Recent technology in Canada masks our systemic failures

Editor’s Note: Though published in December, this article continues to offer insights that matter today.

In the machinery of the modern state, there is a recurring tendency to substitute technological efficiency for rigorous human judgment. When institutions buckle under systemic pressure (like chronic understaffing) the solution often involves automating critical processes, thereby obscuring institutional failure behind the sheen of progress.

This managerial impulse, which Noam Chomsky would recognize as the powerful prioritizing expediency over authentic democratic or security diligence, is currently playing out at Canada’s borders with the rollout of the Canada Border Services Agency’s (CBSA) “One Touch” intake system for asylum claimants.

This is a shift in how we validate human stories. For years, individuals seeking asylum completed forms in the presence of a border services officer. This interaction was the critical opportunity for officers to ask follow-up questions, verify genuineness, and detect signs of human smuggling, or coaching. Under One Touch, however, claimants deemed “low risk” following a “very cursory” initial assessment are allowed entry into the country, relying on them to complete their full security screening and required forms online within 45 days.

The spin of this streamlined process is subtle but devastating it exchanges human insight for algorithmic assessment. While the CBSA defends the system by pointing to “multiple layers of defence,” including running biometric data against law enforcement databases, the union representing border officers warns that the ability to confirm if a story is genuine has been fundamentally “removed.” When meaningful interaction is reduced, so is the capacity for observation, the intuition necessary to discern authenticity from artifice. We treat human lives as low-risk inputs, diminishing the officer’s professional capacity for subtle psychological assessment.

This outsourcing of security diligence carries tangible risks that cannot be dismissed as mere teething problems. The system allows claimants to enter before full security screening is complete. Worse, an estimated 10% of claimants fail to submit the required forms, making it challenging for inland agencies to locate them for removal. Customs and Immigration Union president Mark Weber is clear: those with the “Greatest motivation to not self-declare” are the ones who subsequently “Disappear into Canada.” The risk compromises national security by creating demonstrable gaps that allow individuals who may pose a threat to vanish without full scrutiny.

The core issue, utilizing a critical lens, is that the government is choosing speed to manage high volumes and backlogs over the security and stability that robust human screening provides. This prioritization of facilitation transforms a humanitarian and security process into a cold logistical problem. The CBSA assures the public that all claimants receive an initial assessment and that high-risk individuals are still processed traditionally. Yet, relying on a preliminary assessment that is admittedly “very cursory” to determine eligibility for reduced scrutiny is inherently problematic when the consequence of error is public safety.

We must recognize the damage done when a nation substitutes genuine engagement for convenience. The true measure of a robust system is its insistence on human accountability, not its reliance on a “flawless” algorithm, which, as the CBSA concedes, does not exist. The pursuit of expediency, driven by understaffing, forces us to accept structural compromises that erode public trust and ignore the vital importance of human dialogue in the pursuit of security. The silence around this systemic choice, this reduction of complex human migration to a ‘one touch’ entry, is deafening. We must demand that our systems honor the necessary burden of rigorous human connection, rather than allowing technology to automate away our ethical responsibilities.