Immigration Minister defends proposed changes to asylum rules through border bill

Of note. Hard for refugee advocates to admit need for limits or the extent of misrepresentation:

…Canada has seen an increase in asylum claims from international students, who have been the target of immigration restrictions, in the last few years. Over the past year, 17 per cent of asylum claims came from students, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. 

Ms. Metlege Diab answered questions about the asylum implications of Bill C-12 along with Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree on Feb. 9 at the Senate’s national-security committee.

On Thursday, she was questioned by senators on the social affairs committee, which is also studying the bill. 

Senators also heard unease expressed from a range of witnesses, including the UN Refugee Agency.

One of the concerns is that the proposed one-year cutoff for asylum hearings would be measured from the first time someone entered Canada. The bill specifies that the one-year period “begins on the day after the day of their first entry.”

Refugee advocacy groups warned senators this could mean that someone who came here on holiday as a child with their parents would be barred from a refugee hearing decades later.

They also hit back at suggestions that foreign nationals claiming asylum, including international students who had been here for more than a year, were more likely to lodge fraudulent claims. 

Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, a non-profit advocacy organization for refugee and immigrant rights, was among those who addressed the Senate committee. 

“Suggestions before committees that certain claimants are likely to be fraudulent because they are students or because they have been here more than a year are as unfounded as they are offensive,” Ms. Sreenivasan told senators.

“These blunt measures disproportionately harm the most vulnerable: women fleeing violence, LGBTQIA+ individuals, minors, those with mental health challenges or people from unstable regions.”…

Source: Immigration Minister defends proposed changes to asylum rules through border bill

Youssif: Canada has a hidden asylum-policy problem

Another example of a broken system?

…As I document in a new study for the C.D. Howe Institute, this policy is problematic. Not all asylum claims are truthful, and documents may be forged. But this is impossible to detect without asking questions. The asylum hearing also serves as a screen for national security and program integrity risk, and must be halted if red flags emerge during questioning to allow the relevant minister to be notified. That mechanism cannot be engaged if claimants are never questioned.

More broadly, the IRB’s recognition rate for asylum claims has climbed to 80 per cent of claims decided on their merits, excluding files summarily closed where the claim was withdrawn or abandoned. In comparison, in 2024 Ireland accepted 30 per cent of claims on the merits, Sweden 40 per cent, and Germany 59 per cent. Research suggests that acceptance rates are a significant factor in asylum seekers’ choice of a destination country.

It is difficult to isolate the effect of any single policy change on the level of new claims, given multiple factors such as rising global migration pressures and changes to temporary immigration policies. That said, it is worth noting that the number of new asylum claims in Canada has increased since the IRB began rapidly accepting claims. A backlog of 17,000 claims in 2016 has grown to nearly 300,000 in 2025. Policies such as File Review, intended to reduce the backlog, have not only failed to do so, but may have reinforced perceptions of speed, success, and reduced scrutiny, signalling to the world that Canada’s asylum system is easy.

How was it possible for an adjudicative tribunal to implement a policy that dispenses with the act of adjudication?

Perhaps part of the answer is that the institution cannot be seen clearly. Its unique status and structure have rendered it opaque to the rest of government, which otherwise might have corrected an overreach. It may be time to rethink this model and consider options that provide ministers and cabinet with direct visibility and policy oversight, while preserving fair and independent adjudication.

James Yousif is a lawyer, former director of policy at IRCC and former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

Source: Canada has a hidden asylum-policy problem

PBO: Projecting the Cost of the Interim Federal Health Program 

Informative PBO Report:

Highlights

  • The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides limited and temporary healthcare coverage to some groups of foreign nationals who are not eligible for health insurance from provinces or territories.
  • PBO estimates that total IFHP costs will reach almost $1.0 billion in 2025‑26 and rise to over $1.5 billion by 2029‑30. PBO projects that annual growth in IFHP costs will average well below the average growth observed over the past five years, reflecting both a moderated increase in the number of beneficiaries and a more gradual rise in average annual costs.
  • Budget 2025 indicated that a “modest co-payment model” will be introduced to the Interim Federal Health Program for supplemental health products or services. This change to the program is not reflected in our projection. Including this new measure would reduce our estimate of the total cost for the IFHP program.

Summary

The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides “limited and temporary healthcare coverage to some groups of foreign nationals who are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and who are not eligible for health insurance from provinces or territories.”

Between 2020-21 and 2024-25, the cost of the program grew from $211 million to $896 million as both the number of beneficiaries and the cost per beneficiary increased significantly. PBO estimates that total IFHP costs will reach almost $1.0 billion in 2025‑26 and rise to over $1.5 billion by 2029‑30 (Table S-1).Table S-1Projected IFHP cost, millions of dollars

2025­-262026­-272027­-282028­-292029­-30
Total cost9891,1041,2321,3761,522

We project that average annual growth for IFHP costs will be 11.2 per cent between 2025‑26 and 2029‑30, well below the 33.7 per cent average growth observed over the past five years. This slower growth reflects both a moderated increase in the number of beneficiaries and a more gradual rise in average annual costs.

Budget 2025 indicated that a “modest co-payment model” will be introduced to the Interim Federal Health Program for supplemental health products or services. This change to the program is not reflected in our projection. Including this new measure would reduce our estimate of the total cost for the IFHP program.

Source: Projecting the Cost of the Interim Federal Health Program

Toronto Sun commentary: LILLEY: False asylum claims drive refugee health-care program toward $1B price tag

Conservatives to propose barring non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims

Not sure whether this would withstand a Charter challenge but clever move by the Conservatives to choose this issue which most Canadians, immigrants and non-immigrants, would likely support:

The Conservatives are planning to introduce a motion today to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims.

The motion also calls on the government to prevent asylum claims from people whose cases are still working their way through the courts.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said on social media Monday non-citizens who commit serious crimes “must be forced to leave our country.”

The Conservative motion cites an increase in extortion cases and what they call lax bail laws as reasons for the motion.

British Columbia Premier David Eby and several big city mayors have also pushed Ottawa to close what they call loopholes around asylum claims following a significant rise in extortion violence in his province and many others.

Delegates at the recent Conservative party convention in Calgary called for similar changes to the immigration and justice systems when they voted in favour of a policy proposal saying Canadian taxpayers should not pay for the “rehabilitation of foreign nationals.”

Source: Conservatives to propose barring non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims

These migrants escaped war and disaster to come to Canada. Should they go home or be offered permanent residence? It’s not that simple

Good call for greater care and transparency regarding these programs, including consideration of likely impact should these groups not be able to return:

…Seeking clear criteria for humanitarian programs

Ninette Kelley, chair of the World Refugee and Migration Council, said temporary humanitarian programs have a place but require very clear criteria and a limited time frame. Sometimes there could be benefits if Canada can quickly admit more people at risk on temporary status than it would under slower and more modest permanent resettlement.

She said each of these special programs should be independently evaluated. While Canada can’t take in everyone, she said the intake levels earmarked for humanitarian migrants should be open for debate.

“Government immigration programs change so frequently and not in a transparent manner,” said Kelley. “We could continue in a humanitarian tradition by accepting more than we do, but we should be careful and transparent about how we arrive at those numbers, who we assist, how we process them, and what kind of status they’re afforded, which is not happening at the present.”

The Immigration Department began developing a “crisis response framework” since 2023 to better anticipate, respond to and manage international crises, though little is known about it publicly.

In a statement, the department said the framework has been “formalized” since early 2025 and is meant to be a set of tools and guidelines that helps officials proactively assess emerging situations, determine an appropriate and feasible response, and carry it out from start to finish.

“Any potential new measures would be carefully assessed to balance humanitarian needs against available levels space and existing program capacity,” it said, underlying the need to be more proactive, better co-ordinate with key partners, and align with immigration levels plans and “domestic welcoming capacity.”

Source: These migrants escaped war and disaster to come to Canada. Should they go home or be offered permanent residence? It’s not that simple

Asylum rulings made without a hearing raise security and fraud concerns, C.D. Howe Institute report says

Of note:

The federal refugee tribunal’s practice of assessing some asylum claims without first questioning applicants could heighten the risk of fraud and weaken security screening, a report by a former director of policy at the ImmigrationDepartment says. 

The report, to be published on Thursday by the C.D. Howe Institute, expresses concern that the Immigration and Refugee Board’s assessment of asylum claims from certain countries without hearings removes an important layer of scrutiny. 

An access to information request by the report’s author, James Yousif, found that between Jan. 1, 2019 and Feb. 28, 2023, the IRB accepted 24,599 asylum claims into Canada without personally questioning the applicants in hearings. 

Mr. Yousif, a former IRB adjudicator, says that practice accelerates decision making, but has not reduced the huge backlog of claims. 

By September, 2025, there was a backlog of almost 296,000 pending cases. 

Under a file-review policy established in 2019, the IRB drew up a list of countries, which was removed from public view in 2020, from where claims could be assessed without an interview, the report says. 

Mr. Yousif argues in the report that all asylum claims should be adjudicated through in-person hearings “without shortcuts.” 

He writes that approving asylum claims without a hearing “may facilitate fraud and encourage more fraudulent claims.”

“Asking questions is also a part of Canada’s security screening architecture and cannot be skipped without increasing national security risks.” …

Source: Asylum rulings made without a hearing raise security and fraud concerns, C.D. Howe Institute report says

Urback: It is the right time – socially and economically – to scale back extended health benefits for refugees

Not seeing much pushback:

…The problem plaguing the IFHP both in 2012 and in 2026 is the perception of unfairness: Canada’s public health care system does not include coverage for extended services and prescriptions for Canadian citizens and permanent residents, but it does for those eligible for the IFHP. 

There are various arguments that justify that discrepancy, including the fact that refugees often arrive with complex medical needs after years of neglect, and it may be cheaper in the long run to treat them up front. There are various provincial programs that do cover the cost of prescriptions and extended services for low-income Canadians, but asylum-seekers will have more trouble navigating the complex bureaucracy, especially if there is a language barrier. IFHP keeps it simple. 

These arguments were more persuasive in 2012, when the program was a fraction of its current size, and there wasn’t the widespread perception that Canada’s refugee system was being abused. In 2012, roughly 128,000 people were covered by the IFHP. In 2024-2025, that number exploded to 623,365, with expenses totalling nearly $900-million. …

There’s also a social imperative for bringing refugee benefits closer in line with those afforded to Canadian citizens. That’s because, bluntly, the Trudeau government destroyed the immigration consensus in Canada; it brought in so many newcomers, so quickly, that integration was impossible and resentment inevitable. The Carney government is now tightening the rules for student visas, work permits, and asylum claimants, but it will take a lot more than a change in numbers for Canadians to again believe that immigration is a good thing, and to trust that our processes are rigorous and fair. 

Asking refugee-claimants to budget for prescriptions and extended coverage, as many other Canadians do, helps to ameliorate that wounded perception of fairness. Arguably the changes to the IFHP needs to go further, but this is a necessary first step. 

Source: It is the right time – socially and economically – to scale back extended health benefits for refugees

Canada will require refugees and asylum seekers to co-pay for health care starting in May

Significant change. Major expenses still fully covered however:

Starting May 1, Ottawa will require sponsored refugees and asylum seekers to co-pay for their health-care coverage, a move that critics worry will lead to delayed and possibly denied access to care.

The co-payment plan — first revealed in Ottawa’s 2025 budget in November — will apply to refugees sponsored to Canada by the federal government and community groups in their first year in the country, as well as asylum claimants who arrive at the border for protection.

Patients will still be fully covered under the Interim Federal Health Program’s basic plan to see doctors and specialists, access hospital care, and for diagnostics.

However, they will now be asked to pay out of pocket 30 per cent of the costs of services such as dental, optometry and physiotherapy under its supplemental benefit plan. They will also be charged a $4 flat rate on each prescription….

Source: Canada will require refugees and asylum seekers to co-pay for health care starting in May, Co-payments for supplemental health benefits

ICYMI – ‘A win on all fronts’: Federal Court quashes Ottawa’s attempt to stop legal challenge on cabinet secrets in Canada-U.S. refugee deal

Not all that surprised:

A Federal Court judge has rejected the Canadian government’s attempt to throw out a challenge by advocacy groups seeking greater transparency on how Ottawa decides to designate the United States as a safe country for refugees.

The legal challenge by the Canadian Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario asked the government to pull back the curtain on its internal reviews regarding the Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. In its application, the groups argue that Ottawa must be transparent about the process and ensure it complies with Canada’s Charter of Rights and its international legal obligations.

Under the bilateral refugee pact, which was introduced in 2004, most asylum seekers are required to claim protection in the first safe country they arrive in. This means Canada can turn back refugees arriving from the U.S. on the basis they should pursue their claims in the U.S.

The government brought forward a motion to strike the legal challenge last year, before the case could start. In a ruling on Monday, Justice Alan Diner rejected that request, saying the application was not “doomed to fail” and is strong enough to warrant a full hearing.

Diner wrote that at the core of the government’s argument is the question of what constitutes a decision when it’s required to conduct an ongoing review — “a legal question that should not be answered on a truncated record.”

The judge also granted the applicants “public interest standing,” while recognizing that the advocacy groups themselves are not “directly affected” individuals like refugee claimants.

While the government argued the challenge was filed too late, Diner granted an extension and agreed with the applicants in finding that the delay was reasonable because the legal pathway to challenge the review process only became clear following a 2023 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

Maureen Silcoff, a co-counsel for the refugee lawyer association, described the ruling as “a win on many fronts.”

The question of why the Canadian government is continuing to designate the U.S. a safe country is more pertinent now than ever, Silcoff told the Star. “All we have to do is look south of the border and we see that the current administration has essentially eradicated the asylum process,” she said….

Source: ‘A win on all fronts’: Federal Court quashes Ottawa’s attempt to stop legal challenge on cabinet secrets in Canada-U.S. refugee deal

How claiming to be a refugee became a get-out-of-jail-free card

Pretty clear case of abuse of asylum that undermines support for refugees:

This month, B.C.’s newly minted Extortion Task Force was zeroing in on 14 foreign nationals accused of participating in an extortion crime wave currently terrorizing the Lower Mainland.

Starting in earnest in 2023, organized gangs have been roving through Surrey and Abbotsford demanding large sums of cash from South Asian businesses, and then attacking non-payers with arson or gunfire.

More than 130 such incidents have occurred just in 2025, yielding a weekly tally of shootings and vehicle fires. This rash of violence is one of the main reasons that Ottawa declared India’s Bishnoi Gang a terrorist entity in September, accusing them of generating terror among Canadian diaspora communities “through extortion and intimidation.”

But according to an exclusive report by Stewart Bell at Global News, just as the Canada Border Services Agency began investigating 14 alleged extortionists, all of them claimed to be refugees, instantly stopping the investigation in its tracks.

In a Thursday statement, Surrey Mayor Brenda Locke called out how the “international thugs and criminals” abused the asylum system in order to “extend their stay in Canada.”

Guests in our country who break our laws need to be sent home,” she said.

The case of the Surrey 14 is one of the more brazen abuses of the refugee system to date. But it’s nothing new that a foreign national would claim refugee status to evade deportation. Or that asylum status would be used as a tool of foreign criminal gangs.

Because, as the Surrey case illustrates, it works.

If the accused are indeed extortionists, they’re likely to eventually face some kind of removal order or criminal prosecution. But by merely telling border authorities “I am seeking asylum,” they’ve potentially obtained up to two additional years on Canadian soil.

As of the most recent estimates of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, there is a backlog of at least 24 months until refugee claimants can have their case put before an immigration officer.

As such, any foreign national claiming to be a refugee can be assured of at least two years of living in Canada under the status of an asylum claimant….

Source: How claiming to be a refugee became a get-out-of-jail-free card