It was successfully appealed in 2008, if we’re being picky.

The appeal was based in the fact that the judge found that the basis upon which a regulation was made (i.e. the position that the states is a safe country) does not have to be absolutely correct, so long as the gov considered if it might be true.

(See: https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/36041/index.do)

[57] Understanding precisely what is in issue in a judicial review application is important when it comes time to determine the standard of review as well as the scope of the review that can be conducted by the Court. An attack aimed at the vires of a regulation involves the narrow question of whether the conditions precedent set out by Parliament for the exercise of the delegated authority are present at the time of the promulgation, an issue that invariably calls for a standard of correctness.

…

[60] Despite this language, the matter raised by the application is a pure vires issue (see the relevant part of the application for judicial review quoted at paragraph 15 above).

…

[78] Subsection 101(2) does not refer to “actual” compliance or compliance “in absolute terms” nor does it otherwise specify the type and extent of compliance contemplated. However, Parliament has specified the four factors to be considered in determining whether a country can be designated. These factors are general in nature and are indicative of Parliament’s intent that the matter of compliance be assessed on the basis of an appreciation by the GIC of the country’s policies, practices and human rights record. Once it is accepted, as it must be in this case, that the GIC has given due consideration to these four factors, and formed the opinion that the candidate country is compliant with the relevant Articles of the Conventions, there is nothing left to be reviewed judicially. I stress that there is no suggestion in this case that the GIC acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

I mentioned it was challenged back then to demonstrate that it’s been known to be problematic since the beginning.

If we want to follow along with the details there have been further challenges, started in 2017, which were on the basis that it violated the charter. The courts agreed in 2020, but again it was appealed and the court gave it’s ruling in 2023: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19957/index.do

I remember watching Trudeau respond to this in 2020, when he was doing his daily appearances from the governor generals cottage.

I’m not trying to shame anyone for not knowing, I get that there is a lot going on in the world and people are struggling in an individual basis too. But it really shocks me when are surprised that it’s not all sunshine and rainbows and open arms. I actually learned about it in 2017, when the PM was on TV saying canada would welcome people. Not if they are being deported from the US, I guess 🤷🏻‍♀️

Oh, they are very aware. The STCA has been before the courts a few times. You can read about it here: https://ccrweb.ca/en/safe-third-country

Folks have been suing the gov about the Safe Third a country agreement since 2005 - opposition isn’t new. And yes, the courts did strike it down but the gov appealed, and it’s still under review.

The govs website about the agreement even includes a section on why the US is considered a safe country.

I think assuming they are ‘behind the curve’ is … generous.

Cops don’t exist to protect you and they don’t have to be physically fit to serve their purpose: using the threat of violence and the prison industrial complex to protect the interests of capital.

I think people really underestimate how much work it is to maintain a community online. It’s something that is so outside of my skillset and capabilities that I feel awe when I see it done successfully.