The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met to study Canada’s immigration system, hearing from six witnesses: Marisa Berry Méndez of Amnesty International Canada, Joycna Kang of Battista Migration Law Group, Léonie Tchatat of La Passerelle, Sam Routley of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Dr. Yvonne Su of York University, and Richard Kurland of Lawyers for Secure Immigration.
Marisa Berry Méndez argued that recent changes, including Bill C-12, budget cuts to the interim federal health program, and reductions in private sponsorship and government resettlement, represent a troubling erosion of Canada’s refugee protection system. She also contended that the points system for economic immigration is discriminatory because it excludes workers in so-called low-skilled positions, who are overwhelmingly racialized and trapped in exploitative temporary foreign worker programs, and recommended eliminating eligibility criteria that exclude these workers from permanent residence.
Joycna Kang testified that Bill C-12 has created confusion and panic, imposing arbitrary timelines that disadvantage genuine refugee claimants, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals who may need time to disclose their identity. She argued that the bill shifts cases from trained IRB decision-makers to less qualified PRRA officers, leading to more unreasonable refusals and increased judicial reviews at the Federal Court, and that it unfairly punishes all claimants for the actions of a few bad actors, recommending more training for IRB decision-makers rather than such broad measures.
Léonie Tchatat emphasized that Canada attracts talent but fails to integrate it, with Black and racialized francophone immigrants facing systemic racism, high unemployment, and barriers like credential recognition and lack of Canadian work experience. She proposed accelerating diploma recognition, investing in tailored integration models, explicitly fighting racism as part of integration policy, and measuring success through employment, housing, and retention outcomes, noting that francophone immigration outside Quebec is undermined by these integration failures.
Sam Routley stated that Canadian public support for immigration has declined due to perceptions that the system is poorly managed, with rapid intake increases, reliance on temporary migration, and weak enforcement undermining trust. He argued that this is not a cyclical adjustment but a structural challenge tied to declining social trust and emerging social divisions, and recommended tying immigration levels to housing and infrastructure capacity, reducing temporary streams, and conditioning permanent residency on integration outcomes like labour market participation and adherence to civic norms.
Dr. Yvonne Su argued that Canada’s asylum system is robust, with many claims rejected, and that the increase in asylum claims from international students—just 2% of the total—is concentrated in a few colleges with bad actors. She recommended penalizing exploitative consultants and colleges, expediting asylum decisions for international students, and better informing students of their options, while cautioning against overcorrection that could lead to exclusionary policies, citing the historical Chinese Exclusion Act as a warning.
Richard Kurland advocated for stronger security measures in immigration, including better resourcing of CSIS for background checks, financial disincentives for employers and schools enabling unauthorized activity, and more effective removal measures. He criticized the government for not providing adequate security resources for the Gaza family reunification program, which delayed processing, and highlighted systemic IT failures at IRCC, including over 150 siloed software contractors, as a barrier to efficient and transparent application processing.
The committee debated a motion from Martin Champoux to study the inequitable distribution of asylum seekers between provinces, focusing on impacts on public services, ways to make the system more equitable, and international practices like those in the European Union. The motion proposed at least three meetings and a government response, with Michelle Rempel Garner cautioning that any study must respect charter-protected mobility rights, and the committee agreed to proceed to a vote after hearing from the witnesses.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.