Canada safe deal
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The “deal” at issue is the Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA): a bilateral treaty that generally requires asylum seekers to seek protection in the first country they arrive in, and which was expanded in 2023 to cover the entire land border [1] [2]. Whether it is “safe” depends on two axes: legal and human-rights risk (courts and advocates argue the U.S. may not protect everyone), and pragmatic policy risk (Canada’s capacity and political choices if the U.S. changes its asylum rules) [3] [4].
1. What the STCA actually does and how it changed in 2023
The STCA, in force since 2004, bars most refugee claimants who arrive from the U.S. at Canada’s land border from making a Canadian claim unless they meet a listed exception; Ottawa and Washington agreed on an Additional Protocol that came into effect March 25, 2023 and expanded application to irregular crossings between ports of entry [1] [2] [5].
2. Legal standing: courts have not settled the constitutionality
Canada’s highest court has already wrestled with the STCA: a Federal Court decision in 2020 found returns to the U.S. violated section 7 of the Charter, that was later overturned on appeal, and the Supreme Court issued a partial decision in June 2023 that upheld the agreement but remitted certain equality questions — including gender-based impacts — back to the trial court [4] [6] [7]. In 2025 litigants renewed review in light of changed U.S. policy, seeking to declare the agreement invalid given risks in the U.S. asylum system [1] [3].
3. Human-rights assessments and civil-society opposition
Refugee advocates and human-rights organizations say the U.S. cannot be treated as uniformly safe for all refugees, citing detention, legal backlogs, and uneven protection for gender- and LGBTQIA+-based claims; Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees and others called for urgent withdrawal or suspension of the STCA in 2025 [7] [4] [8]. Civil-society coalitions have urged immediate moratoria on removals to the U.S. and narrow exceptions for vulnerable groups arguing that expanded application of the STCA risks refoulement [9] [8].
4. Government and policy defenders: order, cooperation, and capacity concerns
The federal government and some policy voices defend the STCA as a cooperative tool for orderly handling of claims and warn that unilaterally ending the agreement without planning would risk sudden inflows that Canada may not be prepared to absorb; government statements and analysts note Canada’s immigration targets and limited absorptive capacity for large, rapid refugee inflows [10] [3]. Commentators argue that repealing the STCA without contingency planning would be “reckless,” while retaining it without re-evaluation is “untenable,” framing the STCA question as a trade-off between humanitarian protection and system stability [3].
5. Practical options and political levers left on the table
Options on the table that appear in public advocacy and policy commentary include maintaining the STCA but tightening exceptions and monitoring, suspending or withdrawing from the agreement to allow asylum claims at ports of entry, or pursuing case-by-case exemptions for survivors of gender-based persecution and LGBTQIA+ claimants — measures urged by NGOs in 2025 [9] [7] [5]. Courts are an active path: ongoing judicial reviews could force legislative or policy changes if they find equality or Charter breaches [4] [1].
6. Bottom line: is the “Canada safe deal” safe?
If “safe deal” means reliable protection for refugees, the answer is contested: the STCA is legally operational and valued by government for bilateral orderliness, but is widely criticized by human-rights groups and under live judicial challenge because the U.S. asylum environment may not guarantee equal protection for all vulnerable claimants, especially after the 2023 expansion and recent U.S. policy shifts [2] [4] [3]. If “safe deal” means risk-free for Canada’s institutions, critics warn it masks difficult trade-offs in capacity and moral obligations; if it means politically durable, the agreement is under sustained legal and civic pressure that could force change [10] [7] [9].