Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen arrives at a press conference in Ottawa. (Photo: The Canadian Press)But those advocating for the government to do something before backlogs threaten the integrity of the system say they are running up against a Liberal government seeming to have lost interest in spending any more money or political capital to help asylum seekers. The starting point is the designated country of origins system, which determines how fast asylum claims are heard based on where they are from — a system that should, in theory, help weed out unfounded claims faster. Internal evaluations have shown that hasn't quite worked, and the system has drawn the ire of refugee advocates for creating a two-tier approach that includes unworkable timelines for hearing cases and their appeals. Elements of the program have already been struck down by the Federal Court.
Trump election, cabinet shuffle factors in delay
Story continues after slideshow:
"Support has dissipated significantly because of a series of factors, the most important one being the emergence of Donald Trump."A spokesman for Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said only that the department continues to review the policy. Claims have been rising steadily since the fall of 2015, but the issue shot to attention when hundreds of people began illegally crossing into Canada from the United States earlier this year. The Liberals have been under pressure from both Conservatives and the NDP to act, albeit in different ways, but so far haven't done anything. If backlogs build in the system, the government will find itself in the exact same situation that led to the DCO being instituted in the first place — long waits for decisions that inadvertently lure those who have weaker claims to come to Canada, because they can work while they wait for a decision and get some health care in the meantime. The IRB is aware of the problem and has instituted reforms, including allowing claims from Syria, Iraq, Eritrea and as of June 1, Afghanistan, Burundi, Egypt, and Yemen to be decided without a hearing. Those countries were selected because claims from there have high acceptance rates, there is a high volume of them and most are generally not complex. Sources say claims like those are among the ones that could go to the Immigration Department, as opposed to the IRB, for adjudication. The idea is fraught with difficulty.
Refugees walk along railway tracks from the United States to enter Canada at Emerson, Man. on Feb 26. (Photo: Lyle Stafford/Reuters)There's a big difference between the work the department ordinarily does and the work refugee judges do, said Vancouver immigration and refugee lawyer Peter Edelmann. "It's very different from an individual perspective in terms of the stakes and from a constitutional perspective in terms of the law to make a fast decision on an . . . application for a skilled worker than it is to send someone back where they're at risk of being tortured and killed," he said. The very reason the IRB was established in 1989 was because of a Supreme Court hearing saying refuge claimants required an oral hearing, leading the government to establish the arms-length quasi judicial tribunal. Giving bureaucrats a say in refugee determination risks politicizing the system, said Sean Rehaag, a professor at Osgoode Hall law school who follows the IRB's decision-making process. Imagine the Canadian government is in the middle of difficult NAFTA negotiations and had to decide on whether or not to expedite a particular group of Mexican claims, he hypothesized. For the civil servants on the file, there would be extraordinary pressure, and in reality, the current number of claims doesn't invite the need for dramatic change, he said. "Refugee decision making is only a tiny fraction of the Canadian government's budget and they can make the so-called crisis go away by adequately funding the IRB," he said.