Menu Close

Where is the ‘Safe’ in the Safe Third Country Agreement?

By: Mariana Guevara Hernandez

Canada is known to be a refugee ‘friendly’ country: in 2023 (Jan – Oct), 112,780 asylum claimants were processed. However, Canada is not as ‘friendly’ towards refugee seekers who have first arrived in the U.S. This is due to an agreement, known as the Safe Third Country Agreement, between the U.S and Canada, which requires the refugee seeker to make their claim in the first ‘safe’ country they arrive at. 

However, not every asylum seeker wishes to stay in the U.S.A. for different political, economic, and social reasons. This agreement has only pushed asylum seekers to risk their lives trying to cross the U.S.–Canada border through irregular passing rather than staying in the U.S.

Instead of seeing refugees risk their lives trying to cross the border and forcing them to live in a place they do not feel comfortable in, the Canadian government should remove the Safe Third Country Agreement.

The Safe Third Country Agreement was signed between Canada and the U.S. in 2002 to manage access to the refugee system better and regulate the crossings at their shared land border. This agreement states that the refugees must ask for protection in the first country they arrive at, with some exceptions. Currently, Canada defines the U.S. as a ‘safe’ country. Therefore, if refugees arrive first in the U.S., they are forced to make their claim there and may no longer do it in Canada.

The original agreement stated that refugees would be rejected at official port crossings. This created a loophole where refugee seekers started crossing through unofficial ports of entry such as Roxham Road, Québec. In March 2023, this loophole was amended, and the agreement now covers the whole land border.

The Roxham Road case is often used as an example of why the agreement should be upheld. Before the amendment, the province of Québec saw an increase in the number of refugees they received. In 2022, 64% of asylum claims were made in Québec, which strained the education, housing and social systems. People claim that without the agreement, this would happen again, and refugees wouldn’t have a good quality of life.

However, this only happened because of the loophole in the agreement. If it were to be removed, the refugee intake would not concentrate on just a port of entry, but it would be distributed through the whole land border, and an official port of entry would be able to handle this.

The reality is that the irregular crossings have not been stopped; in 2023, 22,316 asylum claims were made by irregular crossers. What has changed is that refugees have chosen to cross through more dangerous parts of the border, willing to risk their lives. Like the story of Seidu Mohammed, who, fearing deportation in the U.S., almost froze to death and had to have his fingers amputated due to the frostbite he suffered once he managed to cross the border. Without the agreement, maybe Seidu would still have his fingers today.

Furthermore, the situation in the U.S. has clearly changed over the years. There has been a rise in polarization and xenophobia over the years. Their immigration policies have also changed, and the way that the U.S. has been seen to deal with immigrants is less than ideal. With the news breaking of the poor conditions of their detention centers, holding children in cages, mass deportation and the separation of families, it is understandable how asylum seekers would not longer feel safe there.  Yet, Canada keeps turning a blind eye.

As stated by the general secretary of Amnesty International Canada, the agreement endangers asylum seekers and puts them and their rights at risk.

People should not need to risk their lives just because it was ‘easier’ for them to arrive in the U.S. Asylum seekers should be able to choose where to start their new lives after uprooting their previous ones. They should feel safe in the new country and not have to decide to keep risking their lives because they arrived in ‘the wrong country.’ Canada should show its support for refugees by removing the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Is Punishing Canadians for Personal Illegal Drug Use Still the Answer?

By Beth Fleming

The harm to citizens caused by substance use across Canada is substantial: drug overdoses, gun violence, addiction, school dropouts, mental health problems and negative financial repercussions.

Alarmingly, 21% of Canadians will experience a substance use disorder during their lifetime and the pandemic has only worsened Canada’s overdose crisis, yet the government Canadians elected has failed to properly acknowledge this devastating situation.

Sadly, substance use and addiction is rapidly rising, and Canada’s Federal Government must swiftly implement a new drug-related system in order to get ahead of the crisis.

Fortunately, there is another option.

Canada’s Current Policies

Punishment is Canada’s current policy strategy to prevent illegal drug use, through the criminalization of drugs. Public Safety Canada works with various partners to combat the import, production and distribution of illegal substances. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) defines offences and punishments pertaining to the possession, acquisition and trafficking of drugs and substances.

But this act is outdated. 

Canada’s Present Problem

In Ontario, every 10 hours, an opioid related death occurs, and approximately 21 opioid related deaths occur per day across Canada. And yet, surprisingly, Canada’s current drug policies remain the same. Current drug policies have several problems, including a lack of citizens seeking treatment due to the stigmatization of drug use or being labelled as criminals, and an overloading of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) with a focus on punishment rather than treatment.

The CDSA is dismally failing citizens; individuals are not receiving necessary therapy or treatments, resulting in the hopeless cycle of indefinite drug use. 

Alternative to Criminal Penalties 

Canada must develop policies to fight crime, not illness, but what can be done?

The decriminalization of personal illegal drug use and possession occurs when criminal penalties for specific drug law violations are removed. This change excludes the illegal production and distribution of drugs. The decriminalization of personal drug use has already been successfully implemented in over two dozen countries with encouraging results. Clearly, Canada is falling behind. 

Through implementation, Canadians would be steered away from the CJS and directed towards treatment. As a result, Canadians would experience a number of constructive benefits. Drug use would finally be addressed as a health problem, drug tax revenue would be distributed towards necessary education and treatment, and prisoner overflow within the CJS would be considerably reduced.

Successful Models to Follow

Portugal

In 2001, Portugal implemented a decriminalization policy for personal drug possession and, as a result, deaths related to drug use decreased drastically, sitting persistently below the European Union average, and prisoners sentenced in relation to illegal drugs decreased from 40% to 15%.

Portugal’s model has been successful; the country focuses their resources on prevention, education and treatment. By pairing decriminalization with rehabilitation, drug use and the associated harms are greatly reduced.

Switzerland

In 1994, Switzerland passed drug policies focused on decriminalizing personal drug use and creating access to new supports and treatment options. As a result, drug overdose deaths decreased significantly, overall crime rates dropped and infection rates of HIV and Hepatitis C steadily declined.

Switzerland sensibly focused on these four pillars: harm reduction, treatment, prevention and repression. Their policies shifted to a focus on public health, which successfully decreased barriers to obtaining treatment.

Things to Keep in Mind

The decriminalization of personal drug use has potential consequences that need to be taken into consideration, which the government can counteract. 

Potential Consequences of Decriminalization

Decriminalization can make illegal drugs less expensive, more accessible, and more widely accepted by society. In addition, the resources and services currently in place as drug treatments are not extensive enough to handle a large influx of new addicts and more experimentation may occur if individuals do not fear legal sanctions.

What can the Government do?

While an increase in the supply of drugs and decrease in the price of drugs may occur on the illegal drug market, the government can utilize the freed up CJS resources to target those producing and distributing illegal drugs. The government must implement a policy that expands existing treatment programs to account for an influx of new patients. Finally, by decriminalizing personal drug use the government will ensure that the drugs Canadians are experimenting with are not contaminated through government inspection and monitoring. 

Drugs are not going to disappear so the government needs to focus on what it can do to reduce their harm on individuals and society.

How Old Is Old Enough? The case for younger Canadian voters

By Zuhair Ahmad

Canada should lower the federal voting age to 16 because many of the key issues we are facing today — climate change, environmental degradation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and social and racial justice — will have serious consequences for young Canadians in the future.

In the past, voting was seen as a privilege, which meant that certain groups in the population were not allowed to vote. Now almost all Canadian citizens over the age of 18 have the right to vote. 21 was the “age of majority” for most of Canada’s history because that’s when a person was considered mature enough to participate in the democratic process. The federal voting age continued to be 21 well into the late 1960s. A series of bills proposing legislation were eventually introduced in 1969, and the voting age was eventually lowered to 18 in 1970.

The right to vote is supported by constitutional law. The Supreme Court’s January 2019 decision in Frank v. Canada reaffirmed voting as a fundamental political right, which cannot be limited without a compelling justification. The court found that the limit placed on voting violated Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — which says “every citizen” has the right to vote. The Supreme Court wrote “since voting is a fundamental political right, and the right to vote is a core tenet of Canadian democracy, any limit on the right to vote must be scrutinized and cannot be tolerated without a compelling justification.

More and more young Canadians are appealing the federal age to vote by deeming it unconstitutional. In Canada, the federal NDP and Green Party publicly support a younger voting age. The federal Conservative, NDP and Liberal parties already allow members as young as 14 to vote in leadership contests.

Several countries, such as Belgium, Brazil, and Austria, have already lowered their voting ages to 16. Research shows that jurisdictions that have introduced under-18 voting have had a positive impact in terms of political engagement and civic attitudes amongst young adult voters. The current voting age does not align with the minimum age of many other activities that require maturity and judgment, such as driving, joining the military and getting a job.

From March to April 2020, Children First Canada led a national consultation to better understand how young Canadians felt about lowering the voting age. A total of 180 children and youth from across Canada provided their feedback on a range of issues related to the right to vote. 58% of youth agreed that the federal voting age should be lowered to 16 in Canada.

The current voting age aligns with the time that adolescence naturally ends. This is usually when teenagers are graduating high school and leaving home for the first time. Before then, many feel that teenagers should be focusing on education, friends, and after school activities – not getting involved with politics. Teenagers at 16 are unsure about their personal values, political or otherwise. Teenagers are also more likely to be pressured or influenced by those around them.

Some might argue that people under the age of 18 lack knowledge about policies and democracy to make informed decisions. However, adult voters are not necessarily more informed about policy issues than young people when making political choices. Anyway, lowering the federal voting age would probably not change election outcomes. Demographics show that young people below the age of 17 are a much smaller population compared to those in the over 25 age group.

If the federal voting age were be lowered to 16 in Canada, we could combat concerns by first lowering the municipal age to vote in order to gauge the interest and turnout. Or we could require students to pass their civics education course to be eligible to vote. But imagine the potential depletion of the voting lists if all citizens were required to pass a similar course.

Voting rights in Canada have changed over time to become more inclusive. Challenging the federal age to vote could be the next step in expanding and strengthening our democracy.