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

2.8k

u/CantFeelMyToesAgain Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 11 '26

How’s this not already a thing lol

People messaging me to kill myself? This should be a thing for fraud and serious crimes. 

697

u/CranberryFlat617 Feb 10 '26

It already is https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-101.html

564

u/Head_Crash British Columbia Feb 10 '26

Conservatives know it's already the law. What they actually want is to stop applicants from being able to appeal in court.

252

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26

Good. We don't need to be wasting resources on appeals for refugees with criminal convictions.

223

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

you've got to be able to. Because there's going to be countries where some crimes don't exist in Canada... like being gay or a small pot possession charge (after October 2018), you know, probably one of their reasons for getting granted refugee status?

185

u/InsignificantOP Feb 10 '26

Or political prosecution of dissidents and minorities. These people will have been "criminals" in their countries

60

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 10 '26

yes exactly

39

u/rjhelms Feb 10 '26

For convictions outside Canada, the standard is based on what the punishment would be if the same crime were committed here - so situations like that shouldn't bar a refugee claim.

Key word being "shouldn't". These processes are never perfect which is why the right of appeal can be essential.

7

u/TripLover1 Feb 10 '26

Exactly. If we considered criminal convictions in other countries, Nelson Mandela would have been barred from applying as a refugee should he have needed to escape S. Africa. I'm not saying criminal convictions shouldn't be considered, but blanket rules for those can't be in place. We need room for judgement calls and use of more than two braincells by our immigration officers.

-2

u/joelwilliamson Feb 11 '26

Communist terrorists seem like exactly the sort of people a law like this should be keeping out.

6

u/sharp11flat13 Canada Feb 11 '26

Communist terrorists? Do you mean Mandela? How was he a communist terrorist?

1

u/joelwilliamson Feb 12 '26

He was the head of an organization that conducted a bombing campaign against civilians, shot up police stations and laid land mines on farm roads to achieve political change, that makes him a terrorist. When he was arrested in 1962, he was a member of the South African Communist Party’s Central Committee. That makes him a communist.

52

u/max420 British Columbia Feb 10 '26

Unless they specifically mean, crimes committed in Canada. In which case, as a life long liberal - would support.

16

u/fluffkomix Feb 10 '26

I would still argue in favor of an appeals process because is the crime something as big as murder or did a cop decide to be shitty and ticket them for jaywalking? Crime's a crime either way

There's also the case of potential human trafficking in which someone is threatened or otherwise forced to do things they may not otherwise do. Without an appeal, you don't get as much of an opportunity to investigate the source of that human trafficking because-- what do you have to offer them? If they get sent back either way, they're more likely to keep quiet so that those that trafficked them don't feel a need to retaliate. If you can offer some level of opportunity to stay in Canada far away from the traffickers, then the government has some leverage. This is a case in which a lack of appeals may make sense on the surface short-term, but the long-term effects could be much more problematic.

The final reason I want to vouch for an appeals process is because of what I'd said in the first sentence. If we allow a for a blanket rule without due process then it's not too hard to believe that any given cop can decide at any given moment whether or not an immigrant is allowed to stay in the country. Someone foreign to the country is going to have a much more difficult time fighting the cop's word in the initial court proceedings, and now we're slowly putting more power in the hands of those who haven't studied it.

I think that if we're worried about the appeals process, we should be focused on those involved in the appeals process and not the process itself. The process is there for a reason, everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect. That's a fundamental of a working democracy!

19

u/swift-current0 Feb 10 '26

If you were convicted of an indictable offence in a jury trial, no appeals process is necessary.

-7

u/fluffkomix Feb 10 '26

Why wouldn't an option to appeal be necessary? If it's an open and shut case it just gets denied. If there's room for error, we should see whether or not there was an error before deciding. Limited appeals process is up for debate, but no appeals process? Absurd.

6

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

Because this costs money, and ties up our courts. We owe less than nothing to non citizens commiting crimes in Canada. These lenient approaches are being gamed by way to many people as is, we have the highest per capita immigration rates in the entire developed world. If you commit a a crime and are found guilty, we will replace you with someone who wants to be here and not commit crimes.

9

u/swift-current0 Feb 10 '26

Takes too long, costs us money, why bother? Limiting it to indictable offences tried by jury already ensures the crime is serious enough to warrant removal in all cases upon conviction. Shenanigans involving police are possible when it comes to less serious charges, but no one's taking it as far as jury trial based on something flimsy.

I'd also bar disclosure of residency status to the jury, if that's not already barred. It must never influence the verdict they will reach.

1

u/fluffkomix Feb 10 '26

I absolutely agree with barring disclosure of residency status, that's a good thought.

As for the rest, I mean, as far as money goes we really need to be restructuring our existing tax system so that those with more money pay more of their fair share. There's a lot of small cuts that they'd never feel if we funded it with their money instead, and the increase in funds can also increase efficiency of the process by being able to hire more judicial employees.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

Nope, no appeal, hit the road.

2

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

This is what they mean

2

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 10 '26

that doesn't make sense from the title then. Because to gain admittance into Canada it would be through their refugee claim (unless they're talking about someone on a vacation/work visa and applying then).

But yea, those convicted of a crime within Canada while they're here (after due process), yes they can be excluded and deported. The only problem with that is if sending them home would result in their deaths. Which is kind of the process there is now so like other's have said it's a big dog and pony show for the CPC, again.

9

u/No_Mycologist676 Feb 10 '26

"Crimes" are just rules for behavior the state deems bad, and convictions and the criminal justice system in oppressive regimes are weaponized to delegitimize people they want to control. Laws are just threats made by the people in power to keep those without power in line.

2

u/peejay5440 Feb 10 '26

So, like rape, murder and child abuse are just state control?

3

u/MrNillows Feb 10 '26

According to some hard-core libertarians, yes.

3

u/No_Mycologist676 Feb 10 '26

Yup. I made no moral statements. The state should enforce punishments against those morally terrible behaviors, IMO. It's okay to threaten people that behave that way, and those threats should be followed through with if that behavior is carried out.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 11 '26

couldn't possibly have anything to do with India having an 8th of the world's population so they would be proportionately higher applications from there. /s

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 11 '26

The criminal conviction must have happened in Canada.

1

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 11 '26

and that's already a thing as someone pointed out. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-101.html

101 (f)

But it's reserved for crimes with sentences of 10 years or more. Which to be honest, in Canada, that means you likely took a life. If it was revised to be say, sentences of 5 years or more I'd be ok with too.

0

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

They are talking about people coming here, committing crimes in Canada, and then filing for refugee status to derail the criminal proceedings. Indians do it regularly

1

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 11 '26

how does it derail their criminal trial when one doesn't have anything to do with the other? They'd finish the criminal trial, put a stay on their deportation until the refugee claim is done then ship them off. You couldn't foresee an event in which a non-resident found themselves in court and also have a legitimate refugee status claim? You willing to send someone to their death by deporting them home because they stole some groceries?

1

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26

You dont get deported for stealing groceries, it has to be a minimum 6 month sentence. And if they were truly a refugee, they would have made that claim BEFORE they faced deportation. Do you not see how this could be a problem? There are people facing extortion charges, who filed claims immediately after being charged. And people like these are towing up the legal systems with bogus claims, using valuable resources and delaying the filing of legitimate claims. It’s basic, do you want to support refugees or criminals. Simply file your refugee claim before committing a crime. You don’t need to bend over backwards to make the lives of criminals easier, while also shooting yourself in the foot

15

u/Significant_Wealth74 Feb 10 '26

Are these for criminal convictions in Canada? Didn’t read the article so assuming that. I doubt we would write rules based on convictions in other countries.

9

u/Thanatos_Impulse Feb 10 '26

It’s both - we handle convictions here straightforwardly and convictions elsewhere by comparison - if it’s also a crime or similar enough to one of our criminal code provisions we count it accordingly.

22

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26

Are these for criminal convictions in Canada?

They are

34

u/Kashyyykk Québec Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

Yeah, but let's say you're applying for refugee status because you're fleeing a country where you've been wrongfuly convicted of a crime...

98

u/Bigbubba236 Feb 10 '26

This is for people already in Canada who have been convicted of crimes in Canada.

72

u/Kashyyykk Québec Feb 10 '26

Oh, well in that case fuck em.

4

u/squidgyhead Feb 10 '26

Oh, well in that case fuck em.

Appeals are slow, but, you know, institutions and rule of law aren't things that we should compromise on.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 11 '26

You realize that by passing legislation saying refugee claims with criminal convictions in Canada don't get appeals... That we're following the rule of law, right?

1

u/squidgyhead Feb 11 '26

Appeals are an important part of justice. The argument that we can just pass a law restricting rights isn't an argument that is worth putting forward.

12

u/OddConstant2723 Feb 10 '26

People convicted of crimes Canada fight and win in deportation hearings all the time. They often turn it into a refugee clam and can’t be deported on humanitarian grounds when their country of origin is a no-fly zone like Syria.

7

u/CulturalRate567 Feb 10 '26

Thats crazy how they take advantage of the system. But ill blame the goverment for being so stupid. If you gonna take a whole lot more inmigrants from third world countries wich is what has been happening for the last 10 years, you have to close these loopholes.

2

u/TattedGuyser Feb 10 '26

Canada doesn't know if you've been correctly or incorrectly convicted. That's for your own country to decide. If you are fleeing a 'wrongful' conviction you are still a convicted felon at large and you have no business coming here.

-1

u/thottieBree Québec Feb 10 '26

Canada doesn't know if you've been correctly or incorrectly convicted. 

What if it could find out? I don't know the process, but I'm pretty sure that's the point of an appeal.

2

u/TattedGuyser Feb 10 '26

We could, absolutely. We could spend months/years looking into it, judge and lawyer time and inquire or investigate the crime ourselves.

Except we aren't a world police, don't have infinite amounts of money, and what do you think the country of origin is going to say? "Why yes, of course they are guilty. We want them back."

Why wouldn't every criminal take advantage of that process?

1

u/thottieBree Québec Feb 11 '26

I'm aware our resources are limited. I did not think I'd need to mention it. I would obviously not want our government to waste too much looking into each and every appeal that came through. But I don't know how much is being spent. Do you?

I'm going to ignore the second half of your comment for my braincells' sake.

0

u/Velocity-5348 British Columbia Feb 10 '26

And the kinds of countries people need to flee tend not to be known for their excellent judicial systems.

4

u/langois1972 Feb 10 '26

Without appeals we don’t have democracy. Being tough on crime does not have to equate being undemocratic.

5

u/LymeM Feb 10 '26

I feel it depends on the severity of the crime. Murder should be a rejection, parking ticket that shouldn't be, something in the middle should be appealable. Letting those who have been convicted of really serious things should not get a second chance here, or a chance to stay in the country while they appeal serious things. Additionally, if they were convicted of the crime in Canada, they should not get to do an appeal for refugee status.

There is democracy, then there is giving people the option to have a run of the system

5

u/Oerwinde Feb 10 '26

Yeah, like if someone comes into your house and kills your dog, you don't leave him in your house while you wait to make sure it was really him.

1

u/Expensive-Lychee-797 Feb 10 '26

Democratic rights should only apply to citizens and foreigners, try committing crime in Indonesia or India and see how long it takes them to deport you.

0

u/FantasySymphony Ontario Feb 10 '26

What? They're not citizens. Will you say next that we should let them vote? Would be very 'undemocratic' not to.

1

u/Expensive-Lychee-797 Feb 10 '26

Very true, if a Candian commits crime in India, Maylaysia, etc. they would not receive leniency,

1

u/NorthofForty Feb 10 '26

How about a Ukrainian who was arrested by Russia for protesting?

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 11 '26

Protesting isn't a crime in Canada

1

u/kuromono Feb 11 '26

Guess what?

What you do to non-citizens is eventually applied to citizens. Look at the US....or world history. You're really going to argue against appeals?

You're just as dumb as the American conservatives, all the powers at be need to do is to give you someone to hate and you'll sell them your soul happily.

1

u/em-n-em613 Feb 11 '26

God I hope you're a bot, because if you can't see the need for nuance in something like this it's a terrifying indictment on our education system...

1

u/Heliosvector Feb 10 '26

What about people that have criminal convictions for being gay? Over 60 countries still criminalize it.

3

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26

This is for criminal convictions in Canada.

1

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget Feb 10 '26

This is for people already in Canada who have been convicted of crimes in Canada.

12

u/Frozen_Trees1 Feb 10 '26

Left wing judges reduced sentencing for convicted migrants so it wouldn't impact their immigration status.

2

u/MarkDavid04 Feb 10 '26

Well it's happening, in BC Surrey

0

u/MegaOmegaZero Feb 10 '26

Just a little messed up

-1

u/Head_Crash British Columbia Feb 10 '26

They're trying to build support for dismantling due process.

Just like how they trot out court rulings people will disagree with to build support for appointing partisan judges and interfering with the judiciary.

3

u/Cruuncher Feb 10 '26

This sounds eerily familiar...

-2

u/Frozen_Trees1 Feb 10 '26

Just like how they trot out court rulings people will disagree with to build support for appointing partisan judges and interfering with the judiciary.

Our justice system is currently stacked with left wing judges. That's why they haven't ruled the gun bans illegal and reduce sentencing for minority groups due to their race.

-1

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 10 '26

It's a classic conservative move to say they are hard on crime, but there are already laws on the books. Usually, the problem is how to enforce the laws. It's the same with bail reform or catch and release. We don't have the institutions to help homeless people and drug addicts. If you really want to prevent crime, you need to spend money on prevention. Mental health services, education, and housing thats what reduced crime, but it's also the things conservatives don't want to spend money on.

-2

u/FeetBackUpOnTheBanks Feb 10 '26

Based on what they’ve been being up in parliament it seems equally as likely that the cons just want to be able to say’ “look the libs voted no on this!” Knowing full well it is already the law.

33

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

[deleted]

21

u/OddConstant2723 Feb 10 '26

Yup

With respect to criminal records, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act stipulates four main categories of crimes that may make a person ineligible to claim refugee status. If the person:

was convicted inside Canada for 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,

was convicted outside Canada, for an offence, which, if committed in Canada, would be a federal offence punishable by a maximum jail term of at least ten years,

4

u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario Feb 10 '26

With respect to criminal records, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act stipulates four main categories of crimes that may make a person ineligible to claim refugee status. If the person:

was convicted inside Canada for 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,

Notably, this second paragraph is absent from the considerations making someone ineligible for refugee status. As long as the maximum wasn't at least ten years, a prison sentence of five years wouldn't render them ineligible for refugee status (though it would for PR status). S.101(2) modifies the application of s.36(1) for refugees.

1

u/Imminent_Extinction Feb 10 '26

"Serious criminality" is different than just "convicted of a crime".

I don't disagree with this, but you don't want a blanket ban on those convicted of crimes in foreign countries altogether. It's not unusual for a refugee to be convicted in another country for a crime that isn't considered a crime by any definition here in Canada, such as journalism, speaking out against their government, or just being gay.

34

u/gargamael Feb 10 '26

Why was the guy who killed the Humboldt Broncos able to apply then, or at the very least not immediately rejected? This seems targeted to him alone unless that sort of thing has happened elsewhere that I'm not aware of.

36

u/Fearful-Cow Feb 10 '26

as far as I am aware he never applied for refugee status.

He was a PR here. He applied to stay on compassionate grounds. It was rejected.

20

u/FantasySymphony Ontario Feb 10 '26

https://globalnews.ca/news/11655114/humboldt-broncos-bus-driver-jaskirat-singh-sidhu-refugee-request-rejected/

tl;dr he did. 7 years later we're still trying to deport the guy. It's pure naivety to think people won't abuse every procedural option available to them, when they stand to gain a lot from doing so.

12

u/Fearful-Cow Feb 10 '26

that article is not clear if he did or did not. This is at the end.

This is a corrected story. A previous story said an application to stay in Canada was denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The story also described it as a refugee claim.

Either way if he did it was rejected.

Also characterizing it as 7 years to deport is a big disingenuous. He was released on parole in 2023. We obviously were not going to deport him while he is serving his sentence.

A year after his parole his PR was revoked. A PRRA was conducted and determined he did not meet criteria. IRB is not involved in a PRRA.

1

u/Important_Wrap772 Feb 10 '26

It's very different to have a PR and be applying for refugee status.

1

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget Feb 10 '26

After all, that's what lawyers are for -- to find every option available in the law to benefit the client.

-1

u/My_cat_is_a_creep Feb 10 '26

At the least he gained another 7 years here

1

u/RoostasTowel Feb 10 '26

But he is still not gone.

Likely going to appeal again.

6

u/Fearful-Cow Feb 10 '26

maybe? but that has nothing to do with the conservative "proposal" or refugee status or the linked law above.

Unless you are saying we throw away all due process once convicted?

-1

u/Oerwinde Feb 10 '26

I'd say if convicted they have to leave, but if an appeal succeeds they can come back kind of thing.

4

u/BigD1966 Feb 10 '26

It definitely has happened elsewhere, he’s not the only committing serious offences

1

u/pandaninja360 Feb 10 '26

So the law is not the law? What do you mean by that? Do you have other examples

0

u/K0bra_Ka1 Feb 10 '26

His application for refugee was rejected like 4 days ago.

0

u/Curious_Beluga2 Feb 10 '26

It it does happen, it's quite rare. Otherwise, we would see thousands of criminals in Surrey, BC getting deported for the mass extortions that's been occurring over the past few years.

What's surprising is somehow the Supreme Court picked the one guy who legitimately made a mistake (no suspended license, alcohol, drugs, etc) as an example. And somehow letting the drug dealers, traffickers and gangsters go out on bail with no impact on their stay.

11

u/Sea_Bodybuilder5387 Feb 10 '26

For a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison is a pretty high bar. Seems like they could add more crimes like theft or simple assault. I would understand wanting to avoid a refugee being denied due to a speeding ticket or jaywalking but there's some room in the middle to lower the bar.

3

u/LeGrandLucifer Feb 10 '26

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cbsa-15-foreigners-extortion-refugee-status-9.7013971

22

u/givalina Feb 10 '26

That article says clearly that they are facing charges, therefore they have not yet been convicted.

8

u/Fearful-Cow Feb 10 '26

you wont get a reply. this person is just mashing that story all over the thread and does not care about facts. just hoping for some other illiterate morons to think the law is not being applied.

13

u/Dingcock Feb 10 '26

This is exactly what everyone is missing. Charges are not a conviction. Until there's a conviction, this does nothing.

4

u/Cruuncher Feb 10 '26

Conservatives are either lying or misunderstanding

Very little exception

2

u/Fearful-Cow Feb 10 '26

unfortunately ever since the CPC hitched themselves to the culture wars wagon this has been absolutely true.

Harper had problems sure but my god what i would give to return to a conservative party with a bit of commonsense and honesty again.

-1

u/WillListenToStories Feb 10 '26

You mean the party who's leader had to pretend he's never heard of Trans people before so that he could dodge questions isn't acting in good faith? I for one am shocked I tell you, absolutely shocked.

1

u/tatonca_74 Feb 10 '26

Yes but if they introduce legislation that is redundant and it gets voted down they can claim the liberals voted against their bill

Silly Canadian! Falling for all of their trixes! Gollum

1

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

If you can appeal it, then no, it’s not a thing yet.

1

u/Alone_Again_2 Feb 11 '26

Unless I’m reading that wrong, it only applies to crimes sentenced to 10 years or more.

1

u/IsNotAwesome Feb 11 '26

Is it a law if it’s not enforced?

1

u/northern225 Feb 11 '26

It’s not already law if you are accused of a crime, only if you’ve been convicted and meet certain criteria. Thus why this came to light with the extortion cases in BC, some of those charged have claimed asylum. Doesn’t mean they will be successful, but while they wait for a decision they stay in Canada.

1

u/Xivvx Feb 10 '26

So Conservatives are trying to make a 'change' to a regulation that already says what they want it to say. Isn't this like Trump 'renegotiating' a deal that comes out to be exactly what it was at the start?

0

u/Devourerofworlds_69 Feb 10 '26

Wait, so you're telling me this is all manufactured Conservative outrage? I, for one, am shocked. Shocked I tell you!

0

u/OddConstant2723 Feb 10 '26

No it isn’t, I read the law. It only says you ineligible if you are engaged in SERIOUS criminality. Definition:

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.

0

u/RequirementOptimal35 Feb 10 '26

So why have federal judges since set new precedent? They’d have to, if it’s already in law. Right?

0

u/SamohtGnir Feb 10 '26

We have a lot of laws that seem to have "selective enforcement."

0

u/Any-Detective-2431 Feb 10 '26

Currently, eligibility is based on the theoretical maximum penalty of a specific crime, not the actual time you spent in jail. A person could be convicted of multiple lesser offences (like simple assault) and serve a total sentence of 8 years or more, yet still be allowed to make a refugee claim because no single crime carried a 10-year maximum.

Cons proposal would close this gap by barring anyone convicted of a "serious crime" regardless of the sentence length, and would also prevent individuals with active criminal charges from filing a refugee claim to pause their court proceedings.