the Canadian economy. These individuals are well positioned to help fill the critical labour gap.

Therefore, we recommend increasing the job opportunities in these sectors for applicants who have already been waiting for over two years, enabling them to contribute to addressing the labour shortage in Canada. Finally, we recommend providing presumptive approval in principle, or AIP, letters to applicants upon submission of their PR applications. An AIP letter is typically issued by IRCC once an applicant passes the eligibility assessment. With an AIP, applicants can access provincial health insurance, such as OHIP—the Ontario health insurance plan—and qualify for domestic tuition fees.

Therefore, we suggest that IRCC issue presumptive AIP letters at an earlier stage of the application process. The humanitarian system should provide safety and freedom to those who are facing repression and persecution, allowing them to rebuild their lives in Canada. We hope to work together with Parliament to restore the effectiveness of the system. Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

(1745) The Chair :

Thank you so much, Mr. Sheung Ching. Now we have Ms. Chyczij, who will speak for five minutes.

Alexandra Chyczij (President, Ukrainian Canadian Congress) :

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members, for the invitation to appear before you today. As many of you know, since February 2022, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has focused its efforts on responding to Russia's full-scale genocidal invasion of Ukraine. We are very grateful to the Canadian people, to our government and to all parliamentarians for their steadfast support of Ukraine. Since 2022, Canada has contributed over $25 billion in military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine.

Most importantly, Canada provided refuge to almost 300,000 displaced Ukrainians under the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel program, which I'm going to refer to as CUAET, because it's easier. It's important to remember—and I know that all of you on this committee are aware—that Ukrainians are not classified as refugees. That is because they don't meet the UN convention definition: They are not being persecuted by their own government. As a result, they aren't eligible for many of the benefits that convention refugees receive.

CUAET visa holders received a work permit, two weeks of temporary accommodation and a one-time subsidy of $3,000, so Canadians mobilized to fill the gaps. They provided housing, furniture, clothing and jobs. They taught them English and gave them moral and psychosocial support. This outpouring of support from Canadians who opened their hearts and their homes was amazing. We are eternally grateful. Today, we can say that virtually all CUAET visa holders are employed. They fill important labour needs in the workforce. They contribute to the economy and they pay taxes.

Initially, the program was offered for three years. In 2022, none of us imagined that the war could continue longer than that, but four years later, the war continues, and every month the prospect of a negotiated peace settlement becomes more and more remote. Donald Trump is emboldening Russia, and the windfall in oil revenues because of the suspension of sanctions, coupled with the skyrocketing price of oil, is financing the Russian war machine. The devastation in Ukraine becomes worse and worse.

This past winter, one of the coldest on record, when temperatures plummeted to -20° and -30°, Russia systematically destroyed all of Ukraine's energy grid. Yesterday, Russia launched 1,000 Shahed drones across every major city in Ukraine. This was the largest drone attack since the beginning of the war, and it's only going to get worse, because the war in the Middle East has depleted reserves of air defence missiles. Russia's war continues, and Ukrainians have no home to go home to.

We ask that the Government of Canada offer them predictability and stability, because currently they face a bleak and uncertain future. Their temporary status leaves them in limbo. Surveys of CUAET visa holders indicate that this lack of certainty and the inability to plan for a future are major sources of psychological stress. This is particularly so for those with young children. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has presented the minister with policy recommendations that would alleviate these issues and assist Ukrainians displaced to Canada.

Our recommendations are, first, that pursuant to the discretion granted to the minister under

section 25 of the act, the minister approve a temporary public policy pathway for permanent residence for Ukrainians who are here in Canada on a CUAET visa. We also ask that the minister increase the number of provincial nominee allocations across Canada. This will allow provincial governments to develop streams designed to meet their specific needs. In doing so, the Government of Canada would align with the feelings of the Canadian people.

According to polling we commissioned in October, 69% of Canadians support creating more pathways for permanent residency for Ukrainians, and 81% of Canadians want displaced Ukrainians to stay for the longer term. We ask the committee to join the majority of Canadians in supporting our recommendations to the minister .

(1750) The Chair :

Thank you so much, Ms. Chyczij, and thanks to everyone for their excellent opening remarks. Now we begin our rounds of questions. The first round of questions will be for six minutes each, and we'll begin with Mr. Menegakis, please.

Costas Menegakis (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC) :

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for your testimony here today. Madam Chair, I'd like to move a motion that is very important to the community that I represent and I believe to communities right across the country. My motion is as follows:

That, further to the testimony from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) on March 9, 2026, related to the presence of agents of the Iranian regime and agents of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Canada, further to the committee's study on Canada's immigration system, and further to the imminent danger that the presence of IRGC officials and regime agents in Canada may pose to Canadian public safety, the committee report the following to the House:

1. Government officials have admitted the known presence of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials and regime agents residing in Canada;

2. There are gaps in legislation and procedures that may allow IRGC officials to avoid detection prior to arrival and deportation after;

3. The government should exercise the full force of the existing law regarding the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, specifically by expediting the execution of deportation orders of regime officials who are non-citizens under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;

4. The government should immediately undertake a comprehensive review of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with an eye to modernizing it to prevent regime officials from avoiding deportation by:

a. Clearly ensuring non-citizens are deemed inadmissible if involved in regime-linked businesses, spreading propaganda, or human rights abuses;

b. Extending inadmissibility to immediate non-citizen family members of regime officials; and

c. Creating an exemption from non-refoulement protections for inadmissible non-citizen regime officials proven to be complicit in human rights abuses.

5. The government should, within 30 calendar days following the passing of this motion, table a report to Parliament explaining why it has not made public the identities of known non-citizens who are Iranian regime officials or agents who are currently present in Canada; and

6. It is imperative that the government stop approving refugee claims from nations with regimes hostile to Canada without an in-person interview being conducted first.

That is my motion, and I believe it is very important to communities across this country. We have a responsibility to ensure that all Canadians, and indeed all people in our country, feel safe in the communities where they live. Thank you.

(1755) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis. We'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos for debate.

Peter Fragiskatos :

Our side is prepared to support this motion, but that is conditional on the following amendment that I want to introduce, Madam Chair. It would be a new paragraph at the end of the motion. Right after I read it, I'll send it to the clerk. In fact, why don't I do that right now? There you go. The clerk has it. It would read as follows:

That the Government of Canada undertake a thorough legal review of the measures raised above to ensure consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international legal obligations and report its findings to this committee within 30 days.

The Chair :

I will pause to see if anyone has any comments or if people would like to wait until they receive it so they can read it. [ Translation ] We'll go to Mr. Simard.

Mario Simard :

Just so it's clear, I have the beginning of a version of what the amendment was, but I don't think it matches anymore. I gather that our excellent interpreters didn't have a copy of the amendment. According to what I have in front of me—and Mr. Fragiskatos can tell me whether this is indeed the case—the amendment calls for the Government of Canada to undertake a thorough legal review of the measures raised above to ensure consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international legal obligations, and to report its findings to the committee within 60 days. Is that what's being proposed?

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Monsieur Simard. Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

It's 30 days, in fact. It's what I just read into the record.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Yes, but it's 30 days. Are there any other comments on the amendment? Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

[ English ]

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Could my colleague just walk through what the intent is? Is the intent to have the motion reviewed for charter compliance or...?

Peter Fragiskatos :

It's yes and no, I suppose. The intent of the amendment is to review what the motion calls for, because the motion does call for some things that I think would be unprecedented. We're certainly not against the substance of the motion. There are concerns around the IRGC—issues that have been brought forward before this committee. That's not the immediate issue. What is immediately at play is a desire to ensure that what the motion calls for would be charter-compliant and in compliance with Canada's international legal obligations.

If Conservatives believe sincerely, as I know they do, in what they're calling for, it's not asking a lot to ensure that those measures are in compliance with Canadian law, if we're serious.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. Ms. Rempel Garner, if you need a couple of seconds, I can suspend for a couple of minutes.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Maybe we can talk off-line quickly. I'm just concerned about setting a precedent that the courts have jurisdiction over Parliament and committees. I think that's unprecedented. I'm sorry. This is my House, and my constituents drive what happens here, not the courts. I thought that perhaps it was going to refer to just one part of it, but....

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

We're not asking for a court review. We're asking that an analysis be done to ensure charter compliance. We're not asking for any judicial intervention of any kind. That's why it says, “That the Government of Canada undertake a thorough legal review”. That's within 30 days, I'll add.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Rempel Garner.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I misunderstood originally what the intent was. I am concerned about setting a precedent that we would have a legal review over committee oversight. Parliamentary supremacy has to be a principle here. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems that what we would be doing here is ceding the contents of this motion to a review, as opposed to Parliament dictating what we want to see happen in a motion.

(1800) [ Translation ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Simard.

Mario Simard :

I'm going to ask Mr. Fragiskatos for some leeway here, because I'm not a lawyer. I'm going to explain how I understand his amendment. In the past, in other committees, when the government was asked to produce papers, it sometimes refused to do so on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. I realize that takes place within the department and we can't go against it. However, I'm struggling to see the connection he's trying to make with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Isn't that automatically done when the government is asked for something?

As far as I'm concerned, it goes without saying that, in the response it gives and in its intentions, the government is being compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I certainly don't mean to impute motives to the member, but I see this as perhaps a way to buy time on an urgent motion. I'm not sure. Things move very quickly, as we see in geopolitics week after week. Things move very, very quickly. I don't necessarily understand the 30‑day time frame or the reason the member is asking for this amendment. I'm not a lawyer, so I apologize if I've misunderstood. I'm just asking to be convinced.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Ms. Rempel— Actually, we'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos and then to Ms. Rempel Garner.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

You saw me first, though. You pointed to me and then you looked at him.

The Chair :

No, I actually saw him, but then I—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

You pointed to me and then you looked at him.

The Chair :

I know, but I know he was first. I'm sorry.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

But you saw me first. I was trying to—

The Chair :

No. I also saw him before you saw me.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

No, I think you had bias there.

The Chair :

Ms. Rempel Garner, I am chairing the meeting.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Not well.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. Mr. Fragiskatos.

[ Translation ]

Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Simard, first, let me say that I believe you are being honest and sincere. I have no doubt about that. Second, I'm not a lawyer either. That's another reason for this amendment. [ English ] If we're going to move something that, as I said, is.... I've been an MP now for 10 years. I haven't seen a motion quite like this before. It does call for some measures that I won't say are “drastic”, but that go much farther than we've seen with other calls for intervention in particular cases.

I think it would be a good idea to ensure that the motion and what it calls for are compliant with, as I said before, Canada's international legal obligations and the charter. That's all I'm asking for. If our side wanted to play games on this, we would try to amend each line. We would try to amend all sorts of things. All we're asking for is a new paragraph and for this to come into being within 30 days. You say that I'm trying to buy time. If I wanted to buy time, we could have said 60 days, 120 days or into the summer—things like that. That's all that I'm seeking to do.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. Ms. Rempel Garner.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

You saw me. I will rebut some of the points that came up. We're not asking for public disclosure of any particular names, which arguably we could. I don't think there's anything unprecedented in there. I would just say this: If my colleague wants to have—

Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, Lib.) :

I have a point of order, Chair.

The Chair :

Ms. Zahid has a point of order.

Salma Zahid :

The bells are ringing.

The Chair :

Oh, the bells are ringing. We would need unanimous consent to continue. Do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I will be brief. I will just say to my colleague that if the government wanted to undertake a review, there's nothing stopping them from providing that data to the committee. It doesn't have to be a requirement of this motion. I think that would square both circles. That would be my advice. Any intervenor in the country can provide a response to the chair of this committee. They could do that. That would also prevent the concern that my colleague from the Bloc raised about this being a rag-the-puck exercise.

Given the gravity of the situation and given the threats and security concerns that certain members of the diaspora community are feeling across the country, I feel that this would be a good way to proceed.

(1805) The Chair :

Go ahead, Monsieur Simard.

[ Translation ]

Mario Simard :

I just want to perhaps tone down what I said earlier. I'm not imputing motives to anyone. The goal may not be to buy time, but I do find this odd. In the past, committees have adopted motions calling on the government to make sensitive information available as required. The government did not comply, citing whatever reasons it wanted. This amendment is a way of doing that preventatively. Instead of accepting the motion, the member wants to check whether it is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's what I don't understand.

Going forward, in other contexts, this could be used as a basis to say that, because sensitive information is involved, let's check whether the motion is compliant first. I see this as a step-by-step process. If the committee votes on the motion, the first step is to see how the government responds. If we aren't satisfied with that response, because the government feels that the motion does not meet this or that legal requirement, the committee will take the next step.

However, we can't be told, right from the beginning, that we can't ask the government this kind of question because it could go against the charter. This would create a precedent of limiting members' ability to hold the government to account in committee. Even though I know and understand that this relates to a very sensitive issue, perhaps the response we get from the government won't be what we hope. We may then want to express our criticism, but let's not do it beforehand. Let's see what the government's response is.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I have Mr. Fragiskatos and then Mr. Redekopp. Please go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

Colleagues, I go back to what I said before. I see no danger in adding an additional paragraph that would allow us to have the confidence that what Mr. Menegakis is calling for is in line with Canadian law. When I say there's a need to ensure that it's compliant with the charter and compliant with Canada's international legal obligations, that's in essence what I'm saying. It's exactly what I'm saying. We have to ensure that it matches with Canadian law. I don't see the danger in that at all. Mr. Menegakis would have the opportunity to ensure that what he's calling for is acted upon.

Especially with a motion like this—which, as I said before, is unprecedented in so many ways—it would be good to have that added opinion. Again, it would be within 30 days and not 30 months.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. Mr. Redekopp is next.

Brad Redekopp :

First of all, I have a problem with, as my colleagues mentioned, submitting our requests to a court before we do them philosophically. Setting that aside, I can assure you of something. Let me just quickly go through the motion, because I think it's not what you think it is. Step one is a statement. There's nothing there. Step two is a statement. There's nothing there. Step three is just telling the government to expedite deportation orders. We know that's completely legal. It happens every day. We're just saying to expedite them. In number four, we're asking the government to do a comprehensive review.

Governments do reviews all the time. Number five says that the government should table a report to Parliament. We do that all the time. Number six is a statement. There's really nothing in here that should cause any concern to anybody. I suggest that we move forward with it as it is. Thank you.

(1810) The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

Again, I'm not sure—

[ Translation ]

Mario Simard :

I have a question about the rules. Out of courtesy to the witnesses, can we let them take their leave, since we'll be leaving to vote soon? I'm not suggesting that the discussion isn't interesting, but I don't think we'll have time to ask them questions, unfortunately, so releasing them may be the more courteous thing to do.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'll ask others. Should we release our witnesses? Our vote is in about 20 minutes, but we need time to get upstairs.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I don't have any further interventions.

The Chair :

Okay, but perhaps others do, Ms. Rempel Garner. Should we release the witnesses?

Peter Fragiskatos :

We could agree to take this up at another time and let witnesses at least get on the record with a few questions.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Or we could vote....

Peter Fragiskatos :

I have points to make that haven't been made.

The Chair :

I don't have agreement on releasing the witnesses. We will continue. Mr. Fragiskatos, you continue to have the floor.

Peter Fragiskatos :

I'm not sure where along the line I was misunderstood as calling for some sort of court review. It's, again, not what I'm asking for. It's a call for the Government of Canada to provide us with an opinion on charter compliance and Canada's international legal obligations. Furthermore, Conservatives have put this forward. They have confidence in the motion. They should have the confidence to ensure that what they're asking for is in line with Canadian law. That's all that's being asked for. I see the Conservatives have a point.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. Mr. Menegakis, go ahead, please.

Costas Menegakis :

My colleague Brad Redekopp was pretty clear. Mr. Fragiskatos, with all due respect, I think what you're doing here is setting a precedent that committees in general should have a court review of motions before they're presented at the committee level. Nothing prevents the government from, in their work, ensuring they have court approval before they enact something. You know that as well as we on this side know that. With all due respect, I don't see where what you're saying makes sense in the context of committee business. This is committee business we're discussing here now. We're moving a motion.

Nothing stops the government from moving forward in any way, shape or form. We all know what the game plan is moving forward over the next 30 days. We know that we have by-elections coming up. We know all this stuff. We can read between the lines as well as you can, but let's be clear. This motion is very important to a community of people who live in Canada. People who have come here from Iran are dealing with threats on a daily basis from people in the community who threaten them. As recently as just a few weeks ago, a person dared to voice an opinion or protest against the Islamic regime.

His place of business received 17 bullets overnight. These are people in our community, and this is giving us the right to find who these people are, identify who they are and deport them as fast as possible out of the country when they should not have been here in the first place. If in doing that, somewhere down the road in the process the government identifies that the court said something different, they can bring it back to us then, but this is the motion here today. That is exactly what this is at the committee level. I don't think we would be doing anything wrong.

I don't think there would be anything wrong with calling this to a vote, and then you can do whatever you think your due diligence is on the government side moving forward. I just don't see it.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis. Mr. Zuberi.

Sameer Zuberi :

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just a technical point. I'm sure Mr. Clerk can answer this. This amendment is not asking for a court intervention. This amendment is asking that there be a review around charter compliance from the government on the motion, which is not about court involvement. Can the clerk answer this question for us?

(1815) The Chair :

Please go ahead.

The Clerk :

Mr. Zuberi, I don't think it's necessarily my role to interpret the way it's written. The text says, “That the Government of Canada undertake a thorough legal review”. It doesn't talk about the court there. It's for the committee to understand or interpret this the way they want.

The Chair :

We'll go back to Mr. Zuberi. Then I have Monsieur Simard and Ms. Rempel Garner. Mr. Zuberi.

Sameer Zuberi :

Those who are lawyers here are familiar with the law and charter compliance. I wanted the clerk, as somebody who does not belong to a political party but who is a servant of the House, to clarify that for us so that we can all be on the same page and have a common understanding that this amendment does not deal with court involvement or create a precedent around courts being involved. With respect to the concern we heard from my colleague, we actually have the same concern you do about foreign interference and the harassment of people on Canadian soil. There's no question there. We have no debate around that.

We all share the same concern. What is being put forth is an amendment, an addition, simply stating that the above is also in compliance with our laws and rights and freedoms in Canada. That's all. We agree totally on the content above and the necessity for this. What we're saying is that the above must also respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our laws. That's all. It will not interfere with the study itself. It will not interfere with this concern, this investigation, and it will address the legitimate worry or concern about people on Canadian soil being bothered by the Iranian government.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Simard.

Mario Simard :

I'm going to try to explain my objection another way. My Conservative colleagues often introduce tougher sentencing bills in the House. I don't agree with that view. They want to make it harder for people to access parole. I don't agree with that. We debate the issue in the House. However, the courts rejected a similar argument by a previous Conservative government. Now, when the Conservatives want to debate the issue in committee, do we have to check first whether it's charter-compliant? No, that question doesn't get asked. The House can debate the matter, and the courts will respond as they see fit. Mr.

Zuberi, that's what I mean when I say we're doing things backwards. In the past, we've dealt with prickly issues when it comes to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we don't use it preventatively. I won't draw a parallel with Bill 21—God forbid. That isn't the purpose here, today. That's what I don't understand about your amendment. While I don't always agree with my Conservative colleagues, I think this could make our work harder. One day, I'll be the one proposing something, and my job will be harder because of this complication, if we allow it now.

Acceptance of any proposed committee study involving a request to the government would be conditional on a validated legal review. That's what I can't wrap my head around. Again, I'm not imputing motives to the honourable member, but I don't think we should move forward with this amendment. It would set a precedent that would be troublesome for everyone and for our committee work.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Colleagues, we're now at 15 minutes before we have to vote. Can I have leave to adjourn the meeting? We can pick up this discussion at our next meeting.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

No.

The Chair :

I would like to suspend until our next meeting, then. Thank you. [ The meeting was suspended at 6:20 p.m., Wednesday, March 25 ] [ The meeting resumed at 4:32 p.m., Wednesday, April 15 ]

(52030) The Chair :

Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Because we've not had a meeting in a couple of weeks, I have to read things that I have not said for a while, even though I know that you guys all know this. Before I continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

You'll also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video. Also, as we don't have external witnesses today, I just want to remind members to kindly wait until I call you by name before speaking. Please don't speak over each other. As you know, it's very difficult for our interpreters to interpret, and it makes their job difficult. Of course, all your comments should be addressed through the chair. You'll raise your hand if you wish to speak, and the Clerk and I, as always, will manage the speaking order as best we can. I want to thank everybody in advance for your co-operation.

With that, 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. Today, we are continuing the debate on the amendment of Mr. Fragiskatos to the motion moved by Mr. Menegakis. The clerk distributed both texts earlier today. The next person on our list is Ms. Rempel Garner. The debate is now open. It sounds like Mr. Menegakis is now replacing Ms. Rempel Garner, so please go ahead, Mr. Menegakis.

Costas Menegakis :

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the risk of sounding repetitive given that this is a continuation of the previous meeting, I'll say that this motion is very important to a particular community of people in Canada, those of Iranian descent. I should add that it is also of concern to the broader community. The motion speaks to, basically, a government and security analysis regarding the 700 to roughly 1,000 agents linked to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commonly known by its acronym IRGC, and speaks to the fact that recent revelations have proven that only one has been deported since I believe 2022.

CBSA has identified some 28 people who are very likely inadmissible and subject to IRB hearings. We also spoke about the public safety minister appealing decisions when the immigration minister did not. I think I also mentioned a constituent who had his place of business riddled with 17 bullets. We put the motion forward. For the purpose of expeditiousness in the meeting, I don't think it would serve a purpose to read the motion again, given that this meeting is a continuation of the motion.

It covers a very important issue, particularly in communities that have a higher population of Canadians of Iranian descent, with PRs, asylum seekers and refugees who come from there. I'd like to continue the discussion. We've had some discussions with Mr. Fragiskatos on the government side about this. I know that Mr. Ho would like to weigh in by saying a few words about the motion. Perhaps we can hear from the government side, depending on where Mr. Fragiskatos is on the list, and see if we can come to an expeditious agreement to move forward with the motion.

(52035) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis. I have Mr. Fragiskatos on the list. Do I see your hand, Mr. Ho? Okay, Mr. Ho is after that. Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

As a matter of fact, I'm going to yield to Mr. Ho because I know he comes from a region that's also deeply impacted. If I'm not mistaken, he represents the riding neighbouring Mr. Menegakis'. I'll also turn it to him because I think they'll make related points. It just makes sense to do it in that fashion, Madam Chair, and then you can come back to me if you wish.

The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Ho.

Vincent Ho (Richmond Hill South, CPC) :

I'm pleased to be speaking today on behalf of the people of Richmond Hill South and the neighbouring areas and of folks across the country, all of whom are feeling the consequences of regime officials who have been let in—hundreds of them we know of—and are terrorizing businesses. They are terrorizing activists and intimidating journalists. It's an insult to the community I represent to see regime officials and their family members living not the good life but the high life off the wealth that has been plundered from the Iranian people.

Seeing those people living without consequences is like spitting in the faces of the people I represent. It's important that we're discussing this motion today. As Conservatives, we're always going to fight to kick out terrorists. I'm glad the Liberals on the other side are entertaining our motion today. Hopefully, we'll have a resolution on the matter so we can push this forward. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Ho. Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you, Madam Chair. In our last meeting—as you will recall, and I'll remind colleagues as well—I sought to introduce an amendment that would serve as the last paragraph of the motion. As I understand it, procedurally, I cannot amend my own amendment. Ms. Sodhi has kindly offered to put forward a subamendment that parties have discussed in advance and I think will agree to here today.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Ms. Sodhi.

Amandeep Sodhi :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Our subamendment is to remove the last sentence of Mr. Fragiskatos' amendment, which says, “and report its findings to this committee within [60] days.” It would then read this way: “That the Government of Canada undertake a thorough legal review of the measures raised above to ensure consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international legal obligations.” It would end there.

The Chair :

Are there any comments on that proposed subamendment to the amendment?

Costas Menegakis :

The way it reads now, you're taking away the.... You said “60 days”, but the amendment I have—

Amandeep Sodhi :

I'm sorry. I meant to say “30 days”.

Costas Menegakis :

All right, so it is “30 days”. Basically, this would happen concurrently. Is that the suggestion?

(52040) The Chair :

Hold on, Mr. Menegakis. Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

I was just raising my hand to answer the point. Yes, that is the effect of the subamendment. Everything would move concurrently here, as discussed.

Costas Menegakis :

We have no problem with the subamendment. We have a problem with the amendment, but not the subamendment.

Peter Fragiskatos :

We resolved it.

The Chair :

Do we have agreement on the subamendment? I have a thumbs-up from Monsieur Simard, a thumbs-up from the Conservatives and a thumbs-up from the Liberals. (Subamendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now we're back to the amendment as part of the original motion moved by Mr. Costas Menegakis. Are we okay with the amendment as now amended?

Costas Menegakis :

It's as now amended. You've taken that out.

The Chair :

Yes, we've taken that out. (Amendment as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Now we go back to the original motion as amended. Are we in favour of the original motion as amended? (Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: That was great work in all of 11 minutes. This is excellent. Is there anyone else on the list? Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

No, I'm not on the list.

The Chair :

Okay, as there is nothing else—

Costas Menegakis :

I have a motion.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Menegakis.

Costas Menegakis :

Madam Chair, I'm going to see if we can get consent from all parties to fix what I believe to be an oversight regarding two motions we've already passed through committee. Really, what I'm seeking is consent to instruct the clerk to give the right clarification to the department on what the intent of the motions was.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Which motions are you referring to?

Costas Menegakis :

I'm about to give you both. One is a motion that was passed in our very last meeting. It was Mr. Redekopp's motion. Basically, it was the motion that said, “That the committee request that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada provide the committee, on a quarterly basis, a written report, in both official languages, covering the preceding calendar month, setting out in aggregate form, broken down by the country of origin” and so forth. It's this one. If you'll recall—I'm going to jog your memory now—we had originally asked for it to be on a monthly basis. Mr.

Fragiskatos thought it would be more appropriate if it was on a quarterly basis. It's a bit less arduous, from the department's perspective, to provide this report on a quarterly basis, and we have no problem with that because it passed through committee. However, the same sentence says, “covering the preceding calendar month”. Originally it was there because we were asking for it monthly. Now we would just like it to say, “covering the preceding three calendar months” instead of “calendar month”. The reporting is quarterly. We should have all three months of reporting. I believe that was Mr.

Fragiskatos' intent when he asked for reporting quarterly. I don't believe he said the quarterly report would give us only one month's information. That wouldn't make sense to any of us. I'm wondering if I can have the indulgence of the other parties in this committee to agree to instruct our clerk to provide that clarity to the department providing the information.

The Chair :

Are there any comments? Mr. Fragiskatos.

Peter Fragiskatos :

It's a sensible change. We support it.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Is that okay with you, Mr. Simard?

Mario Simard :

Yes, that's fine.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Zuberi.

[ Translation ]

Sameer Zuberi :

Madam Chair, I just want to clarify something quickly. It's not the previous three months. It's the previous quarter. [ English ] Otherwise, you're going to miss a few days.

Costas Menegakis :

As long as we get the full quarter's information, we're fine with that.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Mr. Simard, I see you nodding. [ English ] I think we have agreement on all sides for that. Mr. Clerk, do you have any questions, or is that clear for you?

The Clerk: It's clear.

The Chair: If there is nothing else, is it the will—

Costas Menegakis :

There's one more.

The Chair :

Oh my goodness, Mr. Menegakis.

Costas Menegakis :

It's not that difficult. It's very similar. In fact, it's the same, except it refers to another motion that we passed, in meeting number 26. It's the motion that said, “That, further to its study on Canada's immigration system, and in light of the findings of the Auditor General's report on international student permit reforms tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2026, the committee report to the House its grave concern”, and it goes on. We changed point (

a) of it because Mr. Fragiskatos, at the time, made the suggestion to provide the information on a quarterly basis. The sentence that follows says “from the previous month”. It's exactly what I said about the previous motion. We should change this one as well or instruct the clerk to clarify to the department that our intent is to get, for now, information on the previous quarter—I'll take Mr. Zuberi's suggestion—instead of the previous three months. I wonder if the government would be agreeable to that as well.

(52045) Peter Fragiskatos :

Yes.

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos says yes. [ Translation ] Is it okay, Mr. Simard?

Mario Simard :

Yes.

The Chair :

Thank you. [ English ] Okay, it looks like it's fine. Mr. Menegakis, is there anything else?

Costas Menegakis :

At this time, no. Thank you very much.

The Chair :

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.