By Michael Barutciski
April 22, 2026
Canada’s long-standing openness helped build one of the world’s most respected immigration systems. However, the intellectual establishment’s push for ever-expanding “inclusivity” has driven that openness beyond what many Canadians consider reasonable.
Compared to its peer nations, Canada stands out for how strongly its intellectuals have embraced an idealistic – and often nonchalant – view of borders. Guided by an anti-nationalist mindset, they have spent decades advancing notions such as the “global village” and “citizens of the world,” steadily reshaping how openness is understood. When Canadian Booker Prize-winning author Yann Martel praises his country as “the greatest hotel on earth” without irony, it serves as a warning sign that Canada’s immigration model is eroding the meaning of Canadian citizenship and shared national identity.
Canadian scholars have long been uncomfortable with the idea of border control and have often denounced such concerns as amounting to a moral panic. Even the distinction between citizens and non-citizens has been questioned for years as an illegitimate political construct. These academic theories have influenced our political leaders and largely account for the excessively inclusive trajectory that has led to the mismanagement of Canada’s immigration programs.
We should therefore not be surprised if most Canadians believe their country’s openness needs to be tempered with a pragmatic sense of the importance of borders in the real world. As articulated by Macdonald-Laurier Institute Director of Domestic Policy Tim Sargent:
The past … months have served as a sobering reminder to Canadians that strong national borders remain essential. Far from being mere symbolic lines, borders are active zones of governance – reinforcing territorial integrity, regulating immigration, and deterring illegal activities such as smuggling and trafficking. They also serve as critical infrastructure for customs, security, and public health, enabling effective surveillance and screening at key points of entry.
In the first three volumes of this series, Fixing Canada’s Broken Immigration System, we have seen that the significant deficiencies in how data are presented to Parliament (vol. 1) have hampered genuine and honest public debate. This has allowed temporary migration to distort Canada’s overall immigration system (vol. 2), while also confusing the historic concept of asylum in a way that has allowed it to become a vehicle for uncontrolled mass migration (vol. 3).
These developments have undermined immigration programs to the extent that even the current pro-immigration federal government has committed “to repair” the system and to reduce intake “to sustainable levels.” Yet the way forward will require serious policy changes that go beyond simply reducing numbers.
Given its role in compromising system integrity, the country will need to move away from the recent dependence on temporary migration. This shift will help reinforce migration control and allow a much-needed focus on the integration of permanent residents. As the institution of asylum undergoes basic rethinking, major institutional reform should be considered at both the national and international level.
A recent report by the Auditor General reveals that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is unserious about investigating fraud and abuse despite the doubling of its budget and personnel over the last decade. This has allowed The Globe and Mail’s editorial board to conclude “the immigration department isn’t doing much to enforce basic rules of the system.”
As a further sign of institutional dysfunction, an ethics report recently found that the deputy minister of IRCC during a key period of the policy changes examined in this series tried to justify her breach of the Conflict of Interest Act by claiming she was promoting anti-racism measures. It will be impossible to fix Canada’s multifaceted immigration problems without a new administrative culture, one that will emphasize enforcement in a way that combines fairness with rigour.
Challenging the tendency towards maximum openness
Academics have been warning us for years to avoid language or terminology that could dehumanize migrants. This enlightened view has contributed to make Canada a welcoming country that attracts candidates from all over the world. However, there is a danger in making language overly inclusive. It does the public a disservice if, for example, constant use of the term “irregular” obscures activity that is illegal such as crossing the border in between Ports of Entry or overstaying a visa. While we should not label migrants as “illegal people,” we should be careful not to overcompensate by being reluctant to acknowledge that unlawful entry or presence does in fact correspond to illegal activity. If we want to maintain public confidence, compassion should not be used to whitewash migrants who are deliberately trying to circumvent democratically adopted legal rules.
Some Canadian law professors claim that entering Canada in between Ports of Entry represents a minor infraction of a simple administrative rule. Yet most Canadians would want this basic aspect of territorial sovereignty to be clearly laid out by Parliament. It is true that crossing the border in between Ports of Entry is not explicitly prohibited and sanctioned in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or the Criminal Code. While the US criminalizes such acts, federal authorities in Canada have to rely on an outdated provision in the Customs Act for any legal recourse.
For years this ambiguity allowed federal ministers and the national media to use the adjective “irregular” instead of “illegal” when referring to asylum seekers passing through the Roxham Road crossing between Quebec and New York state, even though there was a clearly visible government sign at the location indicating that “[i]t is illegal to cross the border here or any place other than a Port of Entry.”
The country’s political leaders could go a long way in reassuring the population by acknowledging that maintaining the system’s integrity is an overarching priority. The United Kingdom serves as a pertinent example of leadership that is pushing for change in somewhat similar circumstances. It is worth noting that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is also leader of the Labour Party, has been clear about his intentions:
We’re ending Britain’s open borders experiment. For too long, businesses were actively encouraged to bring in lower paid workers, rather than invest in our own people. We’re fixing the system and restoring control to our borders.
Yet reform will be challenging in Canada because various lobby groups have been strengthened over the last decade. These entrenched actors will continue to advocate for interests that ultimately prevent the course correction requested by Prime Minister Mark Carney. Likewise, the growing problems associated with diaspora politics – and political ethnic pandering need to be addressed if we want to avoid an immigration backlash.
Encouraging viewpoint diversity
In this perspective, it is noteworthy that Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Sabia issued an important memo to public servants last summer in which he encourages viewpoint diversity to help the bureaucracy focus on results. By encouraging a shift from the diversity is our strength mantra, the head of the federal public service is downplaying the social justice agenda and suggesting that “rigorous debate is the best path to the best decisions.”
Providing Parliament with better and easily accessible data addressing key challenges is one step in encouraging healthy debate on immigration policy. While the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act obliges the immigration minister to submit a report to Parliament each year, the omissions examined in vol. 1 of the series suggest this process has to be modernized to reflect current challenges. The Annual Report has a specific function in our political system: although the government does publish considerable data online, they are not easy to locate and can be difficult to understand.
Given the politicized and polarized aspects of immigration policy, we cannot trust specialists and various interest groups who select and interpret these data for us. While few scholars emphasize the difficulty in identifying reliable sources, MLI contributor Geoff Russ has perceptively criticized “the professional immigration apparatus … [that has] thought of a hundred different ways to twist data to try and browbeat honest Canadians about the impacts of mass intake.”
Members of Parliament, along with the media and general public, should be able to quickly access the most relevant data. A modernized and more elaborate Annual Report is the appropriate institutional response that would encourage all of Canada to engage in the rigorous debate encouraged by the Clerk of the Privy Council.
Ensuring fair application of the law
For immigration policy to enjoy public support, borders and migrant inflows obviously must be controlled. It follows that any host population will expect migrants to follow the law. If this basic obligation is not respected, it is understandable that the guests may be asked to leave and it is awkward for them to challenge the generosity from which they benefited. Given that our welcoming societies have consented to both domestic and international human rights obligations, these commitments must be interpreted in a responsible manner that is both compassionate and balanced. The humanist reflex to provide migrants with enforceable rights that challenge state authority should therefore be carefully weighed to preserve public confidence.
As a result, there should be no expectation that the general openness and tolerance characterizing Canada will be blindly extended to migrants who do not comply with immigration law. Foreigners who are unlawfully present in the country should always be treated in a humane manner, but they have to accept the consequences of their illegal actions.
Although the above comments would seem non-controversial for most Canadians, we need to understand that they are contested by parts of our population. Prime Minister Carney tends to deliberately avoid moralizing language around immigration, yet we cannot ignore that a social justice lens encouraged for decades in our universities has resulted in many Canadians linking immigration with anti-racism.
Important constituencies, including educated urbanites, see immigration solely from the migrants’ perspective and essentially as a moral test (or tool) in the struggle against racism. We are fortunate to live in a country that encourages such empathy and we need to genuinely address the underlying concerns. To the extent that immigration involves contentious issues, the appropriate forum to debate and to find democratic compromise is Parliament.
Legislation can be amended if there is agreement that certain laws could be more respectful of the dignity of migrants. Ultimately, however, the government will need to make clear that the country’s immigration policy should be framed in terms of effective management. In the current global environment, it would be foolish to manage migration with social justice constructs that are devoid of political and practical constraints.
Emphasizing integration as a central goal of multiculturalism
More generally, it should be made clear to the public that integration is an explicit goal for migrants who are selected as permanent residents. The logical corollary for a coherent immigration policy is that migrants admitted as temporary residents represent a different situation: their long-term integration is not necessarily an objective. The latter should not be considered as “new Canadians” and their inclusion as part of the “Canadian population” by Statistics Canada needs to be nuanced so that the data reflect legal realities. We need to record their presence for effective socio-economic planning in our communities, but we should be careful about blurring the distinction with citizens and permanent residents. The “Hotel Canada” mindset cannot continue alongside a sophisticated immigration system that has to adapt to 21st-century mass migration that inevitably complicates the sense of belonging.
In this context, Canada has much to learn from a recent legislative initiative in Quebec. Last year, the Legault government adopted a bill that makes integration an explicit legal obligation imposed on immigrants, as well as a responsibility given to the host society. This official approach contrasts with the provisions found in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act adopted in 1988. Section 3 of the Act outlines the federal government’s general policy objectives and it is striking that there is no explicit obligation imposed on immigrants to integrate or even to learn at least one of the country’s official languages.
The lesson for the rest of Canada is that it is not enough to suggest integration is an implicit objective: it must be made explicit and legislation is a basic tool to signal this goal.
If Canadians are incapable of grasping the unique historic compromise behind the tradition of two official languages, then it shows that multiculturalism has veered off in a post-national direction that prepares the intellectual groundwork for the “Hotel Canada” vision.
Resisting the open borders lobby
Asylum policy represents a special challenge given that Canada’s past approach has been jettisoned in favour of an open borders mindset that encourages uncontrolled migration. International human rights law is now generally interpreted in a way that supports such a revolutionary standpoint.
While Canadians expect asylum seekers to be treated fairly, they also assume policymakers will resist lobbying pressure from open border activists. The global context adds ambiguity to the policy challenges when we consider an apparent contradiction: The drop in worldwide poverty has been accompanied by increasing migration flows of seemingly desperate people who often arrive by illegal means. Asylum is the concept that allows them to avoid being refused entry or removed. This is why it is now promoted as surrogate human rights protection.
We clearly need to rethink our humanitarian principles. The suggestion that anyone from anywhere can seek asylum in any country reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of this historic concept. There are various legitimate limitations because asylum is a two-way street that also implicates the interests of host societies, as well as the personal well-being of migrants.
When asylum becomes uncontrolled mass migration, it is a sign that we have allowed the concept to be distorted by activists and wishful-thinking academics. Any responsible government has to recognize the new global context in which this form of migration is destabilizing Western democracies. The problem partly stems from our idealistic desire to appear open; in reality, we simultaneously (and quietly) limit numbers by imposing border controls such as visas. By realizing the hypocrisy underlying our supposed commitments on asylum, we are better positioned to find solutions.
These will necessarily come from interpreting our obligations in a reasonable manner and not exaggerating international norms. In the current Canadian context, this means we need to make sure we are not setting ourselves up with illusory or unrealistic goals that lead to self-inflicted dilemmas that undermine our government’s border control measures.
Specifically, one of the results has been the huge backlog of asylum cases before Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). This problem needs to be resolved and our current overly generous approach is part of the underlying challenge. To the extent that asylum adjudication has been a recurring problem since the IRB was created almost four decades ago, the federal government should consider a significant overhaul of what has become the country’s largest administrative tribunal.
It may even be necessary to abolish the IRB to allow a new system that addresses the challenges more effectively and efficiently. There would still be legal recourses, but the structure could be harmonized with peer countries. After all, a quasi-judicial body that acts independently is not a requirement in international law and the migration flows of the 21st century are proving to be more challenging than those of the Cold War era when the IRB was being conceived.
While implementing serious reforms to domestic asylum adjudication, Canada could position itself as a global leader by also pursuing reform at the international level. We know that European Union members, along with the United Kingdom and the United States, are looking for ways to control transnational migration flows associated with asylum seekers. As an original member of the Executive Committee established in 1958 for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Canada is well positioned to encourage this UN body to find solutions from a governmental perspective.
The fact that UNHCR essentially depends on voluntary contributions for its funding can be used as leverage by Western countries to ensure that concepts such as “safe country of origin,” “internal flight alternative” and “safe third country” are expanded so that asylum does not become mass migration. These efforts to encourage orderly migration flows will inevitably involve extraterritorial processing for asylum claims as explored in vol. 3 of the series. Canada can either anticipate these developments by showing leadership in policy formulation or it can remain an outlier by preserving various domestic pull factors.
Encouraging a fair and rigorous enforcement culture
Canadians are capable of appreciating the benefits of immigration while also adapting to the new realities of 21st-century migration flows. As suggested in vol. 2 of this series, an enforcement culture will need to develop and become a fundamental part of the immigration system if we want to avoid the political tensions that are destabilizing our peers.
The good news is that public concerns are finally being heard by political leaders who realize it is unwise to dismiss them as stemming from xenophobia or a supposed “moral panic.” Unfortunately, this type of condescending dismissal has been an all-too-common attitude from our intellectual classes, who would prefer not to engage in genuine debate on immigration. Yet successful immigration in a liberal democracy depends on public engagement; popular buy-in will not be possible if there is a sense that it is being imposed by the country’s elites. Reform-minded legal scholars should be thinking in terms of convincing through the political process rather than imposing through judicial means.
Grasping how temporary migration jeopardizes system integrity
While annual targets for permanent residents nearly doubled over the last decade, there is another increase that has been more destabilizing. Canada invited proportionately many more temporary residents who have filled low-skill jobs during a post-pandemic period characterized by significant shortages in the labour market. As MLI Deputy Director of Domestic Policy Peter Copeland argues, “Canada’s increasing reliance on temporary migrant labour has depressed wages in some sectors and entrenched low-productivity business models.”
Many of these migrants may be under the impression that there was an implicit promise they could eventually transition to a permanent status, yet the available permanent residence spots can only accommodate a small minority. In other words, not only does Canada now have an unprecedented number of disenchanted temporary residents with expiring visas who may be unwilling to leave, but it is possible to conclude that immigration has contributed to lowering the country’s labour productivity and standard of living as explored in vol. 2 of the series.
Given this specific context, we have to clarify that laws need to be respected if we are to manage the emerging new phenomenon of large-scale visa overstaying. Similarly, we must stop creating false expectations that the system can accommodate two-step immigration as a central feature when there has been an unparalleled explosion in the number of temporary migrants.
Two-step immigration can continue for specific migrants who have clear potential for successful integration, yet we cannot forget the other temporary migrants who will not be selected for transition to permanent status. They will inevitably represent the majority of potential candidates, given that around three million were admitted in recent years.
Addressing the problems associated with the new linkages between temporary and permanent migration requires both conceptual rethinking and an operational shift towards enforcement. The former requires a better appreciation of the geographic and historic factors underlying Canada’s innovative points-based immigration system, while the latter will be difficult to implement if the misguided “client-focused” approach of recent years continues to be promoted at the institutional level.
By refocusing on the points-based Comprehensive Ranking System, the idea would be for the government to generally avoid making implicit promises of transition between temporary and permanent resident status. If the government does not believe that it is possible to be humane while also applying immigration rules in a rigorous manner, then it will not be able to convincingly explain this nuanced approach to the public. The system’s credibility will remain an elusive dream. We need to develop new approaches to enforcement that encourage orderly return in humane ways.
To further clarify the government’s current policy reorientation, Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab has explained in the preface to her last Annual Report that she aspires to “balance the number of new arrivals with the planned departure of international students and temporary workers as their status expires in 2025 and 2026.”
The suggestion that we need to focus on migrant departures from Canada needs to be underlined and explored. How will the government achieve an objective rarely discussed in public and generally disconnected from the welcoming image projected abroad?
The intellectual challenge is rarely discussed. Contrary to the worldview promoted by Canadian academia, legal removals and deportations of people who are unlawfully present in Canada should generally be an uncontroversial issue. It is impossible to have a functioning immigration system without credible mechanisms that remove foreigners who are not authorized to be in the country.
In other words, we need to be upfront and honest that enforcement is necessarily a central part of any functional immigration system. An appropriate message in this context would be to signal that it is possible to be humane and to treat migrants with dignity, while also applying the laws in a rigorous manner. There is support for removing migrants who are unlawfully present, but recent experiences in the United States suggest it may also depend on how the removals are conducted.
Enhancing the role of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
The ability to enforce rules is clearly a key part of any immigration system’s foundation. Many countries have rich traditions of specialized border guards who occupy a prestigious place in their national history. Canada is somewhat of an outlier in that the long borders on the edges of its large continental territory have never been protected by a dedicated border police or paramilitary organization. Lack of clarity regarding institutional and mandate responsibilities cannot continue into the 21st century.
Given the advances of technology and transportation over the last decades, the country needs to have a clearer picture of the different types of unauthorized entry and it cannot rely on a limited border security force composed of several hundred people. Continental co-operation is an inevitable aspect of Canada’s geography and history, so the responsible body would have to explore greater collaboration with the United States Border Patrol. Whether it entails the creation of more task forces to fight problems such as human smuggling or greater intelligence sharing with US law enforcement agencies, Canada has an interest in advancing continental integration on these types of security-related issues.
The simplest and most obvious way to create a body that resembles a dedicated border guard is to expand CBSA’s mandate to cover the entire border. MLI’s Tim Sargent notes that the RCMP is already overstretched and that the current division of labour complicates the important mission of border control:
Currently, two agencies guard Canada’s side of the border. While the CBSA is responsible for security at official points of entry, including border crossings and airports, the RCMP is charged with monitoring the long stretches in between – which means watching for the unauthorized entry of drugs, weapons, and people. Communications on border security between the US and Canada are complicated by the overlapping relationship between the RCMP and CBSA, and the US Customs and Border Protection has indicated it can be challenging to work with Canada, given the unclear division of duties. Canada’s border strategy should have one main player, and that player should be the CBSA, leaving the RCMP to focus on combating issues such as organized crime and terrorism.
There are various ways to update the legal mandate so that CBSA can finally provide the country with a dedicated agency that serves as a border guard across the entire land border. Rescinding the 1932 Order in Council that gave the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) the border protection mandate in between ports of entry is one basic step. Legislative amendment would also provide a solid basis, while at the same time serving an important symbolic gesture. This expansion would not preclude the establishment of memorandums of understanding, framework agreements and legislated agreements that allow CBSA to share information and work with other Canadian law enforcement agencies. It is in the interest of Canadians to ensure an effective working relationship between the RCMP and CBSA.
Although there are other important aspects of border security that involve multifaceted problems such as illicit trafficking, in terms of immigration policy we need to focus on issues such as inadmissibility and departures.
Tightening inadmissibility
The Immigration National Security Screening Program run by CBSA needs to be revised so that IRCC cannot ignore the inadmissibility assessments of applicants conducted under sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that deal with serious crimes such as espionage, terrorism, crimes against humanity or organized criminality. These assessments are presently submitted as recommendations to immigration officers, yet there have been reports that IRCC and other government departments have been less strict regarding security threats and more lenient on exemptions. For example, such problems were recently raised in relation to applications from Palestinians from Gaza who wanted to immigrate to Canada, as well as in various high-profile incidents involving terrorism allegations. Legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act need to be explored if Canada is to avoid importing foreign conflicts and extremism.
To begin the multi-year process of reforming certain sectors of the economy that rely on foreign workers and allow exploitation through informal means, the enforcement of legal work permits with employers needs to be enhanced. There are widespread suggestions that the department responsible for overseeing the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP) and inspecting employers, Employment and Social Development Canada, has been ineffective in protecting the migrant workers. The government could therefore explore whether CBSA can play a more effective role to ensure credible enforcement.
Enforcing departures
It is difficult to restore the credibility and integrity of the immigration system if there is a continuing reluctance to actively track expired visa holders and enforce removals. There are several potential ways to enhance CBSA’s ability to ensure the effective departure of migrants who are not legally authorized to stay in Canada. These involve police-style methods of tracking and monitoring, as well as incentives for migrants to leave on their own. A more comprehensive approach would combine these measures with diplomatic initiatives involving other countries.
We need to consider the evolving comparative context in which our allies are adopting new methods to bring immigration under control. For example, the US and the UK are exploring various forceful approaches that have attracted both interest and controversy. While our federal government should be careful in deciding which techniques would be appropriate in the Canadian context, we need to adapt to 21st-century realities and incorporate the best practices from our partners. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to explore whether the new Digital IDs and eVisas being rolled out in the UK could make it easier for CBSA to track down and take action against those who try to stay in Canada illegally.
Likewise, new techniques should be introduced to control migrants suspected of violating Canadian laws. Although the government needs to constantly assess whether approaches typically used to combat crime are appropriate in the context of immigration enforcement, ankle bracelets are an example of a technology that could help track those most at risk of evading control. When exploring the need to find alternatives which are less expensive than traditional detention or incarceration, we need to constantly strive for a balanced and reasonable approach that maintains public support. For example, we should keep in mind criticisms that suggest ankle bracelets amount to an “invisible leash.”
There is another innovative measure to encourage departure that deserves to be explored in Canada. Given the general lax and accommodating approaches that characterize government policy in recent years, it is not surprising there are barely any incentives for temporary residents to leave on time before their visas expire. To avoid a reactive approach to immigration control that would be overly focused on removals, the proactive idea of incentives should be developed.
If we accept that incentivizing expiring visa holders to leave voluntarily is a preferable option, the situation remains nonetheless complicated because many of these migrants want to secure permanent resident status. Temporary residents should be incentivized to leave on time by providing a financial guarantee in the form of a surety bond overseen by CBSA before entering Canada. The money would be returned if the migrants comply with the visa obligations and exit the country as legally required. Nothing prevents these migrants from applying for a new status once they have left, which was the general logic behind the “transition” process in the past.
These in-country methods of ensuring that migrants actually leave the country in accordance with the law can be complemented by diplomatic initiatives.
Given that one of the basic challenges to Canada’s border control system is that it is difficult to return migrants to many countries, pressure should be exercised on countries of origin that do not co-operate in accepting their own nationals. This pressure can take different forms.
Blocking the issuance of visas to an uncooperative home country is one method that can be used to encourage its authorities to accept the return of their own nationals. CBSA tracks how many migrants scheduled for removal are waiting for travel documentation from their home country, so it should be given a role in the designation of uncooperative countries of origin. This designation would help establish whether the issuance of visas should be suspended for the country’s nationals. CBSA has already identified to the media five uncooperative countries: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Algeria, and Ghana.
Providing such countries with international aid would appear to be misguided and counter-productive, so the possibility of suspending aid until the country co-operates on returns should also be explored.
To the extent that the problem of uncooperative home countries is encountered by all our allies, there are logical reasons to collaborate in developing a common position. Indeed, ministers of the Five Eyes countries appear to have agreed to take “more coordinated action” during a recent meeting addressing the issue.
Recommendations
To address Canada’s ongoing immigration-related challenges, the federal government should:
- Amend section 18(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that entering Canada in between Ports of Entry is an illegal act with administrative consequences. Likewise, the federal government should amend section 27 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to remove any ambiguities that could exempt foreigners who enter illegally to claim asylum. In the spirit of continental harmonization to control migration flows, Parliament should consider making illegal entry an offence under the Criminal Code.
- Amend section 3 of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act to clarify that immigrants are not only rights holders, but that they also have an obligation to integrate. Proficiency in at least one official language is an important, although not the only, indicator of integration.
- Rescind the 1932 Order in Council that gave the RCMP the border protection mandate in between ports of entry. The federal government should concurrently amend section 5(1) of the Canada Border Services Agency Act to clarify that CBSA is responsible for border control and security across the entire land border, including in between land Ports of Entry.
- Revise the security screening process for admission of foreign nationals with a view to increasing the weight and influence of CBSA assessments.
- Refine the terminology in section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that its use by CBSA will not be easily blocked by legislative interpretations from judges who are reluctant to apply the inadmissibility provisions.
- Amend section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that it is easier for a CBSA officer at a Port of Entry to deny entry to foreigners in situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe they will promote hate or engage in inflammatory public rhetoric.
- Increase CBSA’s powers to investigate potential criminal contraventions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as amending the Criminal Code to include tougher penalties for employers who exploit migrants.
- Direct the CBSA to explore whether an expanded use of ankle bracelets, as well as UK-style Digital IDs and eVisas, would be an acceptable way to control and track down migrants who are suspected of potentially not conforming to Canadian laws.
- Expand the concept of surety bonds in immigration law to incentivize temporary residents to leave at the end of their visas. This new use of surety bonds would result in significant financial penalties to temporary residents if they were not to comply with their legal obligation to leave the country.
- Restrict, and eventually suspend, visa issuance to nationals of a country deemed by CBSA to be uncooperative in terms of accepting the return of their nationals. Likewise, international assistance should also be restricted and eventually suspended to any such uncooperative country of origin. The role of CBSA in this regard should be introduced via legislative amendment to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.
- In coordination with our allies, including but not limited to the Five Eyes countries, the federal government should explore the development of stricter policies to oblige uncooperative countries of origin to accept the return of their nationals.
Conclusion
Canada’s immigration system is causing controversy because it is showing signs of becoming dysfunctional. It is not simply a question of adjusting intake numbers that have become too high and that increased too quickly. As many officials and observers have noted, including most recently the Auditor General, some parts of the system are being abused and appear out of control.
To be truly effective, the federal government’s announced course correction should follow several broad directions. Temporary migration must stop playing a central role in the system. Various problems have been introduced by this recent shift towards a two-step immigration process that is conducted entirely within Canada. Moreover, it has led to unacceptable comprises regarding migration control.
System integrity will also be impossible to preserve without a fundamental rethinking of asylum and the way it has facilitated uncontrolled mass migration. It is clear that political courage will be necessary as institutions are reformed and mandated to improve enforcement.
By refocusing on the selection quality of candidates for permanent residence, the country will be better positioned to address the integration challenges that inevitably come from the diverse migration flows of the 21st century. A central part of this equation is for the government to show it can balance fairness with rigour. Following that, Canadians will be able to feel secure knowing that their immigration system is working properly.
About the author
Michael Barutciski is a professor at York University’s Glendon School of Public and International Affairs and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
