Canada’s government has long talked about humanitarian values. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Lena Diab told Parliament last year that the government “will not turn our backs” on refugees. Yet as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detain and brutalize migrants across the United States, Canada still refuses entry to most asylum seekers who arrive at our land borders.
Over the past two years, the IJB has examined the impact of shifting U.S. immigration enforcement policies and how the crackdown on migrants has contributed to a surge in refugee arrivals to Canada.
If Canada is serious about its humanitarian commitments, refugees must be kept out of harm’s way. Yet it barricades itself by relying on the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which deems the U.S. a safe country for asylum seekers and thus excludes those seeking refugee status at Canada-US borders.
The STCA, in effect since 2004, requires refugee claimants to seek asylum in the first safe country (Canada or the U.S.) in which they arrive.
Canadian courts have recognized the dangers embedded in this arrangement. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found that returning asylum seekers to the U.S. under the STCA exposes them to real risks of immigration detention. The SCC recognized that this exposure is not incidental, but a foreseeable consequence of Canada’s reliance on U.S. enforcement practices.
The STCA remains in force amid deteriorating U.S. asylum practices and accelerating deportations that signal a political choice to accept these harms as collateral damage.
Human rights organizations have been warning about this for years: Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Council for Refugees have called on the government to urgently withdraw from the STCA, describing Canada’s insistence that the U.S. remains a safe country for refugees as a “cruel irony to those fleeing persecution,” noting that Canada has the authority to admit claimants in the public interest but chooses not to do so.
These concerns are now echoed at the international level.
On March 23, the United Nations Human Rights Committee warned that Canada’s continued reliance on the STCA may expose asylum seekers to risk and called on the government to review whether the U.S. can still be considered a safe third country.
The federal government’s Bill C-12, ostensibly aimed at tightening border security, amending asylum processing and increasing ministerial powers over immigration, will, according to human rights organizations, lead to violations of human rights and due process in our immigration system. The organizations argue the law will deny many refugees access to fair and independent assessment of their claims while granting the government sweeping discretionary powers without individualized safeguards, exposing vulnerable people to serious risk.
Immigration lawyers warn these provisions are arbitrary by design, excluding people whose circumstances change after arrival and diverting claims away from independent adjudication. For individuals fleeing escalating persecution, or for those whose persecution becomes apparent after arrival (e.g., political or security changes in the country of origin), the requirement to seek asylum within one year of first entry represents a punishment for having entered Canada. The U.N. committee has explicitly warned that such measures risk denying asylum seekers “unfettered access” to fair and efficient procedures.
While Bill C-12 may be framed as a response to system backlogs or public concern, government policy documents show a broader recalibration underway.
Canada’s 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan emphasizes reducing the temporary resident population to below five per cent and prioritizing economic immigration aligned with labour market needs. Refugees and protected persons remain a capped and comparatively small share of overall admissions.
Recent reporting confirms that asylum restrictions exist within a system-wide shift toward selectivity. Caps on international students, reductions in temporary worker programs, stricter eligibility for family members and tighter asylum timelines reflect an immigration framework increasingly oriented around economic filtering over humanitarian protection.
Canada’s obligations to refugees are grounded in both domestic and international law, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly Section 7, which protects life, liberty and security of the person and adheres to the UN Refugee Convention.
Through the SCTA, Canada effectively outsources its obligations. The SCTA operates within this network of greater economic selection and demographic planning, preventing unaccounted and non-selected asylum seekers from settling here by accepting U.S. border management and immigration policies.
Canada can live up to our humanitarian values by suspending the STCA pending a transparent reassessment of U.S. asylum conditions and repealing or amending provisions in C-12 that undermine due process.
Canada must fundamentally align its immigration planning framework with international refugee obligations. To continue to outsource border management to the United States carries moral and legal consequences that Canada can no longer afford to ignore.
Julia Chapman is a Master of Public Policy candidate at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. Chapman has previously conducted comparative research on international refugee systems and currently works in federal policy at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
This essay was also published as part of a collaboration between the Centre for Health Communications and the Centre for Global Social Policy’s Opinion Piece project, with funding from SSHRC and the Canada Research Chairs.
Julia Chapman is a Master of Public Policy candidate at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. Chapman has previously conducted comparative research on international refugee systems and currently works in federal policy at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
