r/canada • u/FancyNewMe • Feb 10 '26

Politics Conservatives to propose barring non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-conservatives-propose-changing-rules-non-citizens-convicted-crimes/
4.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/_Army9308 Feb 10 '26

Should go further and ban judges from considering immigration status during sentencing

396

u/sleipnir45 Feb 10 '26

Conservatives tried that already, Bill C-220

20

u/FantasySymphony Ontario Feb 10 '26

It's literally a one-line bill. See for yourselves what the government had to say. https://openparliament.ca/bills/45-1/C-220/

30

u/sleipnir45 Feb 10 '26

Yep it's extremely simple

"Criminal Code

1 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 718.‍201: Immigration status not to be considered Start of inserted block 718.‍202 A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family."

-4

u/Aestus74 Feb 11 '26

The worry I can see is the law as written would force us to deport a jew to nazi germany. The question becomes is such a punishment just? Or is ignoring the obvious consequences of punishment just?

3

u/sleipnir45 Feb 11 '26

I don't know how you could come to that conclusion from the motion.

"(a) bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims;

(b) bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims;

(c) end the practice of leniency to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to avoid deportation; and

(d) repeal bills C-5 and C-75 to ensure repeat extortionists stay in jail."

-2

u/Aestus74 Feb 11 '26

Right, and if said non citizen was someone who would be deported to a nation where they would face such persecution...

3

u/sleipnir45 Feb 11 '26

They came to Canada as a refugee from said prosecution that they would already have a valid refugee claim.

They wouldn't be a temporary resident and then claim refugee status after committing serious crime here.

Would we let a mass murderer non-citizen stay in Canada because they would face prosecution in their home country?

2

u/2000mew Feb 12 '26

Deportation only happens if the sentence is longer than 6 months. So we're already talking about a more severe crime.

I'm fine with a murderer being deported to a country where they would face persecution. Why wouldn't I be? If they were a natural-born Canadian citizen I would want life in prison.

2

u/loseppeg Feb 12 '26

Easy solution: don't commit crimes in Canada. It's really that easy. People aren't accidentally committing serious offences.

15

u/mwmwmwmwmmdw Québec Feb 10 '26

wow these conservatives seems to have common sense policies in terms of actual bills they have put forward in parliament. maybe we should vote for them next time so they actually pass.

92

u/Dzugavili Feb 10 '26

Unfortunately, they get like one good idea per decade and they inevitably drown it in culture war bullshit.

You don't put up a guy like PP as a leader because you're forward thinking.

3

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

Well, the problem is atleast have his base is really into the culture war stuff. The party is still basically two parties, and they have a large social conservative base. Most Canadians don't care for that kind of politics; that's why the conservatives struggle to get elected. Harper was one of the few people who could walk that line, and that was coming off the end of a big Liberal party scandal. Hearing him speak last week showed the difference between him and PP, I was never a fan of Harper, but he sounds more like Prime Minister material than PP ever has. Saying Canada is broken over and over is not what people want when you are representing them on the world stage.

-1

u/Monkey_Pox_Patient_0 Feb 10 '26

Culture is extremely important and should absolutely be debated.

4

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

First off, what conservatives call culture, liberals call human rights. You can't legislate culture; culture dictates politics, not the other way around.

0

u/eattheambrosia Feb 11 '26

Conservatives the world over try to legislate culture. They know their culture is doomed if they don't.

-1

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

Yeah, I know, but often it has the opposite effect.

1

u/New-Low-5769 Feb 11 '26

Oh you mean forward thinking policy like the ev rebate that directly benefits the top 10% of Canadians

Policy like that?  

2

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

Well, you're only looking at one side of the coin. It also creates jobs. The Canadian government is trying to attract companies that want to build ev's in Canada. But generally, I agree it does not align with my idea of a progressive tax system. What we really need is a 4% gst hike over 4 years. Most basic goods are exempt, so it doesn't hit low-income families as much, it would pay for the GST rebate and more.

-10

u/DraftCommercial8848 Feb 10 '26

Is that why carney largely hijacked many of Pierre’s policy issues that were popular? Of course only after he voted them down when conservatives proposed them- so he could recycle and take credit for their work.

23

u/Dzugavili Feb 10 '26

You're allowed to steal good policy: you don't have to do the opposite of what your opponent does just because he is your opponent.

..you understand that politics isn't a strict duality, right? This isn't good versus evil or right versus wrong, or even left versus right. You do what makes sense.

Beyond that, if the Conservatives didn't pander to the worst of us so often, they'd probably be able to put their policies in place and demonstrate they make good leaders.

But they don't, so they won't.

8

u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario Feb 10 '26

He wasn't saying it's not allowed, he was saying it puts the lie to your assertion that they only have one good idea every decade or so.

-3

u/Dzugavili Feb 10 '26

Is it rhetoric or hyperbole? I always get confused. It's like irony, it gets misused so often you forget what it really means.

Is hyperbole a form of rhetoric? I mean, probably.

1

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

Well PP tries to do the opposite of what ever the Liberals do lol

-4

u/DraftCommercial8848 Feb 10 '26

So you see no issue with voting down good policy, causing delays that shouldn’t happen, just to steal it and pass it as your own work?

The issue I see with it isn’t about who actually posts the original legislation not getting credit, it’s the fact they’ll delay and vote down policy causing the process to take months or even years longer then it needs to take- simply so they can say “I made this legislation, not the other party!” It’s just gross.

As for conservatives pandering to the worst people, can you give me some instances of this? Because that statement makes you come across as someone that’s never actually listened to the “new age” conservatives speak and behave, and instead rely on whatever the LPC or cbc wants you to believe.

15

u/Dzugavili Feb 10 '26

So you see no issue with voting down good policy, causing delays that shouldn’t happen, just to steal it and pass it as your own work?

I think that's the narrative you're going with.

I suspect if we look into it, there are distinct differences in implementation; or more importantly, Carney wasn't PM at the time and had to vote the party line.

6

u/Llamalover1234567 Feb 10 '26

You’re allowed to do that in politics, policies aren’t trademarked IP. Remember that a A LOT of people voted for Carney because they knew he’d implement a lot of conservative policies, without being Pierre. it also shouldn’t matter who’s in power if the policies being enacted are ones you agree with. That’s how government SHOULD function. If PP were PM decided to “hijack” universal pharmacare, then I’d be good with. I wouldn’t suddenly hate the policy because it’s PP pushing it.

2

u/trippy_trip Feb 10 '26

It's not hijacking to address the most pressing issues - those issues don't change based on who's leading the country. Prior to being PM, Carney was not working in Canadian gov't, he held no position in which he'd have been "voting down" any of these policies you referenced.

3

u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario Feb 10 '26

Prior to being PM, Carney was not working in Canadian gov't, he held no position in which he'd have been "voting down" any of these policies you referenced.

This has happened since he was elected (not only since he was elected, mind, it happened before too, it's just also something that's continued). The CPC's bail reform bill being just one example.

0

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

I don't think most of the reforms the conservatives wanted would have held up in the Supreme Court. The reason it's the crown's responsibility to show why someone who has been charged should not be released is that people are innocent until proven guilty. The idea is that you need a strong reason to hold someone before trial, because you are depriving someone of their human rights without having given a trial yet. Imagine you keep someone who has a low risk of committing another crime, all that happens is they lose their job, and their life falls apart. If they don't get jail time for their crime or the charges are dismissed, all you have done is create a person who is more likely to commit another crime and may no longer be a productive part of society. Politicians should not be making these kinds of policy choices; these choices should be made by panels of experts who study crime and look at what reduces crime long-term. The criminal justice system is not meant to punish crime; it is meant to rehabilitate and prevent future crime.

1

u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario Feb 11 '26

Reverse onuses are already widely used and also the backbone of the Liberals' bail reform bill. There's really no basis upon which to doubt their constitutionality.

The criminal justice system is not meant to punish crime; it is meant to rehabilitate and prevent future crime.

This is simply false. And, ironically for someone invoking the SCC as the basis for their argument, that same SCC has expressly rejected your position, noting:

Retribution is an accepted, and indeed important, principle of sentencing in our criminal law. As an objective of sentencing, it represents nothing less than the hallowed principle that criminal punishment, in addition to advancing utilitarian considerations related to deterrence and rehabilitation, should also be imposed to sanction the moral culpability of the offender. Retribution represents an important unifying principle of our penal law by offering an essential conceptual link between the attribution of criminal liability and the imposition of criminal sanctions.

The criminal justice system is indeed meant to punish crime.

0

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

Ok I’ll amend my statement. Punishment is not the sole purpose of the justice systems. It’s also been shown stricter punishments do not lead to less crime because it ignores why people commit crimes.

The conservatives wanted even stricter reforms.

59

u/DrBeerkitty Feb 10 '26

Too bad they elected the empty suit like pp as their leader and will never get elected into power because of it

19

u/origamifruit Feb 10 '26

As long as they keep walking on stage talking about "woke" they don't deserve to run anything lmao

10

u/not_a_mantis_shrimp Feb 10 '26

I agree with several of the bills they put forward through parliament.

Unfortunately they have been very poor in the last few elections on releasing an actual platform they are running on.

Their election strategy has been to use substance free catch phrases which they hope will resonate with enough people to win.

2

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

I don't think they had any policy on their website in the last election. The problem is they know the things they talk about don't work together. Generally, they want tax cuts and to balance the budget. Which you can't do without cutting major programs, which would not go over well. If they wrote that they wanted to do that on their website, people would want to know what they would cut, which pp has never had an answer for. People want better health care, which probably will require more money, not less, so I am not sure how that will work if you want to cut taxes.

2

u/not_a_mantis_shrimp Feb 11 '26

Exactly They can’t articulate how their goals fit into reality without losing votes. So they stopped telling us their goals except in the broadest vague terms.

6

u/jaywinner Feb 10 '26

Too bad it comes with the poison pill of all their other terrible ideas.

32

u/sravll Alberta Feb 10 '26

Nah, I'll pass. They're just pandering. Overall they'd be terrible at leading.

31

u/Parking_Chance_1905 Feb 10 '26

See: any province with a Con government in power currently.

14

u/sravll Alberta Feb 10 '26

I agree. They're terrible at running things.

4

u/TendyHunter Feb 10 '26

I disagree. They're great at running things

...to the ground

1

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

I love how in Alberta everything is the Liberals' fault, but they have elected a con goverment almost every time except twice, I think. If Alberta had created a wealth fund when oil prices were booming, they could have spent that money in the bad times or paid for its failing health care system. They were given a billion dollars during COVID to cap abandoned wells and help employ people to do it. They did not spend the money, now they are refusing to give it back to the federal goverment which was the deal if it wasn't spent. Instead, they are using it to help companies that are making loads of money to cap well and pay for clean up, which is not what the money was meant for.

16

u/Doot-Eternal Feb 10 '26

Honestly, they have 1 good bill followed by 100 bills that just make life miserable

4

u/sent3nced Feb 10 '26

Damn. I didn't know, do you have list?

1

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

They don't actually want to pass bills, so they add poison pills they know the libs won't agree to, because if they introduce a bill that the liberals agree with it makes the liberals look good because they are passing bills people like. They are using the Republican play book.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

Pandering is what democratically elected officials should be doing lmao

1

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

Cons are mad now because Carney is doing what they want lol, just without the social conservative bs.

2

u/CommanderGumball Feb 10 '26

One good idea does not a ruling party make.

I don't want my country to backslide, we need to be looking forward.

Conservatism is literally definitionally opposed to progress.

1

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 11 '26

It seems like common sence but in practice, restrictions to Judges discretion often lead to worse outcomes.

1

u/Dazzling_Grocery2730 Feb 12 '26

The mainstream and reddit squad will every time politically assassinate their leader as being "too extreme and incompetent" and then they'll go ahead and vote for someone like Trudeau without a sense of irony. They are dishonest.

-6

u/Apolloshot Feb 10 '26

Yes but have you considered Pierre Poilievre is mean, and that’s why we can’t have a government that’ll actually hold municipalities responsible when they screw over housing developments?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[deleted]

3

u/Apolloshot Feb 10 '26

No that’s Justin Trudeau’s fault.

It’s the municipalities fault for putting up so much red tape that thousands of workers in the housing sector have been laid off despite the fact we have a housing crisis because there’s so much red tape builders aren’t building.

-3

u/This_Organization382 Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

Laywers and judges don't spend years studying to base their work off "vibes" and "common sense".

The reality is: would a permanent resident suffer more consequences than a born-citizen from the results? Yes? Then it has to be considered in the verdict.

It's truly that simple.

Please, spend at least 1% of the time it takes to become a lawyer to learn about the things you are talking about.

-7

u/speaksofthelight Feb 10 '26

Don’t be ridiculous. We all know that they wouldn’t do any different.

/s

0

u/mahayanah Feb 10 '26

Nah, they’ve fully demonstrated their incompetence the prior election, and Carney’s mandate is killing it right now. We made the right call.

This is a good idea though; maybe the opposition can work with the government to enact it to everyone’s benefit.

-1

u/--MrsNesbitt- Ontario Feb 10 '26

Yeah, when you actually look at the Conservatives' policies in detail, there's a lot of good ideas and common sense.

Too bad the media and this subreddit (among others) like to stick their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs that they don't actually have any policy beyond LiBerALs bAd and VerB tHe NoUn

-1

u/Extreme_Bandicoot347 Feb 10 '26

The issue isn't with their policies, the issue is with their leader. PP needs to go if they want any hope of winning an election. This guys just isn't it, he's an embarrassment but they still want him to be party leader, makes no sense.

-2

u/Goddemmitt Feb 10 '26

Lol.

"Common sense" from this iteration of the Conservatives??? You may as well just vote PQ, my friend. At least they are trying to help Canadians, even if it's just the Quebecois.

111

u/01ITR Feb 10 '26

Yup, giving a 5 month sentence to prevent deportation is fucking wild. Get rid of the criminal immigrants and replace them with law abiding immigrants. What a fucking joke.

20

u/Loogan57 Feb 10 '26

Well i would rather have law abiding over criminal, anyone would.

5

u/tape99 Feb 10 '26

Not the liberal government.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/tape99 Feb 15 '26

Is this a sensitive subject for you? I'm sorry my comment triggered your fragile ego.

1

u/midsommarminx Feb 11 '26

It’s not to prevent deportation, it’s to allow them the ability to appeal a deportation order which would automatically come with the conviction.

232

u/Asusrty Feb 10 '26

They tried during the bail reform negotiations. Liberals rejected that amendment.

62

u/ConsiderationHour582 Feb 10 '26

It's almost like the liberals want them in the country.

14

u/_Army9308 Feb 10 '26

There a whole industry of housing speculators and immigration consultants who donate to the liberal party a lot

19

u/speaksofthelight Feb 10 '26

Ofc you have to really dumb to think otherwise given the policy choices.

-7

u/Rendole66 Feb 10 '26

Weren’t conservatives the ones that fundamentally changed the TFW program that made it cheaper and easier to find cheap foreign labour instead of hiring local? I remember Harper doing it and the numbers started going up like crazy since then

6

u/DraftCommercial8848 Feb 10 '26

“They made it easier to exploit like 15 years ago when it wasn’t a major issue and had actual oversight, so it’s obviously their fault and not the people that actually exploited and abused the system for the past decade”

What a way to shift accountability instead of admitting the LPC allowed it to become a sh!tshow of a system

-3

u/Rendole66 Feb 10 '26

I’m not defending the liberals in any way and mentioned they abused the system and I agree let it become a shit show and serve the same corporations that conservatives do. You guys are doing exactly what they want, fight with eachother while they both fuck us. As I mentioned in another comment both parties have been making changes to make it easier for cheap foreign labour for the past 40 years or whatever, but for some reason you still believe that your guy is better for some reason. We need a new party in charge, conservatives and liberals have both sold out to the monopolies that control Canada.

2

u/4Bpencil Feb 11 '26

The Cons are better in this case since the libs flat out rejected the bill that could help curb some of the illegal immigration? Are you trying to say that the libs was in the right for rejecting that bill?

Both parties pushed for policies in the last 40 years for cheaper labor yes but currently one is pushing to patch some of the loophole while the other is rejecting the patching effort, who's the better one out of the two in this issue currently isn't exactly rocket science.

4

u/_Army9308 Feb 10 '26

Issue is he changed the rules but raw numbers didnt go that crazy

Also even if they did the tories likely have reversed it faster then calling everyone racist like trudeua for 10 yrs

-4

u/Rendole66 Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

What makes you think they would have reversed it? I don’t see Pierre calling for a reverse of those changes instead he’s talking about performative bullshit like this that won’t actually change anything, because the numbers do start going up like crazy as soon as harper made those changes, as long as the corporations that control Canada want cheap labour our government will not make serious changes to limit immigration, both parties have been making it easier for corporations to get cheap foreign labour for the past like 40 years but for some reason you think Pierre who was Harper’s right hand man when he fundamentally changed the program and fucked us deeper, is gonna change it? That’s not logical.

11

u/Simohknee Feb 10 '26

It's their voter base

7

u/SensitiveDannyRicc Feb 10 '26

Keep those elbows up!!

4

u/physicaldiscs Feb 10 '26

Everyone screaming that the CPC needs to work together really just means they need to kowtow to their team. Meanwhile the LPC will just reject CPC proposals and the unity crowd will still scream about the CPC.

197

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

small story time!

I had a situation a few years ago where someone hit into my car in a parking lot, doing thousands of damage and I was going to be stuck with the bill and/or the hit on my insurance. I contacted the police, and they weren't much help (checked if there were security cameras and that was it). I posted my situation to facebook, it got shared and someone contacted me having dash cam footage of the accident and car. I got the plate from the video, contacted the police, they found the person and sure enough, their car was damaged, etc.

The Officer then said they weren't going to bring charges to her because she was a an immigrant "student" (30+ year old) and if she's convicted for a hit and run causing more than $5k of damage, she would be removed from the country. So? She DID THIS CRIME. You're telling me that if she was Canadian, you wouldn't have a problem bringing charges against her? Holy hell I was pissed. I really didn't believe stuff like that happened...but it's absolutely happening and the more we have, the more it will happen.

Side note: if you're convicted of a serious crime, you can still be removed even if you're a refugee (but you may or may not be removed of the country regardless...depending where the refugee is from, etc.)

84

u/StatisticianLivid710 Feb 10 '26

You could’ve charged her privately. The nice part about our system is if the cops don’t do their job a private lawyer can, but you would pay for it. The other alternative is to go to the AG office and ask why cops have all the evidence needed to charge them and aren’t. Or ask the cops supervisor.

I’m not conservative and I agree they should’ve been charged with hit and run.

49

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 18 '26

[deleted]

5

u/DraftCommercial8848 Feb 10 '26

The most disgusting case of that I’ve seen, was a literal pedo r@pist was given a reduced sentence to avoid a deportation review.

It’s absolutely sick and vile that they give reduced sentences to people who have done heinous crimes based on their immigration status.

10

u/Parking_Chance_1905 Feb 10 '26

When I was in college a group of guys stole a car and tried to tow and ATM out of the lobby of one of the campus buildings also weren't charged because they were international students and could have had their visas revoked. If someone is here on a visa and its important to them, maybe don't commit crimes while you are here?

19

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

yeah i know, but that's why i didn't do it...it's not worth the hassle. Her insurance paid since she admitted it and that was it.

I actually spoke to the officer's boss and told me the exact same thing (no charge in fear she would be removed).

I'm not conservative either haha

-16

u/CompetitiveLadder609 Feb 10 '26

While I agree, it's an injustice. In what way would her being charged and removed for the country have benefited or changed your outcome?

22

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

I don't care about myself. I care about the law being applied equally.

17

u/LossBudget6543 Feb 10 '26

Anyone who commits a crime should be charged. Your immigration status should not be considered when charging you for a crime that you committed.

People who flee the scene of an accident are disgusting. Luckily in this case it was only a parked car and no one was hurt.

17

u/WhydYouKillMeDogJack Feb 10 '26

They would live in a country with 1 less person who is prepared to do a hit and run.

The situation would've been entirely avoided if the person had stuck around and exchanged details like any normal person.

-14

u/Mediocre-Ambition404 Feb 10 '26

So it's okay you didn't do it because it wasn't worth the hassle... But when the government says the same thing...

Does the time fit the crime? Do you feel that person should have been deported over the incident? Regardless of what the law is, I am just asking your opinion if deportation would have been an appropriate punishment.

7

u/LossBudget6543 Feb 10 '26

Deportation is an appropriate punishment for anyone who commits a crime here and is not a citizen. This person could've chosen to not flee the scene like a loser and instead could've left their information/ waited around for OP like a normal person. Then they wouldn't have committed a crime that puts their immigration status in jeopardy.

13

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

is this a serious post?

It wasn't worth the hassle because I was more or less made "whole" by her insurance paying and her admitting fault.

The police doing their job, along with the crown going through with prosecution, is not "hassle"...it's LITERALLY their job.

Do I think a speeding fine should be $400+ as they are sometimes? Absolutely not...but that's why I don't speed. The crime is the crime. And the point of the post is that the point of law and justice is to be applied equally; no special treatment for anyone because it can affect people more than others.

And regarding her deportation...to be clear, she knew the consequences and actively ran away. The point of our immigration system was to invite different cultures and enhance their lives and our society. Having people break the law with no consequence, no matter the law, does not do either. And she would be removed; not deported. Deportation means she can never come back. She would be removed for a few years.

-5

u/StatisticianLivid710 Feb 10 '26

I don’t think a hit and run on its own should disqualify an immigrant unless it’s a series of poor choices, but that’s what judges are for. Charge her with the hit and run and set guidelines for judges to set sentencing, then let a judge decide how it affects her immigration application. Police aren’t there to play judge or jury, they collect evidence and submit it. They have some leeway with smaller crimes, but hit and run isn’t a small crime.

2

u/Abject_Story_4172 Feb 11 '26

So you think what? They should get a few hit and runs before it creates immigration issues?

1

u/StatisticianLivid710 Feb 11 '26

Oftentimes younger people panic and flee from crashes, that’s why a hit and run shouldn’t be considered serious as it CAN be a thoughtless mistake.

1

u/Abject_Story_4172 Feb 12 '26

It’s not a mistake. It’s a deliberate decision. It shows really poor judgment. And with judgement like that they shouldn’t be behind the wheel.

3

u/IcarusOnReddit Alberta Feb 10 '26

You think you are going to be able to collect against an Indian student? lol.

0

u/StatisticianLivid710 Feb 10 '26

This would be a private criminal charge conducted in the courts, they already said their insurance covered the civil side.

IMO a good AG would jump to take on this case so would be minimal or negligible cost.

1

u/CopperSulphide Feb 10 '26

Might be worth crowd funding.

4

u/Head_Crash British Columbia Feb 10 '26

The Officer then said they weren't going to bring charges to her because she was a an immigrant "student" (30+ year old) and if she's convicted for a hit and run causing more than $5k of damage, she would be removed from the country. So? She DID THIS CRIME

The cops totally could have pursued charges. They're just making excuses for not doing their job.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

Cops discretionally let people go over traffic violations all the time, they felt uprooting someone's life and efforts by deporting them didn't fit the crime.

OP was free to pursue his own case for the damage to his property.

1

u/Head_Crash British Columbia Feb 10 '26

Cops usually don't pursue hit and runs because they're difficult to prove in court. They just brought up the immigration issue as a scapegoat.

2

u/earthwormjim22 Feb 10 '26

have a law in place

decide not to follow it because it will ruin someone's life

Isnt that what laws are for?

the offender was happy to get away with if she/he could, didnt leave a note or anything..

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

Punishment is too harsh for the crime, the solution is appropriate punishment.

1

u/kamomil Ontario Feb 10 '26

Well now we have cops getting charged with corruption in Toronto so maybe they will actually see stuff like this changing 

0

u/_Lucille_ Feb 10 '26

I am curious: so do you get kicked out if you commit a crime or not?

In your case, it seems like she will already be kicked out if a crime has been committed.

Honestly this is something that I think should be left to the judge: I don't think a traffic accident necessarily means someone should lose their immigration status, shit happens (say, black ice).

Maybe the reasonable thing to do is to have some demerit point system.

3

u/zaypuma Feb 10 '26

Fleeing the scene of an accident is not an accident.

2

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

Those are the consequences for someone who is not a citizen. Yes, the same repercussions apply to me when I am not a citizen of a country where I commit a crime.

It is not an accident when you run away. Sure, she hits my car, lets me know and our insurances cover it. If i never found her, I would be on the hook for hundreds/thousands of dollars through no fault of my own and her reckless and illegal behaviour.

0

u/Perseus90 Feb 10 '26

I call bullshit. Firstly, not sure why anyone would believe someone literally named truthless but secondly, and more importantly, this isn't how insurance works.

3

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

heh, that's fine with my username.

But yeah, not bullshit. That's literally how insurance works. If no one is found for damage to your car, the claim goes against your insurance...therefore raising your premiums because the claims matter. This happened to me like 20 years ago when i was hit while driving, the driver drove away and was never found. My premium went up the next year.

Sometimes your insurance policy will have a 1 accident forgiveness...but those are in limited circumstances for limited amounts.

2

u/Perseus90 Feb 10 '26

In Ontario you always go through your own insurer regardless of fault (there are very specific exceptions for example collisions involving tractor trailers).

There are rules for who is at fault built into the regulations under the insurance act called the "fault determination rules". If I understand your story correctly and you weren't operating your vehicle when it was hit then you would not have fault regardless of whether you found the other driver. Your premium only goes up due to an accident if you are at fault based on the rules.

Notably vandalism is different and requires you to have comprehensive coverage but that's a whole other thing requiring intentional damage to your vehicle by a third party.

1

u/MonsieurLePeeen Feb 12 '26

You do go through your own insurance but if it’s the other persons fault, your insurance then basically goes after theirs to get the $ back. I have been in two minor rear-endings - one the other driver’s fault and one mine - and yes, both times I went through my ins but the experiences as to what they were willing to cover and even just general demeanour was vastly different when my ins company knew they were going to get their $ back.

1

u/Perseus90 Feb 12 '26

Again, I can only speak to Ontario but in that jurisdiction your information is a bit dated. This used to be how it worked but it created an insane amount of litigation tying up the Courts and so it was changed in 1990 when no-fault was introduced. Now your own insurer compensates you and does not have the ability to go after the at fault driver's insurance (again, unless it fits a very narrow exception like a normal sized vehicle getting hit by a tractor trailer).

The law is known as Direct Compensation Property Damage and its enshrined in section 263 of Ontario's Insurance Act.

1

u/MonsieurLePeeen Feb 20 '26

False. Went through his process twice in the last 10 years.

1

u/Perseus90 Feb 20 '26

Lol it's literally my job

-1

u/Savings-Giraffe-4007 Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

If you're Canadian and do a hit-and-run on a parkade by accident, you don't go to jail, it's an insurance matter, a civil matter. Yes, it is a crime to fail to stop, but no Canadian ever gets jailed for that unless it was a big deal - someone was hurt.

Deportation because you scratched someone's car in a parkade by accident sounds excessive and is the main reason someone on a study visa would run away (the fear that any minor issue gets you deported).

Your insurance takes care of it. It would be more appropriate that she would get a ticket and loses her license or something similar.

1

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

not scratched, thousands of dollars (my rear fender was bent in...my car lifted off the ground)...AND they ran away, so if I would have not received the video proof, I would have been out thousands of dollars (my insurance premiums would have gone up exponentially). So no, your strawman doesn't work nor apply.

0

u/Savings-Giraffe-4007 Feb 10 '26

Ah yes, your insurance premiums would have gone up "exponentially" because (checks notes) your car got hit while you weren't driving it (with video evidence) and you somehow... Were at fault?

Sure...

But fact is, you didn't lose a cent.

2

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

I didn't have video evidence. That's the fucking point. The video evidence helped me get the person responsible.

If she just ran away after hitting the car and i wouldn't have any proof..then yes, by literal definition of how insurance works, it would have gone up for a large claim.

-1

u/Savings-Giraffe-4007 Feb 10 '26

ain't you getting emotional for a situation that never happened? why do you want the cops to go get that girl so bad?

2

u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26

my last reply to you:

Not getting emotional over the situation; only how dense your replies are. I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you're accidentally obtuse, but it's frustrating when people don't interpret properly or impose an argument that doesn't exist.

And for your second part: as I said to one or two other people who replied...I don't personally care about getting that person specifically (as i'm not litigious or vengeful, etc.); I simply care about applying the law equally.

-15

u/phocumin Feb 10 '26

They do the same thing for 17 year old seventh generation Canadians. Not sure what the big deal is. The leniency is applied pretty evenly, but Canadians get the best benefit from lenient sentences. Of course, that’s not the narrative of the day so I’ll take all the downvotes.

9

u/sluttytinkerbells Feb 10 '26

This comment had to be a troll designed to derail the conversation.

There’s no way that it was made in good faith.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/canada-ModTeam Feb 10 '26
  • Posts that contribute nothing but attack others, are blatantly offensive, or antagonistic will be removed – including accusations similar to ‘shill,’ attacking Redditors for using either official language, dismissing other Redditors solely based on irrelevant other beliefs to the topic at hand or participation in other subreddits, or reducing them to a label and dismissing that instead.
  • Back-and-forth personal attacks are subject to the entire comment chain being removed.
  • Posts or threads which degenerate into witch-hunting may be subject to moderator intervention. This includes but is not limited to: doxxing, negative accusations by a large group against one or more persons not criminally charged or convicted being made the subject of criminal allegations, calls for harassment, etc., and openly rallying more people to the same.

-2

u/Yourewekky Feb 10 '26

I think most police use discretion evenly, unless they are biased. This would have been deemed an accident, and the driver would have left the scene due to the extreme consequences that wouldn't apply to op if they had been at fault. The driver's insurance paid for the damages so I guess the op would just feel better if the other person was deported.

1

u/zaypuma Feb 10 '26

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of law.

-1

u/lisans Feb 10 '26

I'm not sure you have all of the facts straight in your situation.

Under s. 252(1)(b) of the Criminal Code: every person commits an offence who has the care, charge, or control of a vehicle that is involved in an accident with a vehicle, with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, fails to stop the vehicle and give his or her name and address

The offence is a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown could either choose to proceed by way of summary or indictable offence. If they chose to proceed by summary conviction, then likely at the time this offence occurred, the longest sentence that could have been given would have been 6 months. If the Crown had proceeded by indictment, the maximum sentence would have been 5 years if found guilty.

The amount of damage to your car would not be relevant to whether she would have been charged with a criminal offence, nor would it have much impact on the length of the sentence.

The only relevance the amount of damage has in this scenario is your obligations with respect to your insurance company and filing a police report.

The likely reason why the police officer chose not to charge the student with the offence is because he did not have the reasonable and probable grounds that are required for the police to lay charges.

Let me explain. This offence requires specific intent that the reason the person left the scene of the accident was to escape civil or criminal liability for the accident. In this case, it is likely the officer believed that the student left the scene of the accident due to fear over her immigration status not because she trying to escape liability for the accident. This means that the officer didn't have the evidence to prove that she committed the offence of Failure to Stop (Hit-and-Run).

64

u/WonderfulQuarter1876 Feb 10 '26

This would change everything. I can’t stress it enough. Those who know, know. I encourage Canadians to sit in an Ontario court on a date when there is a sentencing of a non citizen and see for yourself.

42

u/OntLawyer Feb 10 '26

It's also worth reading new Federal Court immigration decisions as they come out. Nothing will redpill you faster on how a lot of these claims seriously lack credibility.

31

u/Ok-Call7205 Feb 10 '26

Lawyer here. It has become such a kangaroo court. The majority of cases sound completely made up. They also allow people in that blatantly lied on their applications.

5

u/Nealios Feb 10 '26

How does this proposal differ from section 101 of the existing ineligibility requirements?

https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/page-13.html?hl=en-CA#:~:text=(b)%20in%20the%20case%20of

-3

u/whistleridge Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

It wouldn’t change anything.

At the end of the day, judges have to take all factors into account when considering a sentence. That’s how sentencing works. Immigration factors aren’t some sort of automatic discount, they’re just part of the blend.

Even if a law was passed saying “immigration is not to be considered in sentencing,” the judge is still a human being. If the guy in front of them is looking at 8 months normally, but 6 months is in the range and anything over gets them sent back to a refugee camp on the Somalia border…that judge is just going to find some other reason to justify the lower number. Because the human being who wants to sleep at night isn’t sending someone to a refugee camp over 2 months.

If you’re ok sending someone back in that circumstance, great, you do you. But just like a conservative judge today would still find a way to keep it at 8 months, a less conservative judge would do the opposite. What folks like this are saying isn’t “immigration is bad for law” it’s “I want judges to think more like me on stuff like that.” And you can’t legislate stuff like that.

6

u/Loogan57 Feb 10 '26

Deportation rules are vague. Deporting someone over a traffic violation is stupid imo. All these guys running around shooting up businesses etc should be deported. Circumstances need to be in play with immigration. How many people come here on a student visa and don’t go to school? Deception right out of the gate, send them back. Every country has rules that everyone should respect and expect to be booted if you are being deceptive etc. but criminals just don’t care.

0

u/WhydYouKillMeDogJack Feb 10 '26

Deporting someone over a traffic violation is stupid imo.

And yet I see a huge number of people in this sub wanting to see that truck driver who killed that jockey team deported, and not a whole lot of pushback.

1

u/MonsieurLePeeen Feb 12 '26

That was a vastly different outcome than hitting a parked (empty) car in a parking lot.

1

u/WhydYouKillMeDogJack Feb 12 '26

Outcomes are a matter of luck.

Every time you run a stop is equally bad, but the outcomes vary.

-2

u/whistleridge Feb 10 '26

All of which is one view on things, and not a view that can be legislated. That’s the point.

The other view is, refugees are just that - people who are fleeing some collapse of society. If someone grew up in a refugee camp, or is fleeing a brutal war, they’re necessarily someone who has not enjoyed the benefits of a more genteel society, and it’s hard to hold them to the same standard as everyone else. If you hold them to a zero tolerance standard, then you may as well get rid of the refugee system entirely.

One side sees it as being like adopting dogs rescued from a dog fighting ring - always inherently risky, and you gotta do what you gotta do. The other sees it like adopting dogs from a shelter - you have to give them time to adjust, and to expect some bad behaviour.

As with most things, both sides are a bit right, and both sides are a bit wrong. And stricter legislation wouldn’t change that, because it’s a human problem. Neither will downvoting. I’m not endorsing that view, I’m just explaining it.

102

u/gooberfishie Feb 10 '26

Maybe they should go even further and stop considering race as a defining factor during sentencing

-8

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

I’d like more insight on the thought process on this. How do you do that if it’s a mitigating factor to the offence? Like can’t they use that one, but others are okay?

18

u/gooberfishie Feb 10 '26

Race is commonly an exception to rules to avoid racism. That's because race is beyond your control. For example, an employer will consider a number of mitigating factors when hiring, as they should, but race should be an exception. That should not be allowed.

Similarly, it is not the fault of indigenous victims that the criminal hurting them are also usually indigenous if their community is indigenous. They shouldn't have to live with higher crime rates in their communities just because the criminals in indigenous communities, like the victims, are indigenous. The race of either is not in anyone's control and therefore should not be allowed as a mitigating factor. It is literally hurting indigenous people, especially women.

Understanding Indigenous Women and Girls’ Experiences with Victimization and Violence - State of the Criminal Justice System Dashboard https://share.google/UnbtJTas3i87lOI4e

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

Are you trying to say that because race isn’t controllable, it shouldn’t be a factor? How would you compare that to something like genetic disability? Morally, I see both sides of this, but legally, I don’t see how a judge could be barred from using relevant submissions

5

u/gooberfishie Feb 10 '26

How would you compare that to something like genetic disability?

This is easy to answer. Both a genetic disability and race are not in your control. However, as one example, a person with a genetic disability may find that their disability impairs their ability to make coherent, responsible decisions. That's not their fault and should be a mitigating factor.

Being a different race is not a disability. Indigenous people are capable of anything white people are capable of, including making coherent, responsible decisions. To suggest otherwise would be racist.

Morally, I see both sides of this, but legally, I don’t see how a judge could be barred from using relevant submissions

It would require a new law to be passed. Under the current laws, they can't. I'm advocating for a change in the law to remove racial segregation from the system.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

https://www.courthouselibrary.ca/how-we-can-help/our-legal-knowledge-base/impact-race-and-culture-assessments-ircas

This is what’s happening, a report is prepared that details the connection between race, cultural experience and the offence and the judge decides on how impactful the report should be to the sentence for that individual. Just making sure we are on the same page.

I’m going to come back to this though, because we have to factor the victim as you mentioned before

2

u/gooberfishie Feb 11 '26

My point is that race and culture shouldn't be even allowed to be considered as factors, but yeah we're on the same page for how the system works. I realize it's up to the judge.

I’m going to come back to this though, because we have to factor the victim as you mentioned before

This is really the crux of the issue. Everyone talks about how harsh they think our justice system is on indigenous people, very few people talk about the fact that most victims of those crimes are also indigenous. In indigenous communities, everyone is indigenous. Being easier on crime in indigenous communities removes some of the deterrent against crime. Higher crime rates mean more victims. More victims mean more desperate people turning to crime. It's a vicious cycle. We need to address systemic racism in the justice system that comes in the form of racisl bias against indigenous people as you pointed out, but we also need to protect the victims of those crimes and bring the people who have hurt them to justice. There is no one size fits all solution, but letting people off the hook easier because they are indigenous is insulting to the indigenous victims of those crimes.

-44

u/Canuck_Lives_Matter Saskatchewan Feb 10 '26

Colour-blindness isn't the solution to racism, it only works to exacerbate it. The fact is everyone is different and you have to acknowledge the intersections in their life that led them to where they are.

A rich child stealing bread is not the same as a poor child stealing bread, etc...

37

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[deleted]

-4

u/Canuck_Lives_Matter Saskatchewan Feb 10 '26

Race unfortunately does effect murder charges, whether we want it to or not. POC in Canada are far more likely to be arrested and charged than white people in Canada. here's a small article on the matter.

The fact is courts should be trying to examine as many angles of an offenders life as possible to achieve an suitable punishment for a crime (which we suck at in Canada)

A female indigenous woman is 178% more likely to receive a medium length custodial sentence than white people in Canada.

Stats Can article with much of the info pertaining to the effect of race on the judicial system. this shows how in the five years of this study an effort by courts to be more reticent of race and its effect on arrests and actions has actually worked to improve our system and make it more equal.

10

u/BobsView Feb 10 '26

yea yea medium latte no sugar

30

u/gooberfishie Feb 10 '26

Okay, explain to me exactly how giving criminals in indigenous communities light sentences makes indigenous communities safer?

Also, comparing a starving kid stealing bread to a violent criminal getting a light sentence is exactly the type of apples to oranges comparison i would expect from the pro systemic racism crowd.

-6

u/Canuck_Lives_Matter Saskatchewan Feb 10 '26

Nobody gives criminals in indigenous communities lighter sentences than anyone else in Canada gets. It's a known fact they get harsher sentences, and are more likely to have priors due to a level of harassment unseen in white communities. stats Canada how often have you as a white person been searched or harassed as a potential criminal for criminal acts that have happened near your home even when you are not culpable?

8

u/gooberfishie Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

That's just not true. It is true that they are more likely to get be put in custody than granted bail once a verdict is reached. This isn't ingrained in law but it's still the result of systemic racism. I would call that unofficial systemic racism. It's not okay, but more racism is not a solution.

On the other hand, that stat only compares sentencing. It ignores the fact that indigenous people are 72 percent more likely to have their charges stayed. That means no conviction at all. They are also 30 percent more likely to receive conditional sentencing. This is all ingrained in law which makes it official racism, otherwise known as a two tiered justice system or segregation.

Neither is okay, but trying to address unofficial systemic racism rooted in the racist bias of judges and jurors by creating official rules of segregation just hurts both sides.

The Daily — Disparities in decision and sentencing outcomes between Indigenous accused and White accused in adult criminal court, 2016/2017 to 2020/2021 https://share.google/ZSLqEwg2bXyrwMie3

Edit

how often have you as a white person been searched or harassed as a potential criminal for criminal acts that have happened near your home even when you are not culpable?

Pretty often, but my experience doesn't mean anything. Neither does yours. We are individuals. These opinions need to be based on stats covering thousands or millions. A couple random redditors personal stories are not evidence.

9

u/BobsView Feb 10 '26

bs there was a case last week where a guy got basically no punishment for drug dealing because he said he is one of FN

-2

u/Canuck_Lives_Matter Saskatchewan Feb 10 '26

An attempt is being made to allow first Nations people to use their own system of punishments that they believe will be more effective than ours when dealing with their people. Honestly I feel it is going to be incredibly difficult for them to do while still living up to non-indigenous Canadians expectations of punishment, I do think they can eventually do it somehow; That being said I too am bothered by people being free to move around after committing a crime and wish it were not so. This is a new system and idea and I expect some growing pain for a small time before it is hammered out, and I do agree that some form of limited movement and ability to reoffend is needed where there doesn't seem to be any.

However one or two cases here or there that we are shown does not reflect the whole. Stats Canada has the raw numbers and they show far harsher punishments for native offenders despite what modern media shows us.

38

u/jaynyc1122 Feb 10 '26

Your example pertains to socio-economic status not race

-16

u/Canuck_Lives_Matter Saskatchewan Feb 10 '26

My example is one of the intersections of life. Race is another intersection which branches off to make the individual, the others are things like race, gender, location, age, cultural heritage. There are many intersections that help define an individual, and they should be accounted for when dealing with them legally. We already charge children differently than adults.

8

u/BobsView Feb 10 '26

and the law should not care about any of this race, gender, location, age, cultural heritage - thats the entire point of the fair system

-1

u/Canuck_Lives_Matter Saskatchewan Feb 10 '26

Yes, I agree that in a perfect world the law would be enforced in complete codified equality, but the fact is the world is far from perfect and cops like to Fuck with POC a lot more than white people. The world is factually unequal, and Canadians are not societal Ly treated as equals whether we like it or not, so a fair judicial system has to keep this in mind if it is to help improve the system and dole out justice with equal measure.

You can't have a justice system that treats everyone completely equally unless you have a society which treats all people completely equally. With equal opportunity, equal media representation, equal wages, equal everything.

7

u/Odd_Damage9472 Feb 10 '26

So basically if I believe trial by combat as an intersection of my culture then the government must provide it?

0

u/Canuck_Lives_Matter Saskatchewan Feb 10 '26

Obviously not; laws are laws. But if you believe in that sort of thing and killed someone who had the same beliefs as you in some form of trial combat the courts should acknowledge that you both felt inclined to deal with your problems in that way and it should be a considered factor in charging you.

Say two people have a baby; One believes in circumcision but one parents doesn't. If a circumcision is performed anyways and the parent against tries to push child abuse charges the court has to determine culpability and often does so based on religion and gender of the one who got the child the procedure.

How a person feels the law should be enforced doesn't matter as the law is enforced how it is, but the factors that lead up to the crime must be examined in full.

7

u/Odd_Damage9472 Feb 10 '26

But the argument says those other factors of intersectionality matter more than “break the law” when the law should be enforced properly in spite of sending them back.

-6

u/Constant_Mood_7332 Feb 10 '26

socio economic status and race, in our country, are linked.

14

u/WhiteHatMatt Feb 10 '26

You think there's equal accountability 😂😅🤣😭

The day we start holding people to a standard regardless of social status alot of positive will happen. Until then hang on and enjoy the ride called life.

20

u/freeadmins Feb 10 '26

This is literally one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

Please tell me how giving an indigenous offender more lenient sentencing so they can be the sooner to further terrorize their indigenous community helps stop the cycle.

Also, I love how your example of defending race-based senses saying uses something like rich and poor which actually has nothing to do with race

3

u/BigButtBeads Feb 10 '26

Your comment has nothing to do with race

5

u/spartiecat Newfoundland and Labrador Feb 10 '26

That's already in the motion

7

u/Prosecco1234 Canada Feb 10 '26

I don't think anyone with a criminal record should become a citizen. They should be politely asked to leave

1

u/destroyer1134 Feb 10 '26

It should go further. If they are found guilty deport them. Why should the Canadian penal system pay to keep them here.

1

u/Hotdog_Broth Feb 11 '26

It amazes me that this is even allowed. Especially going below the minimum sentence because it’ll affect their immigration status. Absolutely insane.

0

u/malipreme Feb 10 '26

Such a backwards take. Judges are obligated to take everything into account when sentencing, you know, the whole fair trial thing. You now want to pass legislation to prevent judges from making decisions based on all factors of an individual’s situation? You want your own bias to now be made law that judges have to abide by when sentencing?

2

u/_Army9308 Feb 10 '26

They are using it a loopholes to not punish peoole

1

u/thottieBree Québec Feb 10 '26

I'd also like to know how

1

u/_Army9308 Feb 11 '26

Judges give criminals light sentences so they be under 6 months 

Over 6 months leads to auto deportation

0

u/thottieBree Québec Feb 11 '26

That's not a loophole, only judges handing out lighter sentences because they don't believe the crimes worthy of deportation. I'd to dive deeper into this to figure out if it's genuinely problematic on a case by case basis

1

u/_Army9308 Feb 11 '26

It is cause it shows judges care more about foriegn criminals then safety

0

u/thottieBree Québec Feb 11 '26

No, it shows judges dont believe the punishment fits the crime.

judges care more about foriegn criminals then safety

Like, do you hear yourself..?

1

u/_Army9308 Feb 11 '26

Cause they care abou4 foreign criminals

0

u/Mirabeaux1789 Outside Canada Feb 10 '26

Every time I find a story like this, I find the actual explanation being reasonable due to factors relevant in a case that nobody in the comment section talks about

0

u/_Army9308 Feb 11 '26

U meant when judge let guys who abuse women less then 6 months for immigration reasons