The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met to study the provincial distribution of asylum seekers in Canada, hearing from Landon Johnston, a Calgary city councillor appearing as an individual; Adam Bercovitch Sadinsky, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers; and Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees. Departmental officials Catherine Scott and Jason Hollmann also appeared.
Landon Johnston argued that Calgary and Alberta are already strained by high migration and cannot absorb more asylum seekers without additional federal funding, citing a 52% increase in low-income subsidy applications since 2018, a teacher strike in 2025, and 91,000 students in Alberta lacking sufficient English skills. He questioned why Quebec has not invested more in schools and services before seeking redistribution, and he asked that other provinces meet Alberta’s standard of investment rather than expecting Alberta to absorb consequences of choices made elsewhere.
Adam Bercovitch Sadinsky emphasized that equitable redistribution of refugee claimants must be voluntary and ensure access to legal services, which are a patchwork across provinces—for example, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have no refugee legal aid funding, and Alberta does not fund the completion of the basis of claim form. He recommended a coordinated national legal aid strategy with federal funding tied to national standards, noting that inadequate legal aid leads to more appeals and higher costs, and that Bill C-12’s shift to the pre-removal risk assessment process makes legal representation even more critical.
Gauri Sreenivasan argued that Canada has the infrastructure to handle refugee claimants but lacks a national coordinated plan, proposing five pillars: reception centres for orientation, sustained federal funding for transitional housing (scaling up the interim housing assistance program, or IHAP, with longer-term and direct funding to civil society), ending restrictions on settlement services for claimants, ensuring adequate legal aid, and streamlining the claims process. She disagreed with framing the issue as a competition between claimants and local residents, stating that dedicated housing for claimants is more efficient than emergency hotels, and she called for exemptions under Bill C-12 regulations for cases involving rapid country condition changes, moratorium countries, and family reunification.
Catherine Scott, assistant deputy minister, stated that asylum claims have dropped 35% compared to the previous year and 59% since 2024, and that the government has invested about $1.9 billion in IHAP since 2019, with hotels closed as of September 2025. She noted that voluntary relocation agreements with New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have moved over 290 claimants, and that the department continues to engage provinces on voluntary relocation, emphasizing that any movement must be voluntary and based on local capacity.
Jason Hollmann, director general, confirmed that the department’s position is that movement of claimants must be voluntary, citing charter considerations, and that the legal framework does not allow for involuntary redistribution. He added that Bill C-12’s measures aim to deter misuse and address bottlenecks, and that the department consults legal services on asylum system issues.
During questions, Johnston reiterated that Calgary is already doing its fair share and that forced redistribution would increase competition for services and raise property taxes. Sreenivasan stressed that longer-term and higher IHAP funding is needed for planning, and that eligibility rules for settlement services should be changed to support integration. Scott confirmed that the department is not directly funding hotels, that IHAP funding is $564 million over three years, and that failed asylum claimants receive IFHP coverage until removal. Hollmann noted that the department cannot confirm whether all temporary residents whose permits are ending are leaving, and that the European systems are not directly comparable due to different housing and work permit models.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.