Former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy urged Ottawa this week to pull out of the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States 🇺🇸, arguing that the deal leaves many asylum seekers in danger and damages Canada’s humanitarian reputation. His call, delivered through interviews and public statements in 2025, targets a pact that shapes who can claim asylum at the Canada–U.S. land border. Refugee advocates say the stakes are immediate for families turned back each day. Axworthy’s intervention adds high-profile political pressure to a debate that has already reached Canada’s top courts and mobilized major human rights groups.
Why Axworthy is calling for withdrawal
Axworthy, long known for championing human security, said Canada 🇨🇦 can no longer defend sending asylum seekers back to the U.S. under a refugee policy he views as increasingly harsh.
- He pointed to recent U.S. measures, including:
- suspension of some refugee admissions
- higher detention rates
- faster deportations
- He argued these steps make the current system unsafe for many who flee persecution.
He framed the issue as both moral and legal, saying Canada has duties under international conventions and its own Charter to shield vulnerable people.
“The Safe Third Country Agreement risks pushing people into danger the moment they are returned across the border,” Axworthy said, warning that this can expose Canada to complicity in human rights violations when deportations follow.
He urged an immediate suspension of the pact and called for new, safer pathways for those at risk if sent back to the U.S. His message targeted the federal cabinet and the wider public, invoking Canada’s image as a country that protects refugees rather than turning them away.
What the agreement does and why critics object
The agreement, in place since 2004, requires most asylum seekers to request protection in the first safe country they reach. In practice, this limits claims at official land ports of entry for people who passed through the United States before arriving in Canada.
- Axworthy’s main points:
- The premise of “safe” no longer holds for all groups.
- Canada should not rely on a rule that may endanger people simply because they crossed the U.S. first.
- The policy does not reflect today’s risks for groups already facing bias and violence.
Rights organizations that align with Axworthy’s stance include Amnesty International Canada, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and other advocacy groups. They have:
- Issued open letters and public statements highlighting harms tied to the agreement.
- Pointed to court rulings (Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada) that found the agreement may breach Charter rights in practice.
- Highlighted particularly acute risks for:
- transgender and gender-diverse people
- survivors of gender-based violence
- Others facing higher danger in detention or removal
Changes at the border and practical consequences
Advocates say the border reality has shifted in ways the 2004 policy did not foresee.
- Recent data show more asylum seekers trying to reach Canada, yet many are turned around under the agreement and handed back to U.S. custody.
- Axworthy warned that this trend increases the risk that Canada is sending people into systems where:
- they may be detained without proper safeguards
- they may be removed before they can fairly present their claims
He stressed that continuing down this path would erode Canada’s long-standing commitment to protection.
What Axworthy proposes instead
Axworthy emphasized that a reset would not mean open borders, but a refugee policy built on safety and due process.
He urged the federal government to:
- Pause returns under the agreement while new systems are developed.
- Design fast, narrow routes that allow quick screening for those at high risk.
- Keep families together and avoid long detention for children.
- Ensure returns do not occur before careful review for people with protection needs.
Rights groups support similar measures, arguing humane and tight screening would prevent wrongful turn-backs and help identify victims of trafficking or gender-based harm earlier.
Legal backdrop and political impact
The legal fight has unfolded over several years. Courts have examined:
- How the agreement works at the border
- What it means for basic rights
- Whether returns to the U.S. can expose people to harmful conditions
- Whether Canada can rely on U.S. processes without proper checks
While the government has defended the framework, rights groups say the record shows real harm to vulnerable claimants and that risks have grown. Axworthy’s comments add a former top diplomat to those calling for change.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the political weight of a former foreign minister could widen the space for a policy shift—especially if new evidence on detention and deportation outcomes keeps surfacing. The site notes advocacy groups have tried to link individual stories to systemic gaps, arguing that the agreement turns the border into a hard “no” for people who need protection most. Axworthy’s intervention ties Canada’s global image to how it treats those at the edge of its territory.
Human impact and border choices
For people on the move, the stakes are personal and urgent. Community workers along the border say many claimants now face a choice:
- Risk being turned back at an official crossing under the Safe Third Country Agreement, or
- Take irregular routes that can be dangerous
Axworthy said ending the pact would reduce those dangers by letting people make claims at regular entry points with proper screenings. Rights groups add that this would help identify victims sooner, when support can make the most difference.
Government response and next steps
The federal government has not announced a response to Axworthy’s latest call. Officials have often said the agreement supports an orderly system and shared responsibility with the United States.
- Critics counter that order cannot come at the cost of safety.
- They argue Canada can manage borders while still giving people a fair chance to seek protection.
Axworthy’s proposal tries to bridge that divide: pause the agreement, put safety screens in place, and rebuild a system that meets legal duties without bottlenecks.
Official guidance on how the agreement applies at land ports, airports, and exceptions remains posted on the Government of Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement page: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/claim-protection-inside-canada/safe-third-country-agreement.html.
Axworthy said those rules now exclude too many people who cannot safely wait in the U.S. He wants Ottawa to create narrow, fast-track routes for those at clear risk and to ensure returns don’t happen before a careful review. Rights groups have made similar requests, saying tight, humane checks would prevent wrongful turn-backs.
Outlook
For now, the pressure is building. Human rights groups are preparing more public campaigns, while lawyers track new cases that test how the agreement works on the ground.
- Axworthy’s move gives advocates a prominent ally.
- It places refugee policy near the top of this year’s immigration debate.
Whether the government changes course, the next steps will shape how Canada treats people at its land border—and how it is seen by those who look to it for protection.
This Article in a Nutshell
In 2025 Lloyd Axworthy urged Canada to withdraw from the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States, arguing the 2004 pact exposes asylum seekers to detention, rapid deportation and unsafe conditions in the U.S. Rights groups and some courts have flagged Charter breaches in practice, especially for transgender people and survivors of gender-based violence. Axworthy proposes pausing returns, creating fast, narrow screening routes, and protecting families. The federal government has not responded; the debate could prompt major refugee policy shifts.
