Fault Lines examines the pressures pulling Canadian society apart and the principles that can hold it together. We look beyond headlines to understand how institutions, communities, and democratic norms are fraying. Our mission is to show how better choices can repair what is broken.
This report should detonate in Ottawa.
Two former senior insiders, a past director general of policy at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, have documented something extraordinary for the C.D. Howe Institute. Faced with a surge of asylum claims under the Liberal government’s lax border posture, Canada’s refugee adjudication system chose to abandon scrutiny, rather than tighten it.
To cope with spiking volumes, the Immigration and Refugee Board adopted shortcuts that allowed tens of thousands of claims to be approved, bypassing the normal process.
As asylum claims surged and backlogs mounted, the Immigration and Refugee Board eliminated oral hearings, which have long been the core safeguard in determining if asylum claims are legitimate or not. Beyond that step—essentially moving from a vetting process to a rubber stamp—claimants from high-acceptance countries were streamlined, evidentiary demands were relaxed, and adjudicators were pressured to clear inventory rather than probe inconsistencies. The system retained the language of individualized assessment, but in practice, it shifted from testing claims to processing them, turning refugee determination into a throughput exercise.
No credibility test. No cross-examination. No real scrutiny.
Refugee status is not a library card. It is a declaration that someone faces persecution and cannot return home. It confers permanent consequences for Canada’s future. It is supposed to be granted after rigorous examination.
Instead, Canada built an assembly line.
The approval rate tells you everything. Canada now approves roughly 80 percent of asylum claims. In much of Europe, the rate is closer to 40 percent. That difference is not trivial. It is a signal.
As the authors explain, global asylum flows respond to approval rates. Migrants know which systems are permissive. Smugglers certainly do. If Canada approves four out of five claims, Canada becomes the destination of choice, and our current backlog now stands at roughly 300,000.
High approval rates attract more claims. More claims overwhelm adjudicators. Overwhelmed adjudicators cut corners. Corner-cutting drives approval rates higher still. The system feeds itself.
Canada’s refugee adjudication system has become compromised due to a surge in asylum claims. To cope with the increased volume, the Immigration and Refugee Board implemented shortcuts, approving claims without full oral hearings, credibility tests, or cross-examination. This has led to a significantly higher approval rate compared to Europe, attracting more asylum seekers and overwhelming the system. This “rubber-stamping” approach undermines the integrity of the refugee system, strains social services, and erodes public trust.
The article claims Canada's refugee approval rate is significantly higher than Europe's. What are the potential consequences of this disparity?
The author suggests auditing past refugee claims. What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of reopening approved cases?
How does the article link the refugee system to broader societal issues like housing shortages and strained social services?
Comments (0)