Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

No surprise. Reactions below:

…But some experts have warned that suspending the agreement could open the door to an unknown number of asylum claimants who are currently ineligible for protection in Canada, at a time when the federal government is striving to reduce immigration because of pressure on housing.

Fen Hampson, president of the World Refugee & Migration Council and a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Mr. Trump’s decision “puts our government on the horns of a real dilemma.”

“The U.S is no longer providing equivalent protection and Canada faces a significant moral and potentially legal obligation to offer asylum to those who cannot get protection in the U.S.,” he said.

“The Canadian government must now decide whether it wishes to exercise its authority to suspend the agreement, create a broader exemption or stick with the status quo,” he said in an e-mail. “With tens of thousands of asylum claims still pending in Canada and fears that suspending the [agreement] could lead to increased irregular border crossing, the government may prefer to do nothing.” …

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario have launched a judicial review of the Safe Third Country Agreement, seeking to declare it invalid. Maureen Silcoff, a lawyer who is representing plaintiffs in that case with lawyer Sujit Choudhry, said the agreement requires countries to follow the UN Refugee Convention, but the U.S. has chosen to stop adjudicating asylum claims. 

“The agreement itself anticipated that a situation may arise that requires a suspension,” Ms. Silcoff said.

“That day has arrived. The basis for the agreement has evaporated. It was predicated on the U.S. having a functional asylum system. The U.S. suspension of asylum determination means that the very foundation of the agreement has disappeared.”…

Lawyer James Yousif, who was policy director to former immigration minister Jason Kenney, said the U.S. government’s decision to halt all refugee claims would likely lead the Federal Court to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires what he describes as a “functioning” asylum system.

“The extent of a President’s ability to halt asylum without legislation is unclear. But if asylum is halted and deportations begin, the consequences for Canada will be immediate,” he wrote in an e-mail.

If the pact is struck down, Mr. Yousif said, that would allow millions of people currently in the U.S. who are covered by the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply for asylum here.

“That would represent an existential threat to Canada’s immigration system,” he said.

Sharry Aiken, a professor at Queen’s University specializing in immigration and refugee law, said Mr. Trump’s latest edict on halting asylum claims is “the nail in the coffin” of the Safe Third Country Agreement.

She said other anti-migrant policies he has enacted should have already prompted the Canadian government to revisit whether it is still valid.

“If we had any doubts before, we shouldn’t now,” she said. “The agreement is predicated on responsibility sharing and that people have access to asylum in the U.S.”

Prof. Aiken predicted suspending the agreement is not going to lead to Mr. Trump being “upset with Canada” or a big influx of asylum seekers coming from the U.S.

“If necessary, we need to ensure that the IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board] is adequately resourced to deal with a potential increase in the number of claims,” she said.

Source: Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada 

2025/11/17 Leave a comment

Perhaps I am a bit thick, but parents of foreign-born adoptees have to commit to raising their adopted child in Canada and thus would most likely meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days within a five-year period.  

The direct route to citizenship for adoptees was in response to parental pressure to have a faster route than PR sponsorship. But making that choice meant the adopted child was considered the first generation born abroad, like any naturally born child born abroad.

Appears more a matter of identity and convenience rather than fundamental practicalities to me:

….Two lawyers specializing in citizenship have submitted a briefing paper to the Senate committee, which will consider Bill C-3 this week. They argue that the bill should exempt children adopted from abroad from the substantial-connection test. 

The paper’s co-author, Toronto lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who filed the successful constitutional challenge to the Citizenship Act on behalf of Lost Canadian clients, said it is “deeply unfair to the families of these children to treat them differently than children adopted domestically.”

“It also violates Canada’s international treaty obligations and the Charter,” he said in an e-mail. 

Its other author, immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff, suggested that unless Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada addresses the issue it could face a legal challenge. 

“IRCC is fully aware of the issue. Adoptive parents and MPs have been advocating on their behalf for years. We do not understand their reluctance to address this issue at this moment, when C-3 is before Parliament. Amending C-3 would avoid unnecessary litigation.”

Don Chapman, a leading advocate for Lost Canadians, who is giving evidence to the Senate committee this week, said, “I don’t want to leave any child behind.” 

But he expressed concern that amending the bill in the Senate may lead to it being held up when it returns to the Commons. …

Source: Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Family paid smugglers to reunite after separation by CBSA at Quebec border

2025/08/19 Leave a comment

Does appear to be an unnecessary disconnect:

A Haitian family was separated at the Quebec-U.S. border this spring due to what an immigration lawyer calls a “legal glitch” some fear could become a wider problem as more migrants flee the United States into Canada. 

The family attempted to enter Canada at the official land crossing in Lacolle, Que., in March, according to immigration documents. 

After reviewing their case, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers allowed only the father in because he has a close relative in Canada. His pregnant wife and seven-year-old daughter were turned away.

Three weeks later, facing pregnancy complications, the mother paid smugglers nearly $4,000 to get herself and her daughter across the border on foot through melting snow to reunite with the father. 

“The border agent should never have separated that family,” said Paule Robitaille, a Montreal-based immigration lawyer who has been working on their case. 

Advocates and lawyers fear family separation could become more common as more migrants in the United States seek asylum in Canada through exceptions outlined in a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Canada, and border services face pressure to limit the number of arrivals. 

Smuggling only option, says father

The father says the family decided to come to Canada after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to end a humanitarian program his predecessor Joe Biden created to prevent people from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua from being deported due to turmoil in their countries. 

It’s under that program that the man’s wife and daughter arrived in the U.S. in 2024, three years after he claimed asylum there. 

CBC has agreed not to name the family due to threats the couple have faced in Haiti related to denouncing corruption and sexual violence through their work.

…Restricting access to asylum 

Typically, the close-relative exception to the STCA allows families to enter together; whichever person has the relative in Canada becomes their spouse and children’s anchor, said Maureen Silcoff, a Toronto-based immigration lawyer and former decision-maker at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). 

“People who are turned back at the border in this type of circumstance are subject to what I would call a legal glitch,” Silcoff said, referring to the Haitian family’s situation. 

She believes the glitch is an oversight in the definition of anchor relative outlined in the Safe Third Country Agreement — which doesn’t include pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) applicants like the father. 

It’s a complicated technicality that could prevent people with valid reasons to seek protection in Canada from being able to have their cases considered, both Robitaille and Silcoff say….

Source: Family paid smugglers to reunite after separation by CBSA at Quebec border

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Immigration advocates take Ottawa to court over refugee treaty with U.S. 

2025/05/27 Leave a comment

As was expected and they have a case, no matter how inconvenient, as it gets stronger day-by-day with clear incidents of USA and ICE over-reach and undermining protections:

The federal government is facing a legal challenge arguing that its oversight of a two-decade-old refugee treaty with the United States is “fundamentally flawed.”

The bilateral agreement is premised on both countries being safe for asylum seekers. It prevents refugee claimants passing through the U.S. from seeking protection in Canada and vice versa. 

Canada is legally required to regularly review its neighbour’s human-rights record and refugee protections as part of the treaty, the Safe Third Country Agreement, or STCA. Ottawa has not publicized its findings since 2009. 

In January, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a sweeping immigration crackdown that has heightened asylum seekers’ risk of detention and deportation. Immigration rights groups have asserted that migrants and asylum seekers have been held in “secret” detention at the northern border. 

In an application for judicial review, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) argue that the lack of publicly available information about Ottawa‘s refugee monitoring process shields the government from accountability − and could violate the Constitution.

“This is so crucial because what we see happening at the Canada-U.S. border is quite troubling,” said lawyer Maureen Silcoff, who is representing CARL in the legal challenge.

Advocates in Canada have long maintained that cracks in American refugee protections leave asylum seekers at risk, raising concerns about the legality of the STCA treaty. Executive orders issued by the U.S. President in January, which initiated drastic immigration changes, have heightened fears over detention conditions for asylum seekers and rapid deportation without due process. 

Sujit Choudhry, who is representing SALCO in the case, said that without detailed evidence of how Ottawa determines its neighbour is safe for asylum seekers, it is impossible to know if Canada is complying with its legal obligations to refugee claimants.

An inaccurate designation – one that results in refugee claimants at the Canadian border being returned to the U.S. and then deported to a country where they would face torture – would violate the Canadian Constitution, he added. …

Source: Immigration advocates take Ottawa to court over refugee treaty with U.S.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Canada faces calls to suspend asylum agreement with U.S., saying Trump orders undermine migrants’ rights

2025/02/06 Leave a comment

Real dilemma for the government given that USA is becoming less safe and the risk of significant increases in asylum claimants from the USA without the STCA to help control and manage inflows:

The federal government is facing calls to suspend a long-standing agreement with the U.S. to return asylum seekers at the border, with immigration experts saying the United States should no longer be considered a safe place for people fleeing persecution.

They say U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive orders that make it easier to deport or detain migrants – including plans to hold 30,000 migrants accused of criminality in Guantanamo Bay – undermine their rights to such an extent that Canada should halt returning asylum seekers to the U.S.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, which came into effect in 2004, asylum seekers must make a claim at the first country in which they arrive. The agreement means that most asylum seekers arriving at the Canadian border are automatically returned to the U.S., with some exceptions such as people facing the death penalty.

Immigration lawyers and refugee advocates say Mr. Trump’s policies that make it easier to deport asylum seekers without a court hearing and increase detention may breach international law and should prompt Canada to rethink or suspend the agreement.

“The executive actions in the U.S. will materially impede access to asylum, and result in the routine imprisonment of refugees, contrary to UN standards,” says Erin Simpson, a partner at immigration law firm Landings LLP in Toronto.

“When Canada returns refugees to the U.S. under the Safe Third Country Agreement, they risk deportation to persecution and torture, and prison. Canada has the authority to suspend the agreement, and should exercise that authority until it is satisfied the agreement is not harming refugees.”

…But some experts warned that scrapping the agreement could lead to an influx of asylum seekers to Canada, who could not be turned back.

James Yousif, a Toronto-based lawyer who was director of policy to former Conservative immigration minister Jason Kenney, said the move would be “reckless” and “risk destabilizing Canada’s social and economic foundations.”

“Canada would face a surge in asylum claims from undocumented migrants in the United States, overwhelming public systems. Provinces and cities would be required to provide health care, social assistance, education and housing supports,” he said, adding they would be “severely strained.”

Source: Canada faces calls to suspend asylum agreement with U.S., saying Trump orders undermine migrants’ rights

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Trump’s executive orders on immigration could prompt rise in asylum claims in Canada, experts say

2025/01/22 Leave a comment

Changes do raise question regarding underlying premise of Safe Third Country Agreement along with specific implications for non-binary and trans persons. Monthly asylum claims data will provide confirmation or not, as well as extent:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s raft of policy changes on his first day in office, including rolling back rights of transgender people and ending citizenship as a birthright in the United States, are expected to lead to a rise in claims for asylum in Canada, immigration experts say.

He signed a suite of executive orders on Monday evening tightening up immigration rules, including to bolster the U.S.’s southern border. The White House confirmed that he plans to suspend refugee resettlement in the U.S., end asylum for illegal border crossers, and enhance vetting and screening of foreign nationals.

Among the slew of executive orders is one reversing a policy that means anyone born in the U.S. automatically becomes an American citizen. Citizenship as a birthright is guaranteed by a constitutional amendment and is one of the measures in the President’s program expected to prompt legal challenges. Speaking to reporters as he signed the orders Monday evening, the President said he thought the orders would withstand such challenges.

Canadian immigration lawyer Yameena Ansari said the change to the birthright rule, if implemented, would mean that some children born to immigrants in the U.S. may be stateless, which she said breached international law. She predicted that such a policy could lead to more minors turning up at the Canadian border to seek a safe haven.

“Trump is breaching the U.S.’s own international-rights commitments by making large swaths of the population stateless,” she said.

In his inaugural address on Monday, Mr. Trump said the U.S. government would also adopt a policy of recognizing only male and female genders. He signed an executive order on Monday night effectively reversing the gender-related policies of his predecessor, Joe Biden.

In 2022, the Biden administration permitted U.S. citizens to select a gender-neutral “X” on passports.

Mr. Trump is expected to direct the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that official government documents, including passports and visas, only recognize twogenders.

Canadian immigration lawyer David Garson said since Mr. Trump’s election victory he has received multiple inquiries from non-binary and transgender Americans, as well as U.S. parents of transgender children, about moving to Canada.

He said the policy changes are likely to spark more asylum claims at the Canadian border from anxious people, including transgender U.S. citizens fearful of infringement of their rights. He also predicted an increase in asylum claims from pregnant, undocumented migrants who fear not just deportation, but that their child could be stateless if born in the U.S.

Mr. Trump’s executive orders would mean “more people coming to Canada or the Canadian border over all,” Mr. Garson said.

Executive orders rolling back transgender rights and further tightening up asylum in the U.S. could also have an impact on its Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada, experts predict.

Under the agreement, most foreign nationals claiming asylum at the border are automatically returned to the U.S., but immigration experts say Mr. Trump’s policies may lead to a reassessment of whether the U.S. is now safe for particular groups.

The changes in the U.S. could lead to the consideration of more “carve-outs,” meaning that some groups – as currently with unaccompanied minors – are not sent back to the U.S.

Immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff said that under refugee law, Canada has an obligation to consider whether there are marked differences between Canadian and American standards of protection.

“Legally speaking. it could mean that the Governor in Council might decide to de-designate the U.S. as a safe third country,” she said….

Source: Trump’s executive orders on immigration could prompt rise in asylum claims in Canada, experts say

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Canada’s refugee system is overwhelmed by skyrocketing claims. What can Ottawa do to reduce backlogs?

2024/08/02 Leave a comment

It starts with reversing some of the visa waivers or relaxed requirements for source countries that are experiencing a major increase along with some of the post-arrival suggestions mentioned by lawyers. And while some will not like it, AI should be part of the triage process:

Canada’s refugee system has been the envy of the world. It’s recognized as being orderly, fair and efficient when compared to any other western country.

But as the number of asylum seekers keeps surging here — and with the queue and processing times getting longer, the beleaguered system is in desperate need of a rethink to save it from spiraling out of control and being clogged up in endless backlogs.

“It didn’t take long for me to realize with the team that we needed to maintain our ability to render fair decisions despite the growing intake,” Manon Brassard, who was appointed as the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board a year ago, told a Senate committee in June. “We need to do something about that.”

In 2023, the country’s largest independent tribunal received 138,000 new claims, up by 129 per cent from the year before and by 136 per cent in 2019, before the pandemic halted international travels and slowed the inflow. In the first three months of 2024, already 46,700 claims were lodged, with a total of 186,000 cases in the queue.

In the spring, the federal government tried unsuccessfully to ram through some much-needed changes to the asylum system through an omnibus bill that it said were necessary to streamline the process and tackle a growing backlog.

Those changes would have simplified the initial registration of a refugee claim; imposed “mandatory conditions” and timelines that claimants must follow to avoid their cases from being deemed abandoned; and allowed immigration officials to hold on to a file before referring it to the refugee board for hearing. 

Immigration Minister Marc Miller told the Star in a recent interview that the status quo is unsustainable.

“It was unfortunate,” he said of the foiled reforms carved out of the budget bill amid complaints by advocates for the lack of consultation. “Those amendments were fair in nature, and they were intended to accelerate some of the processing.”

Miller said he has some decisions to make in the coming months and is not ruling out reintroducing the proposed changes in a new bill.

The refugee board’s dilemma

Despite an extra $87 million in federal funding over two years — and new rules to crack down on irregular migration through U.S. land border — the refugee board only has the capacity to process 50,000 claims a year. With more than 186,000 cases pending, it would take almost four years to clear its inventory, even if new intakes were halted.

And the board is not going to get more money. As part of the federal budget cuts, the tribunal must reduce spending by $8.3 million this year, $10.5 million in 2025 and $13.6 million in 2026 and beyond.

Without the proposed legislative changes, the tribunal has few tools at its disposal.

“Money is part of the solution, but it’s not the only solution,” Brassard, who declined the Star’s interview request for this story, told senators in June. “We need to improve the way we do things.”

The board is developing a plan, known as “Horizon 26-27,” to streamline its operations and processes with the help of technology and automation, but few details are available. The aim is that by next March it will be able to process 80 per cent of claims within two years, as opposed to the current 37 months.

Critics urge for greater efficiency 

Critics say that while the board does need more decision-makers, it must also improve efficiency, and the government could help take some of the asylum seekers out of the queue by providing them with alternative pathways.

The tribunal already has policies to expedite less complex claims, such as those that appear to have solid evidence and are from clearly troubled countries.

Brassard told the Senate committee that the board has a task force to review cases — covering Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Venezuela — for quicker processing and about a third of the claims go through the screening.

However, immigration lawyer Robert Blanshay said even if an asylum seeker is selected for less complex screening, the case is still required to go before a refugee judge for a decision.

He said the board could hire trained administrative staff to review cases and interview claimants to make a record for the adjudicator to just sign off on, to save time and resources for formal hearings.

“On paper, it has been implemented, but it’s been severely underutilized,” said Blanshay, vice-chair of the refugee and litigation committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration section.

Immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff, who served as an adjudicator on the refugee board in the 1990s, said there used to be refugee protection officers — neutral parties — tasked with interviewing claimants where credibility was the only concern.

“You had an opportunity to ask questions and get clarification about some points that might be troubling you and could be resolved,” she explained. “The member (adjudicator) who signed off on the decision did so with more comfort.”

Silcoff said it’s worth bringing back the eliminated administrative position and triaging cases into three streams based on complexity: those requiring a full hearing, an interview if there are a few questions, or just a paper review for the most solid claims.

Aviva Basman, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, said the current asylum process is complicated and cumbersome, and the online portal, launched in 2021, takes a long time to fill out, especially when a claim involves multiple applicants.

Currently, foreign nationals can seek asylum at port of entry or make an inland claim after entering the country. However, there continues to be inconsistent and confusing information, for example, about deadlines to file documents, depending on the entry point into the refugee system. 

The less complex file review process is also somewhat unclear, which discourages counsel from even making an attempt because it requires substantial resources to make a case.

“What you have is a complicated, cumbersome refugee claim process where a lot of people are having a hard time,” said Basman. “Having simpler, streamlined processes would be a good thing.”

Alternative pathways for refugees

In addition to adequately resourcing asylum processes, a recent international report recommends governments alleviate pressure on their refugee determination systems by providing safe, orderly alternatives through resettlement programs and regular immigration pathways.

“Narrow- or short-sighted policies that focus on only one piece of the puzzle are likely to merely push the problem elsewhere,” warned the report by Washington-based Migration Policy Institute and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, a German foundation. 

Silcoff said Ottawa could expand on initiatives that offer immigration status to asylum seekers employed in fields with labour shortages, such as a one-time program during the pandemic that granted permanent residence to asylum seekers working in health care and a current pilot that resettles skilled refugees abroad to fill in-demand jobs here. 

“That could be a win-win,” said Silcoff. “It meets our labour market needs and it helps relieve the pressure from the refugee board.”

Source: Canada’s refugee system is overwhelmed by skyrocketing claims. What can Ottawa do to reduce backlogs?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , , , ,

Palestinians in the GTA appeal to federal government to help loved ones flee Gaza

2023/10/24 Leave a comment

As always, the response will be judged in relation to other groups fleeing violence like Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan and others. Also as always, there will be degrees of inconsistency, and, security concerns regarding possible Hamas supporters.

Largely academic for the moment until there is a corridor for civilians to flee, which likely will be a secondary priority compared to Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents:

A group of Palestinians living in the GTA are appealing to the federal government to bring family members living in Gaza to Canada faster than standard immigration policies allow.

Milton local and permanent resident Abdallah Alhamadni says they’re hoping Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) will create a humanitarian pathway for Palestinians fleeing from the Israel-Hamas war, similar to those implemented for people escaping violence in places like Syria and Ukraine.

“I have a great hope, it’s not impossible to do that,” said Alhamadni, adding Canada has a reputation for helping people around the world find safe haven in the country during times of crises.

Source: Palestinians in the GTA appeal to federal government to help loved ones flee Gaza – CBC.ca

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

IRCC’s reliance on McKinsey explains a ‘disconnect’ between money spent and value added, immigration lawyers say

2023/01/31 Leave a comment

More on McKinsey and IRCC. Hearing some concerns from within IRCC as well:

The decision by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada to hire McKinsey and Company to mobilize its digital transformation explains what immigration lawyers are calling a ‘disconnect’ between the resources being put into IRCC and the results it’s produced.

Barbara Jo (BJ) Caruso, an immigration lawyer speaking on behalf of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA), said when she heard about contracts IRCC had with McKinsey, “a light bulb went on.

“We were then able to sort of connect the dots and say, ‘Okay, now maybe this makes sense why everything’s been sort of haphazard, and pieced together,’ ” she said. 

At the beginning of January, a Radio-Canada report revealedthat the Canada branch of global consulting firm McKinsey and Company had seen a marked increase in the number of contracts it had been awarded by the federal government since 2015. In fact, the government later confirmed it had awarded McKinsey a total of 23 contracts at a cost of $101.4-million since 2015. By comparison, Stephen Harper’s government had spent $2.2-million on the firm throughout its nine year tenure. 

There’s been a disconnect, Caruso said, between the amount of money going into the department and the results it’s been able to produce, adding there’s been a lot of changes made, but “essentially no consultation from our vantage point.” 

“We’ve been perplexed by the amount of money that has been designated to the department and yet, we’re not really reaping the benefits of those financial contributions. We’ve got bigger backlogs than we’ve ever had, and probably the lowest client service standards, ever. And a diminishing trust from the public in the whole immigration system,” she said. 

The House Government Operations and Estimates Committee (OGGO), headed by Conservative MP Kelly McCauley, agreed over the break to undertake a study of the government’s contracts with McKinsey, particularly given this government’s relationship with Dominic Barton, who was Canada’s ambassador to China from 2019 to 2021, head of the Trudeau government’s advisory panel on economic growth, and prior to both those appointments, global managing director at McKinsey and Company between 2009 and 2018. It’s expected to call a total of seven ministers to testify before the committee, as well as top McKinsey executives, and Barton. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) said he welcomes the committee’s probe to determine whether there was “value for money” in the work McKinsey did. 

McKinsey spokesperson Alley Adams said the firm “welcomes the [committee] review of the services we deliver to the federal government.” 

“We look forward to working with the committee to resolve its questions and clarify relevant issues. We are proud of the contributions our firm has had across the public sector and are focused on working with the committee to discuss our impact in detail,” Adams said in an emailed statement. 

McKinsey and Company was a key player in the department’s “transformation agenda” since 2018, when it was awarded a $2.9-million contract to assess the department’s operations and “recommend a way forward for its transformation agenda,” according to IRCC.

Based on McKinsey’s assessment, “and IRCC’s own analysis of its operating context,” IRCC launched its transformation program in 2019, with the overarching goals of improving its operations. 

In 2019, McKinsey and Company was hired for a second contract to set “the service transformation agenda in motion.” According to IRCC, the contract focused on “reviewing, developing, and implementing digital tools, processes, and services.” It was initially valued at $16.37-million, but was later amended to add $8.47-million, bringing the total to $24.8-million. 

“Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, IRCC was faced with an immediate need to further accelerate the development and implementation of digital products and services. That is why the contract was amended in 2021 to help IRCC respond to these pandemic-driven pressures, manage increased volumes, and sustain core client services,” the department added. 

For its part, McKinsey has stressed that it was only involved in non-partisan, government operations, and did not influence policy.

“We work on independent research, economic and sector-based insights, in addition to core management topics such as the reduction of document processing backlogs, digitization of processes, technology strategy, operational improvements, and change management. This work does not include policy development and/or political advice. We support the service delivery objectives pursued by
the professional public servants who lead the departments and agencies we serve,” McKinsey said in a statement issued to media. 

However, Toronto-based immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff—a former decision-maker at IRCC herself—said she doesn’t think the distinction between the two is so obvious. 

“I’m not sure that there’s really a bright line that can be drawn between the immigration policies and the immigration systems,” said Silcoff, who also sits on the executive of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. “In the immigration context, [systems] necessarily impact the way laws and policies are implemented, or operationalized.” 

“Efficiency is crucial, but whatever measures are put in place, and have been put in place, have to be alert to the sensitivities of the population affected, which we know involves, very often, racialized people and vulnerable people,” she added.

The move towards digitizing and automating processes at IRCC has already proven to be a sticky process. 

The department has already been the subject of systemic racism allegations, and as the House Citizenship and Immigration Committee heard last March, artificial intelligence, and immigration expert witnesses expressed concern that systemic racism and bias would be embedded in any automated processes the department employs. 

“There’s advantages to algorithms, to artificial intelligence, to web-based portals, but they do come with a cost, and if attention is not paid to the frailties, there could be serious human rights implications,” Silcoff said. 

“A digitized refugee portal, for example. Is that accessible to vulnerable people, people arriving in Canada who have been subjected to torture or remain traumatized, who are new to the country and the systems?” 

An element that further exacerbates this challenge is who can access the portals on behalf of the applicant. 

One complaint Caruso and CILA have with IRCC currently is that lawyers cannot access certain online portals on behalf of their clients. 

According to IRCC, as part of its work on the department’s “digital transformation,” McKinsey helped design, develop, and launch an online citizenship application, which “enabled clients to apply digitally and IRCC to continue business throughout the pandemic.” 

However, Caruso said lawyers have not been able to access this portal on behalf of their clients, which she said is an impediment not only to their work, but to the efficiency of the department as well. 

“In our dialogue with the department, they absolutely recognize the role that counsel plays, that we can add value to the process, eliminate applications that have missing documents, because typically with good counsel, it’s a more complete application. There’s less back and forth and it means they can get to a decision sooner,” she said. 

It struck her and CILA as strange, then, when the department decided to roll out a portal that didn’t allow lawyers to access it. 

“For us, there has been this disconnect with the rollout of the technology and our role in the process. And now it sort of makes sense that it wasn’t the department, but an external player that maybe doesn’t appreciate the role that legal counsel can have in simplifying and ensuring efficiency,” she said. 

NDP MP Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, B.C.), her party’s immigration critic, said she’s eager to hear more about exactly what work McKinsey was contracted to do for IRCC, but added that overall, departmental work should be done in-house. 

Kwan said the fact that IRCC, along with the Canada Border Services Agency, spent the most money on McKinsey contracts of any department tells her “there’s very little transparency within IRCC.” 

“It’s just so concerning that there’s this discovery of these contracts and the government is anything but transparent about it,” she said, after describing a lack of transparency at IRCC as a “black hole.” 

“It just really speaks to the black hole that exists within IRCC. And it is deeply concerning,” she said.

Source: IRCC’s reliance on McKinsey explains a ‘disconnect’ between money spent and value added, immigration lawyers say

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Canada’s future prosperity depends on opening — not closing — our borders

2018/07/06 Leave a comment

More support for the “big Canada” approach by Hugh Segal, Maureen Silcoff and Karen Chen who write in favour of the Century Initiative and against the Safe Third Country Agreement.

And like the Century Initiative, little acknowledgement of some of the realities involved, along with the standard affirmation that Canada is largely empty. True of course, except for the places that the vast majority of Canadians, both long-standing and newcomers live and will likely continue to do so:

Canadian immigration policy and Canadian sovereignty have a shared purpose, and that purpose has a front door. Growing the size of our population, across the second largest land mass in the world, has always been a priority.

Canadian immigration policy and Canadian sovereignty have a shared purpose, and that purpose has a front door.

Growing the size of our population, across the second largest land mass in the world, has always been a priority. Economic prosperity, national security, development and opportunity require a growing population. Trading and, when necessary, competing with our southern neighbour, and the rest of the world, with a population smaller than California’s is difficult.

The front door for that policy has and will always include our formal border crossings, and will include refugee claims.

Processing refugee claims through the front door concurs with our international duties under the 1951 Refugee Convention, when, following the Second World War, we committed to do our part and accept refugee claimants, and not treat them as illegal while their cases are being processed.

The number of refugee claimants who cross our southern border irregularly rose dramatically after President Donald Trump took office — some 9,481 so far this year.

Many have taken the unsanctioned path of Roxham Road, the street between Champlain, N.Y., and Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., thus avoiding official ports of entry. They do this because the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) requires refugee claimants to seek protection in the first “safe” country they enter, with narrow exceptions. The agreement applies only at official ports of entry, so by entering somewhere other than the front door, they can access Canada’s refugee system.

Critics say irregular arrivals have the effect of bringing the administration of our borders into disrepute. People have questioned how we can allow such crossings under the rule of law, for it questions the notion of “order” found in the “peace, order and good government” clause of our constitution.

Once we relegate people to irregular means of arrival, which the STCA has done, we risk seeing them as an undesirable element that bypasses the front door. We speak of them in numbers, using words like surge and flood. We respond by bemoaning our lack of capacity, assuming ill intentions, accusing them of cutting the queue and breaking the rules.

There is a solution.

The STCA was Canada’s idea. Bordered by the Arctic, two oceans and the United States, Canada sought to further limit the number of refugees able to claim protection here.

That makes sense, if you believe that limiting the number of refugees is a benefit to Canada. While the selection of immigrants and the determination of refugee status are subject to different criteria, overall, the country needs more people.

Most of Canada, well beneath the more climactically difficult extreme parts north, is empty. We have room for new cities, expanding communities in every province. Bangladesh received the same number of asylum-seekers in one day as the total number who entered Canada last year.

Moreover, whatever our views on America’s present immigration policy, the STCA no longer serves the purposes of Canada’s overall immigration policy. Canada needs population growth at a much faster rate. From Diefenbaker in the 1950s, through the Pearson, Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau governments, Ottawa has raised the annual immigration levels, not enough, but consistently under both Liberal and Conservative governments.

A distinguished group of Canadians launched an organization in 2016 called the “Century Initiative” aimed at growing our population to one hundred million by the next century. Experts in investment, finance, economics and planning argued this number was essential to building prosperity and opportunity. Barring an increase in the birth rate, immigration policy is key to accomplishing this goal. Our economic capacity to compete with our American allies, and not be intimidated by capricious, illegal and unjustified tariffs, would be enhanced by a population 300 per cent larger.

Canada has a tradition of responding to groups of people who require protection. Since the 1950s, Canada has responded with an open heart and an open front door to waves of Hungarian, Vietnamese, Syrian and other refugees. Each inflow has made us economically and socially stronger.

Our need for growth and our humanitarian commitment have led to a coherent policy championed by parties of all political stripes. As Barbara McDougall, a former Immigration and foreign minister in the Mulroney cabinet, once said when confronted by an unexpected landing of Tamil asylum seekers on the East Coast, “we don’t turn back boats filled with people.”

Opening the front door has another benefit. It removes the stigma and spectacle of families pushing strollers and pulling suitcases down Roxham Road; it removes the risk of people losing fingers, toes and even their lives to cross clandestinely in harsh weather; and it removes the pressure on Quebec.

We should return to our long-held immigration, growth and humanitarian principles, for they remain intertwined. Suspend the STCA and open the front door.

Source: Canada’s future prosperity depends on opening — not closing — our borders

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,