Liberals' Fast-Track Asylum Policy Criticized for Security Risks and System Strain
As Canada's immigration system, particularly regarding refugees, faces intense public scrutiny, Justice Minister Sean Fraser has defended the government's approach, stating, "We are dealing with, in some instances, some of the most vulnerable people in the world." However, critics argue that the Liberal handling of immigration, including Fraser's oversight from 2021 to 2023, has led to significant flaws in the asylum process that warrant serious examination.
Mass Approval of Refugee Claims Without Proper Vetting
For years, immigration officials have been mass-approving refugee applications from some of the world's most dangerous countries by rubber-stamping paperwork without conducting in-person hearings. This practice has resulted in untold numbers of fraudsters, terrorists, and criminals obtaining protected person status in Canada. Once granted this status, individuals gain access to generous state benefits and face a much higher legal bar for deportation if convicted of crimes, posing potential security threats to Canadian communities.
The "File Review" System and Its Consequences
A comprehensive narrative of this systemic issue was detailed in a January report by the C.D. Howe Institute, authored by James Yousif, a former immigration tribunal adjudicator and government policy director. The report explains that in 2016, the federal refugee tribunal became overwhelmed with claims, nearing the point of dissolution. In a desperate attempt to maintain operations, the tribunal implemented a shortcut called "file review" to approve asylum claims, reduce backlogs, and boost processing numbers.
According to government descriptions, "file review" fast-tracked claims from countries and claim types with over an 80% acceptance rate, those supported by reliable identity documents, cases where evidence of risk was not ambiguous, or situations where complex legal or factual issues rarely arose during hearings. This was publicly framed as a resource-saving measure that cut processing time in half, but it has led to significant security oversights.
High-Risk Countries on the Fast-Track List
The countries that qualified for this rubber-stamping process included:
- Afghanistan
- Burundi
- Djibouti
- Egypt
- Eritrea
- Iran
- Iraq
- Libya
- Nigeria
- Pakistan
- Russia
- Rwanda
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent
- Sudan
- Syria
- Turkey
- Yemen
While individuals from these nations may genuinely face danger, these regions are also known for terrorism and organized crime. The fast-track security screening not only potentially endangers Canadians but also allows terrorists to follow legitimate refugees who settle in Canada. This has been particularly troubling for Yazidi refugees—former sex slaves of ISIS—who reported harassment in early 2019 through phone calls from Arabic-speaking men and texts referencing their enslavement.
Self-Perpetuating Policy and Rising Acceptance Rates
Once a country or claim type was placed on the fast-track list, it became difficult to remove because the policy generated numerous positive asylum decisions, reinforcing its eligibility for continued fast-tracking. As Yousif noted, "The policy feeds itself with data that have been produced by the policy itself." Consequently, Canada's acceptance rate for asylum claims surged from 63% in 2018 to 80% in 2024, indicating a system that may prioritize speed over thorough assessment.
Broader Implications and Financial Strain
This is not the first controversy to impact the Liberal immigration system's reputation. Recently, Parliamentarians expressed alarm at a Parliamentary Budget Officer report projecting that federal health coverage for asylum applicants and rejects will escalate to $1.5 billion by 2030. Additionally, it was revealed over the summer that the immigration department forgave thousands of foreigners' criminal records, making them legally admissible to Canada. Meanwhile, the Canadian Border Services Agency reports nearly 30,000 individuals with deportations "in progress" who remain in the country despite not meeting legal requirements to stay.
The combination of these factors paints a picture of an asylum system under significant strain, with potential security vulnerabilities that demand urgent attention and reform to balance humanitarian obligations with national safety.
