CIMM#34: Should government announced new immigration measures include additional resources intact?

My question really centres around this. What happens a lot is that the government takes the approach of robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is to say, they will introduce new immigration measures without actually providing additional immigration levels or resources to accommodate those new immigration measures. As a result, you have a huge backlog that would be impacted. This means that existing applications would be further delayed. The reality is that, with the privately sponsored refugee stream, there were significant delays even prior to the Afghanistan crisis.
When the government introduces new immigration measures, should they introduce them without ensuring that there are new resources and immigration level numbers to accommodate them, or should they do those special immigration measures with additional resources intact, both level numbers and staffing for processing?

Citizenship and Immigration Committee
Oct. 7th, 2022, 3 p.m.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

My question really centres around this. What happens a lot is that the government takes the approach of robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is to say, they will introduce new immigration measures without actually providing additional immigration levels or resources to accommodate those new immigration measures. As a result, you have a huge backlog that would be impacted. This means that existing applications would be further delayed. The reality is that, with the privately sponsored refugee stream, there were significant delays even prior to the Afghanistan crisis.

My question is for Deacon Rudy. 

When the government introduces new immigration measures, should they introduce them without ensuring that there are new resources and immigration level numbers to accommodate them, or should they do those special immigration measures with additional resources intact, both level numbers and staffing for processing?



Deacon Rudy Ovcjak
Director, Office for Refugees, Archdiocese of Toronto

Certainly, in my opinion, it would be prudent.... In any of these extraordinary situations like the Afghani or the Ukrainian crisis, where a response is needed and thought important enough for Parliament to act on, additional resources ought to be provided, absolutely. 

The problem we've always had is that resources are redeployed from processing existing refugee populations to now process the applications of this newly created target. That's patently unfair to the refugee populations who have been already waiting in the queue for many years and living in very intolerable situations. 

I think the levels plan should be adjusted accordingly and resources should be deployed.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much.

Yes, there's a way to address that, which is to do exactly as you are recommending.

Now, in terms of additional resources put in place, oftentimes the government will, with great fanfare and an announcement, say that they now have additional resources and that, going forward, immigration standards will be met and people will be processed in this period of time. Yet they do not address the fact that there are people in the backlog, thousands of people, and they're at the back of the queue because their standard has already been missed, but there's no measure to really tackle that backlog. 

What do you think the government should do to ensure that the backlog and those who have already applied are not being left further behind?




Deacon Rudy Ovcjak
Director, Office for Refugees, Archdiocese of Toronto

I think it's important to have almost a “first in, first out”, a first-come, first-served basis. We have applications that were submitted in 2017-18 and still haven't been processed, so I think first-come, first-served.... As they come in, they ought to be processed, as opposed to the current situation. Now with the Afghani crisis, they are put in the front of the queue, so everybody else is pushed back until we hit that 40,000 target, and there will be little movement in the other refugee populations. I think that's what is going to take place. 

It's early in the process right now, but our October number of arrivals has already decreased 50% from the year prior, so that's an indication that existing refugee populations already in the queue have been slowed.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

Could the government not have two parallel processes to ensure that those in the backlog are being targeted as well and, given the urgency of the current situation, that they also have another stream to do it? It's not robbing Peter to pay Paul, but having two parallel processes in place to address both the backlog and new applications.



Deacon Rudy Ovcjak
Director, Office for Refugees, Archdiocese of Toronto

That's a brilliant approach, and I think it would be one that I would absolutely support. Again, that kind of goes back to the point that, if you're going to set extraordinary targets, additional resources need to be deployed and provided for that additional stream.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP 

Thank you very much.

I have the same question for Mr. Jade.



Dory Jade
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants



In answer to this, we have proposed non-regulatory options, and this is why. If you look at the backlog, there are different sections. While refugees are very important, it is not the largest group. Reducing the largest group, the largest number of applications, which is temporary residents, would lead to resources being available for other streams, like permanent residency, including refugees. This is exactly what we proposed to the government and to IRCC. The fact that you reduce the backlog of temporary files will allow you more space. It's like a big machine that needs to move forward.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Because there are different streams, sometimes for the government to conflate one stream with another doesn't make sense either. Therefore, should the government not ensure that there are adequate resources, both in staffing and in immigration levels, in place for each of the different streams? Otherwise there'll always be a stream left behind—
https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/34/jenny-kwan-15/

Latest posts

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Hallelujah to progress being made on the bill.

NDP-2 requires the Minister of Finance to report to Parliament and the public on how reducing the lowest federal personal income tax rate affects the value of non-refundable tax credits, which are calculated using that same tax rate. This is a critical measure, because lowering the personal income tax rate not only reduces the amount of tax owed; it also diminishes the value of tax credits such as the disability tax credit, the age credit and the caregiver credit. These are important supports, particularly for lower-income Canadians, seniors and people with disabilities. For individuals who claim these tax credits, the net benefit of the government's proposed tax cut will be significantly reduced.

The National Disability Network, March of Dimes Canada and Inclusion Canada have also raised these concerns that some claimants may be worse off overall, as the drop in credit value could outweigh the savings from the lower tax rate.

Recent testimony before this committee from the finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, and senior finance official Stefania Bartucci confirms that the government is aware of the unintended consequences of the reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate on non-refundable tax credits. On October 6, 2025, the finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, told this committee, “we heard concerns regarding unintended consequences of the tax cuts on some disability tax credit recipients. I can assure you, Madam Chair, that we are working on resolving them.”

By mandating a transparent, timely report to Parliament and the public, this amendment ensures that the full impact of the tax change is understood and that vulnerable groups are not unintentionally disadvantaged. This amendment also holds the minister accountable to his commitment to addressing these impacts and ensures that Parliament can monitor progress on mitigating harm to vulnerable Canadians.

Madam Chair, I hope committee members will support this amendment.

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I would say that's generally the case. If the work permit they obtained was originally connected to the public policy, that's correct. I don't know if that's the situation in all cases. In some cases, applicants may have had an LMIA-based work permit to begin with.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
That's right. However, under the special immigration measure, the LMIA is not required.  I have a list of applicants in those circumstances. Their work permit renewal application was rejected. They were asked to submit an LMIA, which makes no sense. I want to flag that as a deep concern now emerging for people whose open work permits are being rejected as they wait for their permanent resident status. At this rate, given the immigration levels plan numbers and the processing delays happening, and with the number of applicants in place, you can imagine that it's going to take something like eight years to get through the backlog of people getting their PR status. This means that if they are trying to get their pension, they will not be able to do so for eight years, because they are required to provide proof of permanent residence.
I want to flag this as a major concern. I hope the department will take action to fix the error being applied to applicants whose open work permits are being rejected under this stream.  Can I get a confirmation from officials that this will be undertaken?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that issue has been raised with the department already, and we're looking into it to see what exactly happened in those situations.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Okay. Officials are aware of it, and yet it's still happening.  I have cases coming to me that are happening. I'm about to prepare a giant pile of this stuff for the minister, so I hope the officials will fix that.  The other thing related to the pension, of course, is lengthy delays for people to get their permanent status.  Based on the immigration levels plan and the number of applicants in place, is it the officials' anticipation that it will take about eight years to get those applications processed?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We have looked at that possibility. Certainly, it will take longer than we had previously indicated to the committee. I would note that the first year of the levels plan is the fixed year. The years that follow, in this case, 2026 and 2027, are flexible. There are opportunities to adjust those numbers in the future, and that could affect that timeline. It's hard to say whether eight years will be the timeline, but it will be longer than had been originally predicted because the numbers have gone down.

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Aside from looking at patterns of potential violators—the groups and organizations taking advantage of students with these fraudulent letters of acceptance—will you be including in the analysis what types of institutions are being utilized for these fraudulent letters? In other words, is it private institutions versus public institutions, colleges versus universities and so on? Will that be part of the analysis?

Bronwyn MayDirector General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's not always the case that a letter originates from an institution. We would need to look at various possible sources.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Maybe I can reframe that.
Obviously, as these are fraudulent letters of acceptance, they wouldn't be issued by the institutions. However, regarding the list of institutions being used for the purpose of these fraudulent letters, I would be interested in obtaining information to determine what percentage are private institutions and public institutions, how many of them are colleges, how many of them are universities and so on. That will tell us very specific information that I think is important when trying to tackle fraudulent activities.

 

Bronwyn May, Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I completely agree. That's a very important line of analysis.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
I will make the further request to make sure you share this information with the committee. I'll argue that this information should not be kept secret. It should be public and transparent—shared with all Canadians—so that we're aware of what the landscape is and of how international students are being taken advantage of. With respect to that analysis, will there be information and data on what countries are being targeted?

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates