Safe Third Party Agreement Meaning
The Canadian Refugee Council strongly opposes this agreement because the United States is not a safe country for all refugees. The CCR also denounces the objective and impact of reducing the number of refugees who can seek refuge in Canada. Although the term “fault” has gained notoriety in the media, it is a bad name, given that there are several exceptions to the STCA for many important reasons. The most frequently cited indicates that the STCA does not apply to persons entering seaports or persons entering by land at non-designated ports of entry. As far as I understand the different points of view, the Liberal Party has rejected the requests to amend the STCA. The Conservatives have proposed to make the entire U.S.-Canada border a specific entry ground, so that no one can be protected on the train from the United States. The NDP and the Green Party have proposed suspending the STCA because the U.S. system has deviated from the standards of the Canadian system (for example. B, the United States no longer provides protection against subsidized/state-sanctioned domestic violence or subsidized/state-sanctioned gang violence). To date, the United States is the only country to be designated by Canada as a safe third country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. If the government wins its appeal, which will probably be heard in late February or early March, the border agreement will almost certainly remain intact. If the government loses its appeal, it is likely that the agreement will be permanently abolished, unless the government decides to challenge the loss in the Supreme Court. Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) authorizes the designation of safe third countries for the purposes of co-responsibility for refugee applications.
Only countries that respect human rights and offer a high level of protection to asylum seekers can be designated as safe third countries. The government said the abolition of the agreement would result in an “inflow” of asylum seekers at the border, making it more difficult for several levels of government to maintain the existing refugee system, including the provision of housing and other social services. According to the signatories, the STCA was created to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the asylum and refugee system in Canada and the United States. The government says the agreement guarantees predictability and tighter control over asylum cases. The idea is that it would be difficult to regulate border crossings if asylum seekers do not use the right channels to file their claims. The government is calling for illegal immigration to disadvantage immigrants and refugees who go through the legal and sometimes laborious process of refugee decision-making. For all other countries that may be classified as safe third countries in the future: safe third country agreements are not explicitly mentioned in the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Refugee Status Protocol. Rather, their legitimacy derives from Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, which states that a refugee should not be punished for illegal entry into a country if he arrives directly from a country where he is threatened.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has itself warned against over-interpreting safe third country agreements, although it acknowledges that they may be acceptable in certain circumstances.  Such ambiguities have prompted some Canadian legal experts to question the legality of the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement.  Ahmed Hussen, speaking as Canada`s Minister of the IRCC, said the terms of the agreement on the security of third-country nationals were still being met. The ruling Liberal Party of Canada has not indicated any plans or intentions to suspend the agreement.  The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires ongoing review of all countries designated as safe third countries.