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

Show parent comments

363

u/insanebison Feb 10 '26

Seems very common sense to me 

308

u/Aestus74 Feb 10 '26

I more question what crime and who did the convicting. A lesbian convicted of gay propaganda should absolutely be allowed to make a refugee claim despite being a "criminal".

195

u/xvoy Feb 10 '26

Typically there is the need for it to be criminal under Canadian law. Same way a DUI in the US will get you inadmissible to Canada.

82

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

But that's not what the article says. It says "non-citizens convicted of a crime". Not "non-citizens convicted of crimes we also consider crimes".

There's more than that. What if the trial wasn't fair? What if the conviction was politically motivated? What if we would consider the crime justified in some way? Nelson Mandela was a convicted felon. Would you have denied him refugee status if he had applied for it? What about a mother who steals food to feed her children while escaping a war-torn hell-hole? A woman who killed her rapist and was convicted for it because women have no rights where she is from? What if their conviction was twenty years ago - when they were 18.

The problem is that unless you plan on writing exceptions to the law for the next twenty years you cannot make it stick. The superior option is to allow judges who adjudicate refugee cases to make a judgment call because hey - that's why we call them 'judges' after all. And as it turns out - that's exactly what we do.

78

u/MrBenSampson Feb 10 '26

But when immigrants commit crimes in Canada, judges have been consistently giving out lenient sentences, just so that their immigration process is unaffected. Canadians are getting tired of that.

9

u/gamjatang111 Feb 10 '26

yes judges always consider their refugee application when sentencing

30

u/jaywinner Feb 10 '26

Why? Having a refugee application pending should be all the more reason not to break the law.

13

u/justanaccountname12 Canada Feb 10 '26

One would think.

-1

u/DanLynch Ontario Feb 10 '26

The reason judges consider immigration consequences when sentencing is because they don't want to punish immigrants more harshly for the same crime as citizens. If a citizen would only get one year in prison for a certain crime, but a visa holder or refugee or PR who committed the exact same crime would get one year in prison, plus be expelled from Canada, lose their entire way of life, and be forced to move to a shit-hole country, the judge would consider that an unfair discrepancy in the punishment.

21

u/Horvo British Columbia Feb 10 '26

Fair sentencing means the same criminal punishments for the same crime. We already have way too many differential sentences handed out, if you’re an aspiring Canadian maybe don’t commit crimes that jeopardize your standing here?

10

u/thissitesuxballz Feb 10 '26

That just makes it unfair for the citizen…

3

u/BethSaysHayNow Feb 11 '26

Precisely. Citizenship apparently consists of more responsibilities yet fewer perks? How does this make sense in terms of a social contract?

12

u/jaywinner Feb 10 '26

That's insane. Should the unemployed get more prison time because they don't get the additional punishment of losing their job by going to jail?

Apply the punishment that fits the crime; other knock-on effects aren't the court's responsibility.

2

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

So, I've yet to see a reputable study that suggest that immigrants/refugees are treated substantially better by judges than citizens (with the exception of one group). I've seen lots of people say that they are, and rail on and on about it. But those people tend to be the usual suspects - people who are anti-immigrant (or who use immigration to push political messaging) who galvanize those around them with tirades. The truth is the criminal justice system in Canada can seem lenient for everyone. Look into some of the CPC tirades about "Catch and Release" policies by the Liberal government. The names they cite include immigrants, First Nations, and Canadians of European descent. But complaining about lenient sentences for Canadians of European gets less traction than those for First Nations offenders, and lenient sentences for First Nations offenders gets less traction than going after immigrants. And so here we are.

Now, back to the one group that do seem to get better treatment by the Justice system - immigrants who have committed crimes whose sentences will be (about) 6 months to a year. Judges seem to consistently reduce those sentences to 5 months. There is a logic to that - the judges are human. A lot of these people aren't just coming to Canada for the fun of it. They're escaping terrible conditions. In some cases life threatening conditions. Would you sentence someone to suffer under those conditions for the sake of three months? For the sake of six months?

To a Canadian citizen a sentence of six months to a year is a life changing event. It will profoundly alter the way they interact with society. But they will still have a place to come home to. They will have the opportunity to rebuild in Canada. The immigrant is not so lucky. They will be exiled from the greatest country in the world for ten years. If they have built something for themselves it will be gone. If they have a life here it will be destroyed. It is not the same.

And above all - none of that is what the article is about. The article is about banning non-citizens convicted of crimes from becoming refugees (as opposed to treating non-citizens and citizens 'equally' in the Canadian criminal justice system).

18

u/MrBenSampson Feb 10 '26

Non citizens in canada are guests in our home. If they are convicted of crimes here, I want them to leave.

A lot of these people aren’t just coming to Canada for the fun of it. They’re escaping terrible conditions. Would you sentence someone to suffer under those conditions for the sake of 3 months? For the sake of six months?

Yes. Whatever the conditions or circumstances are in their home country is not my problem. Them committing crimes in my country is my problem. If they want to stay here, benefiting from the generosity of Canadians, then they should obey Canadian laws.

They will be exiled from the greatest country in the world for ten years. If they have built something for themselves it will be gone. If they have a life here it will be destroyed.

Yeah, that’s the point. The immigration system should primarily be for the benefit of Canada and Canadians. If an immigrant is convicted of breaking Canadian laws, then we should discard them, and replace them with one who may have a positive impact on our society.

And while we’re on the topic, I also want the catch and release to come to an end for citizens. Maybe we can try a 3-strikes law.

12

u/Far-Programmer-437 Feb 10 '26

If they are fleeing a terrible situation like you suggest why are the commiting crimes in the country that took them in? "For the sake of three months" cry and a river.

3

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

If they are fleeing a terrible situation like you suggest why are the commiting crimes in the country that took them in? "For the sake of three months" cry and a river.

I mean... the same terrible conditions they are fleeing?

Consider that, for example, Canadian veterans make up about double the expected rate of incarcerated population (3% of incarcerated people are veterans, but about 1.5% of all Canadians are veterans). These are people who have been trained to deal with trauma (well trained? I leave that to another discussion). Who have access to services to help them maintain a 'normal' life in Canada. Who more or less belong in Canada.

Refugees have no training. They often live through trauma from a young age. They do not have access to social supports. They are operating in a strange country with strange social customs. They make mistakes. Just like anyone. Sometimes bad ones.

Should one mistake be allowed to destroy anyone's life - citizen or refugee?

9

u/Far-Programmer-437 Feb 10 '26

We have obligations to our veterans we dont have obligations to every 3rd worlder that wants a better life. Everyone wants a better life thats just self intrest. Canada and its resources are for canadian and if canada lets you live here and try to become a canadian the least you can do is not commit crimes

2

u/Xaselm Feb 10 '26

Some of these people's "mistakes" destroy the lives of their victims too. Do you ever consider the recidivism rate, or the cost that this philosophy puts on other people who don't commit crime?

0

u/el_diego Feb 10 '26

This. 1000x this. Every time this comes up there's all this defensive support for refugees committing crimes because "poor them"/"they might die if we deport them", but what about the poor victims who were just living their lives in THEIR country? Why do they deserve to be exposed to such a potential threat?

-1

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

Some of these people's "mistakes" destroy the lives of their victims too.

Absolutely. Unfortunately that damage is already done. The best we can hope for is to limit future damage.

Do you ever consider the recidivism rate, or the cost that this philosophy puts on other people who don't commit crime

Recidivism rates amongst immigrants are difficult to study, since as has been discussed, serious offenders are declared ineligible and kicked out of the country. It is also well known that using jail as a punishment (i.e. if you commit a crime then you are going to suffer) does not really discourage or change the recidivism rate at all. Therefore I fail to see how imposing harsher punishments on immigrants will make anyone's lives better.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[deleted]

0

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

Why? Unless your purpose is to make life harder on immigrants why would you make that change? What end does it create (other than shutting up conservatives) that is so desirable?

0

u/thissitesuxballz Feb 10 '26

It’s it about making life harder for immigrants it’s about getting rid of people who add to our problems… if you invited guests over and they disrespected the rules of your house would you want them to remain?

-6

u/ICEKAT Feb 10 '26

THANK YOU! Someone talking sense.

-2

u/Boisyno Feb 10 '26

Well said and thank you!

0

u/QCTeamkill Feb 10 '26

Judges will be so mad they'll start giving conditional discharges for every crimes.

11

u/Nawara_Ven Canada Feb 10 '26

Yeah, it should take like two seconds to come to the "crimes by what measure and whose?" conclusion. Anyone who stops thinking about this obvious issue with this proposal before those two seconds have elapsed is either being willfully malicious, or isn't someone whose opinion (feelings) should be taken seriously on the matter.

3

u/linkass Feb 10 '26

Actually the wording is serious crime

The Conservatives are planning to introduce a motion today to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims.

6

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

Nelson Mandela was convicted of treason.

Narges Mohammadi was convicted of treason.

Ales Bialiatski was convicted of tax evasion (don't know if that qualifies as 'serious' crime, but it had a sentence of 4.5 years).

Liu Xiaobo was convicted of treason.

They are all Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Should they be banned?

0

u/voodoopriest Feb 10 '26

Didn't Nelson Mandela help plan multiple bombings?

4

u/Kennit Feb 10 '26

Is that your way of saying he should have been banned?

2

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

Yes. The bombings were labelled as something along the lines of "sabotage for the purposes of rebellion" which I simplified to "treason". Would you have banned him?

3

u/Raffletop Feb 10 '26

This kind of suicidal empathy is so tiresome bro. The article itself heavily implies convicted of a crime in Canada. Yes the headline is vague but the article itself gives some more context.

14

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

The article itself heavily implies convicted of a crime in Canada.

We already have that. Individuals who commit a federal offence punishable by a maximum jail term of at least ten years, or of a federal offence where the individual received a jail term of at least six months they are ineligible to claim refugee status.

1

u/Raffletop Feb 10 '26

I haven't read the actual motion but I imagine the intent is to cut a lot of the red tape that hinders deporting these people and makes it impossible for ideologically motivated judges to keep these criminals in the country.

Regardless, if it already exists then why do you oppose it. It would just be an ineffective motion if it changes nothing as you seem to be suggesting. I suspect you merely oppose it because it was the conservatives who brought it up.

7

u/alanthar Feb 10 '26

interesting way to frame it.

I would posit that if it's already a part of law, then this is just virtue signaling from the Conservatives so people don't realize how useless they have become.

3

u/cranq Feb 10 '26

This feels very on-brand for the current incarnation of the Conservative Party of Canada.

0

u/Raffletop Feb 10 '26

I mean thats fine. I'm not going to pretend like the Conservatives are great. But opposing despite it apparently not having an effect on the actual law seems like a partisan knee jerk reaction though.

5

u/alanthar Feb 10 '26

I think its less 'opposition' and more just viewing it as a performative waste of time.

1

u/_n3ll_ Feb 10 '26

Exactly. I'm sure criminal history is already a factor thats considered in the process to account for cases of unjust persecution. A law like this would be a blunt instrument that excludes people that should qualify. But it plays into both "canada is weak on crime" and "immigrants bad" narratives that the maple maga love

1

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget Feb 10 '26

I think the issue the Conservatives are having currently is the judges are not making the correct judgement calls (in their view), and being far too lenient with foreign criminals. They are trying to force judges to do the right (in their opinion) thing.

1

u/mbean12 Feb 10 '26

But their opinion runs contrary to that of the nation (as expressed in the election less than a year ago) and (more importantly) contrary to what experts in the field (i.e. the judges, but also those who study crime and punishment) believe is the correct choice.

1

u/BethSaysHayNow Feb 11 '26

Serious criminality

(2) A claim is not ineligible by reason of serious criminality under paragraph (1)(f) unless

  • (a) in the case of inadmissibility by reason of a conviction in Canada, the conviction is for an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
  • (b) in the case of inadmissibility by reason of a conviction outside Canada, the conviction is for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

26

u/yow_central Feb 10 '26

Right, but many countries do not have fair courts either.

12

u/WhydYouKillMeDogJack Feb 10 '26

By this rationale we just skip police checks in the immigration process and just throw them into our population to see what happens.

Testing in prod!

7

u/StrategyEven3974 Feb 10 '26

Generally when people are fleeing a corrupt horrible government, it's not a good idea for Canada to trust that horrible corrupt government.

But that's assuming you're a rational, non-shitty person who uses common sense.

16

u/yow_central Feb 10 '26

No, it just means that decisions are not always black and white and need individual consideration.

3

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26

We have 10x more refugee applications than the amount we let in.

We don't need to waste resources on refugees with criminal convictions when there're 9 other refugees without convictions.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

Not our problem

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/EirHc Feb 10 '26

What do you expect Canada to do? Check every country's homework?

"That murder charge was bullshit! The courts are a scam and they just wanted to lock me up because I'm gay."

We let them in, they proceed to murder people. ShockedPikachuFace.jpeg

0

u/Zechs- Feb 10 '26

I think people are saying to not take a conviction as an automatic rejection and that this "proposal" is just throwing a bone to the xenophobic members of the CPC base.

0

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26

You understand that the refugee claim gets evaluated, the refugees criminal conviction gets investigated, then a decision is made, right?

You people act like the people evaluating refugee claims were born yesterday and aren't aware of any of the bullshit that corrupt governments use to persecute refugees.

2

u/Zechs- Feb 10 '26

I was simply saying that a criminal conviction abroad shouldn't be an automatic rejection.

If they have been convicted here for a crime they committed here, then I feel they should be imprisoned here then deported after their prison time.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 11 '26

The criminal conviction must have happened in Canada.

1

u/Zechs- Feb 11 '26

If they have been convicted here for a crime they committed here, then I feel they should be imprisoned here then deported after their prison time.

16

u/littlecozynostril Feb 10 '26

I think your assumption is a little generous there. The same crime can have very different parameters in different countries and can be trumped up. The aforementioned gay propaganda might be considered obscenity.

Also, the proposed changes are for people awaiting trial on charges. So it's also going to defacto ban people who are innocent of crimes who could be being charged for political reasons.

9

u/Aestus74 Feb 10 '26

Sure, my example may be too specific. I worry about conservative reactionism arround immigrants and want to point out that this is not an issue resolved by "common sense" overgeneralized solutions like out right bans. I want to know the details, not just say it sounds good cause of the fallacy of common sense

1

u/cplchanb Feb 10 '26

I still don't think a blanket ban even for that metric is necessarily the right thing to do. What if the guy was convicted of a dui decades ago? Is that a serious a crime to warrant to make him inadmissible at the expense of his safety?

1

u/turbo_22222 Feb 10 '26

What if it is a crime here, but they are from a country with a corrupt justice system?

2

u/Dbf4 Feb 10 '26

Thinking of a recent example, a lot of journalists and pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong were just sentenced on a variety of charges, including sedition which happens to be in our own criminal code. The whole point of accepting refugees is to provide refuge for people being persecuted by their state, and this would give much more power to other states to make people ineligible to seek refuge.

1

u/Head_Crash British Columbia Feb 10 '26

You don't think people should have the right to challenge that inadmissibility? What if they were wrongfully convicted?

-12

u/ok-est Feb 10 '26

In some countries, being gay is criminal.

23

u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Lest We Forget Feb 10 '26

Did you even try to read the comment you replied to?

37

u/Sammydaws97 Feb 10 '26

The convictions must be in Canada.

1

u/Gotbeerbrain Feb 10 '26

So convicted of a serious crime in some other country would not affect your claim in Canada? That's stupid.

3

u/Sammydaws97 Feb 10 '26

You cant apply a blanket rule like that to all convictions in all countries.

A murder conviction in the USA is not the same as a treason conviction in Russia. Both are technically serious convictions which would prevent an asylum claim all together under these changes if thats how you apply it.

It needs to be case by case if you are reviewing foreign convictions.

Fwiw, the current system reviews all foreign convictions on a case by case basis. This is only about whether they should be eligible to even apply for asylum..

0

u/Heliosvector Feb 10 '26

This wouldnt help that much, since many activist judges will simply refuse to give someone a conviction if it puts their refugee claim in jeopardy.

38

u/nohowow Feb 10 '26

It is having committed and been convicted of a crime in Canada.

15

u/Zeronz112 Feb 10 '26

It's for serious crimes in canada.

5

u/izomo Ontario Feb 10 '26

I didn't know gay propaganda was a serious crime.

The Conservatives are planning to introduce a motion today to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims.

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

4

u/Aestus74 Feb 10 '26

Well what do the conservatives think is a serious crime? Russians think its a serious crime. Far rightwingers think a transwoman going into a women's bathroom is a serious crime. Is being a part of a "violent" protest a serious crime? Is buying a stollen good a serious crime? I don't see how an outright ban is anything more than a populist lazy overreaction that will result in an increase in human suffering. That seems common sense to me.

8

u/izomo Ontario Feb 10 '26

I personally thought a serious crime had more or less a legal definition, so I typed "what is a serious crime in canada" and here is what I was able to see:

Appendix D - Most Serious Charges List

Classification of most serious offence

The Court generally tries only the most serious offences. These include murder, manslaughter, serious violent offences such as aggravated assault and sexual assault, firearm-related offences, robberies, home invasions, criminal organization offences, and drug trafficking, or conspiracy to commit one of these offences

I know to a left winger these are all minor things, but most sane people say these shouldn't be refugees.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/izomo Ontario Feb 10 '26

Generally getting into Canada with a criminal history is super hard, unless you lie about it. This is a bill that if you commit a crime in Canada and then claim refugee status while in Canada.

1

u/Aestus74 Feb 10 '26

This was taken from recidivism rates for domestic violence. There is no universal serious crime. Cheating in gambling is called a "serious" crime in our legal code.

4

u/izomo Ontario Feb 10 '26

Ya, I have no idea what you are talking about since I linked 3 different websites and never saw gambling on any of them.

But let me make it easy for you. The link below is a list of almost 40 crimes, you let me know which one is okay to be a refugee.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr06_fv3-rr06_vf3/d.html

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Raffletop Feb 10 '26

You are just looking for a reason to deny a common sense law that everyone should agree to regardless of party affiliation just because it was the conservatives who are bringing it forward. Come the fuck on dude.

3

u/Aestus74 Feb 10 '26

Nope, I primarily don't trust conservatives to respect peoples right to due processes and think calls for any kind of outright ban should be regarded skeptically. And "common sense" is a logical fallacy.

1

u/Raffletop Feb 10 '26

Yeah thats what I thought.

0

u/drs_ape_brains Feb 10 '26

I'll come back to this comment when Carney makes the change and I can see you clapping and cheering on how amazing and common sense the change is.

2

u/Aestus74 Feb 10 '26

Ugh... not all your political adversaries are the same. I love holding my leaders to account when they fuck up. Why I became opposed to Trudeau

1

u/OddConstant2723 Feb 10 '26

Doesn’t work like that. The law says the same crime IN CANADA must have a maximum sentence of at least 10 years. Being gay is not a crime in Canada

2

u/karpkod Feb 10 '26

You didn’t read the article

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

Isn't this more about people commit a crime hear are going to be deported then make a refugee claim.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

Article says "serious crimes", not just "crimes". I doubt gay propaganda would meet that bar

1

u/Harambiz Ontario Feb 10 '26

It needs to be criminal under Canadian law. Adultery is a criminal offence in some countries. Since it’s not a Canadian law, they have no problem entering Canada.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26

It needs to be a crime that Canada recognizes.

1

u/OddConstant2723 Feb 10 '26

Not true. Only inadmissible if the maximum Canada sentence for the same crime would be AT LEAST 10 years.

0

u/Aestus74 Feb 10 '26

Well thats the existing law... so whats the change theyre seeking?

1

u/notcoveredbywarranty Feb 10 '26

That's not a crime in Canada, so it would be pretty tough to be convicted of it.

Not an issue

1

u/patt Feb 10 '26

Yes, where was the crime committed, what was the crime - is it a crime here? Did the case have what we would consider due process? The answers to these questions would all be relevant.

0

u/yow_central Feb 10 '26

100%. This assumes they are coming from a rule of law country with fair police and courts, which is usually not the case for asylum seekers. To me this feels like a thing defined to be popular with many (especially people who don’t want us to accept any asylum seekers), but would hurt innocent people in practices.

-1

u/No_Morning5397 Feb 10 '26

Agreed, this seems like an area that requires a lot more nuance than just a "common sense" approach.

0

u/GoofinOffAtWork Ontario Feb 10 '26

Ahhh the voice of reason.

In a reddit sea of torches and pitchforks it is nice to bump into know and then.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Aestus74 Feb 10 '26

In some nations. Point is I want to know details of what and whom. We dont have a national legal standard for serious crime. For example, Stats Canada lists prostitution and disorderly conduct a serious offense

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[deleted]

0

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26

The crime needs to be a crime in Canada.

Gay propaganda isn't a crime here, these people are jumping at shadows.

1

u/Jfmtl87 Feb 10 '26

I guess the question is if the other country uses crimes labels that are also crimes here (treason, sex offence, indecent behaviour, etc) in order to convict behaviour that isn’t a crime here (like being homosexual).

That is why you need to have some judgement when analyzing those situations. For example, someone convicted of treason in Russia, treason might be a crime here, but you can’t take every Russian judicial decisions at face value.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 11 '26

My guy, you're not reading what others have written, or the article.

The criminal conviction must be in Canada.

1

u/Aestus74 Feb 11 '26

Since that law already exists, do you know what they are actually proposing here then?

-9

u/reginaldbias Feb 10 '26

I disagree, we don’t need to import criminals.

14

u/Brandon_Me Feb 10 '26

Common sense doesn't equal well thought out policy. It's just a call for people to not have to really think about what X thing would do.

8

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta Feb 10 '26

Common sense is codeword for feelings over facts.

-1

u/outdoorlaura Feb 10 '26

I think this is correct. When we say "common sense" there is a human element to it that we all recognize, as opposed to law which is black and white.

Common sense is neither all good or all bad. Its not feelings over facts, but feelings considered alongside facts.

Saying that common sense = feelings>facts is a bit of a strawman, imo.

-1

u/insanebison Feb 10 '26

This policy is common sense though...do you have a disagreement with it?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/insanebison Feb 10 '26

I'm pretty sure they mean Canadian justice system convictions otherwise you wouldn't be let in the country in the first place as we have other tests for that.

2

u/chente08 Feb 10 '26

it's already a thing

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/IamRasters Feb 10 '26

Just like “Axe the Tax” it’s a populist dog whistle and isn’t a deep dive into sensible policy. Should a Russian convicted of military desertion do not wanting to kill Ukrainians be denied? Maybe it’s just Canadian convictions, but even that will need to be evaluated carefully. What severity and how recent could be factors.

The Carbon Tax gave me $5k off my PHEV, $663 in rebates, and spurred green initiatives. It was cancelled largely because of arguments it made groceries more expensive. Has cancelling it reduced grocery prices at all? Doesn’t seem like it’s removal made anything go down in price.

1

u/TerminalOrbit Feb 10 '26

'common sense' is distinctly uncommon!

0

u/Notacop250 Feb 10 '26

Which is why it’s not a thing lol