Canada’s refugee policies expose a stark double standard

Canada has long championed itself as a beacon of humanitarianism, a nation that welcomes the persecuted and upholds human rights on the global stage. But when it comes to actually implementing refugee policies, a stark and troubling pattern emerges—one that raises serious questions about racial and political bias.

A close examination of Canada's response to three of the world's worst ongoing humanitarian crises—Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine—reveals an immigration system where the urgency of a refugee’s plight does not determine their chances of resettlement. Instead, race, nationality, and geopolitical interests appear to dictate who gets in and how fast.

The numbers paint a clear picture: While hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees were swiftly approved and resettled in Canada, Palestinian and Sudanese refugees have faced strict caps, indefinite delays, and bureaucratic obstacles. The disparities are so glaring that they can no longer be dismissed as logistical challenges or capacity issues. They are the result of deliberate policy choices that favor some refugees over others.

A tale of three crises, three different responses

While millions continue to flee war and persecution across the globe, Canada’s response has been strikingly inconsistent.

The Gaza Temporary Visa Program, designed to help Palestinians escape the ongoing Israeli bombardment and humanitarian crisis, was capped at 5,000 applications before being abruptly shut down. The Gaza Temporary Visa Program in Canada required applicants to pay an application fee of $100 per person or $500 for a family unit of five or more, along with a biometrics fee of $170 for a family unit of two or more. However, when the program's closure was announced on March 6, 2025, these fees were waived for eligible Palestinian nationals and their family members under the Gaza special measures, with refunds issued to those who had already paid. Even more disturbingly, only 645 people have actually made it to Canada, and they had to escape Gaza on their own—an almost impossible feat given the border closures, constant airstrikes, and devastating humanitarian conditions. For most Palestinians seeking safety, Canada’s promise of refuge was never truly accessible.

The Sudan Pathway Program, meant to facilitate the entry of Sudanese family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, was also limited, capped at 3,250 applications and subsequently paused indefinitely in May 2024. While the cap was later extended to include an additional 1,700 applications, bringing the total to just over 5,000 (similar to the Gaza program), it remains the only program requiring financial sponsorship from Sudanese-Canadians who wish to bring their family and loved ones to safety. These families stepped up, fulfilling the financial requirement, only to be met with discriminatory delays, unexplained bureaucratic obstacles, and unbearably slow processing times. Many families lost loved ones while waiting for Canada to act. Applicants were required to demonstrate a minimum financial commitment of $9,900 to privately sponsor one individual, in addition to a processing fee of $635 per adult and $175 per child. So far, 399 applications (representing 800+ people) have been approved, and just 179 people have arrived in Canada. For a nation that prides itself on humanitarian aid, this response to one of Africa’s worst conflicts has been lethargic at best and negligent at worst.

Contrast this with the Canada–Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET) program, which saw 1,189,320 applications. Of these, 962,612 were approved, and by February 2025, 298,128 Ukrainians had already settled in Canada. Unlike the Palestinian and Sudanese programs, which were capped, restricted, and delayed, the Ukrainian program was fast-tracked, expansive, and actively promoted by the government. Moreover, CUAET applicants have the following fees waived: Visa application fee, biometric collection fee, and work permit application fee, among others.

The difference in treatment is undeniable.

The Ukrainian refugee crisis was undoubtedly urgent. Russia’s invasion displaced millions, and Canada responded swiftly. But so did the wars in Gaza and Sudan. Civilians there face just as much—if not more—danger. So why is Canada treating them so differently?

The truth is, it’s not about logistics, it’s about politics. Canada has the capacity and resources to act quickly. It proved this with its Ukrainian resettlement program, which eliminated bureaucratic barriers, relaxed requirements, and created special processes to accommodate refugees in record time. Yet, the same urgency was absent for Palestinians and Sudanese. If Canada can move mountains for one group, why can’t it do the same for others?

This isn’t about capacity or resources—it’s about priorities. When governments choose to respond to one crisis with urgency while allowing another to fester, they send a clear message: some lives matter more than others.

The disparities in Canada’s refugee policies are not new. This is part of a longstanding pattern that has favored white, European, and Christian refugees over those from Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim-majority countries.

Syrian refugees initially faced significant political resistance before public pressure forced the government to act. Afghans who risked their lives working alongside Canadian forces were abandoned while other Western allies swiftly evacuated thousands. Today, Palestinians and Sudanese refugees face the same pattern of neglect.

The question remains: If refugee policy were based purely on humanitarian need, why do we see fast-tracked approvals for one group and endless delays, arbitrary caps, and red tape for others? If race, religion, and geopolitics weren’t factors, Canada’s refugee policies would be consistent across the board. Instead, we see one set of rules for European refugees and another for racialized communities.

If Canada wants to live up to its reputation as a leader in human rights, it must ensure its refugee policies are fair, consistent, and free of racial or political bias. The government must reopen and expand the Gaza and Sudan resettlement programs to create a meaningful pathway for those fleeing war and persecution. The arbitrary caps that disproportionately limit access for racialized refugees must be eliminated, allowing those in desperate need to seek safety without unnecessary restrictions.

Canada must also establish fast-track pathways for urgent refugee cases that mirror the efficiency and accessibility of the CUAET program. If the government was able to move with such urgency for Ukrainians, there is no reason the same process cannot be applied to refugees from Gaza, Sudan, or any other humanitarian crisis.

Finally, transparency in immigration decisions must be prioritized. Without clear policies that prevent discrimination and political interference, Canada’s refugee system will continue to operate under a two-tiered structure—one for those it prioritizes and another for those it ignores.

A refugee’s right to safety should not be determined by their nationality, race, or religion. A Palestinian child fleeing Israeli bombardment is just as deserving of safety as a Ukrainian child fleeing Russian airstrikes. A Sudanese mother running from war should have the same chance at survival as a European one.

Canada must decide: does it stand for universal human rights, or does it continue to operate a two-tiered refugee system—one for the white and more privileged and another for the "others" deemed unworthy?

The numbers don’t lie. The bias is undeniable. And history will remember how Canada chose to respond.

(Faisal Kutty is a Toronto/Los Angeles-based lawyer, law professor, and regular contributor to The Toronto Star. His articles also appear in Newsweek, Aljazeera, Zeteo, and Middle East Eye. You can follow him on X @faisalkutty)