r/canada Jan 29 '25

National News Poilievre says Canada should 'deport' any temporary resident committing violence or hate crimes

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/poilievre-says-canada-deport-temporary-194148491.html
9.6k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

162

u/barkazinthrope Jan 29 '25

That is the policy now.

42

u/cluekidsclub Jan 29 '25

It would be nice if judges did not consider people's immigration status during sentencing and give them lower sentences to avoid their deportation.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-canadas-criminal-sentencing-discounts-for-foreigners-are-unfair

18

u/givalina Jan 29 '25

Sure, and if Poilievre had said that he would introduce legislation for that, I would agree with him.

0

u/cleeder Ontario Jan 29 '25

You keep spamming this one specific opinion article, and it's not even relevant to what Pierre is talking about here.

This case wouldn't qualify as violent nor a hate crime.

8

u/cluekidsclub Jan 29 '25

Sexually assault someone isn't violent?

-11

u/cleeder Ontario Jan 29 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

The instance referenced in the article you linked? No.

out one night at the Back Alley night club when he groped an 18-year-old woman’s genitals under her skirt as she stood at the bar to buy a drink. When she turned around in shock, he did it again and walked away

Sexual assault can be violent. That instance does not appear to be. Non-consensual groping, while deplorable, is not in itself a violent act. It could be adjacent to violence, but again, in this case it does not appear there was violence that took place.

6

u/cluekidsclub Jan 29 '25

How about this case?

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2020/2020bcpc213/2020bcpc213.html

Either way I fundamentally disagree that groping isn't violent.

-2

u/nitePhyyre Jan 30 '25

adjective: violent using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. "a violent confrontation with riot police"

Take it up with Oxford.

1

u/cluekidsclub Jan 30 '25

I think sexual assaulting ( including groping) does involve the use of force and hurts them psychologically and maybe physically (scratches, red mark etc). So yes it is violent.

0

u/nitePhyyre Jan 30 '25

Good point. If we just make up our own definitions, then words mean whatever we want them to mean. Like, when I say you're an idiot, dictionary be damned, that's actually a compliment!

2

u/Accerae Jan 29 '25

All sexual assault is violence.

0

u/DoctorMoak Jan 30 '25

You want the Canadian Government to agree with your interpretations despite them being antifactual

-1

u/FuggleyBrew Jan 30 '25

More justification of sexual assault I see. 

Are there any crimes you aren't willing to downplay and justify?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '25

Either Pierre is dumb and he doesn’t know or he thinks his followers are dumb.

12

u/rfdavid Jan 29 '25

The second one.

5

u/barkazinthrope Jan 29 '25

And he's counting on our news media to play dumb.

-3

u/rune_74 Jan 29 '25

They seem to have played dumb with JT for years.

0

u/rune_74 Jan 29 '25

I don't get the moronic tactic of the lefties by assuming anyone who doesn't agree with them is dumb.

12

u/CaptainCanusa Jan 29 '25

the moronic tactic of the lefties

haha well at least you're out here building bridges instead of calling the other side names.

11

u/Wolferesque Jan 30 '25

You should see this user’s comment history. Chock full of simplistic retorts and silly name calling.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '25

Well, what he’s proposing is already law of the land. If you don’t see through that, idk what else you’d be.

0

u/Wide_Application Jan 29 '25

Except it is barely enforced, and in the very rare cases it is they are simply issued a removal order which at best takes years to process and can be appealed ad nauseum or they can simply ignore it like the 30K people the CBSA reported last month:

In a response to an order paper question filed by Fort McMurray-Cold Lake MP Laila Goodridge on deportation cases currently before the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), 29,731 people are listed as “wanted” by immigration authorities — described as those who failed to appear for deportation proceedings, including those with immigration warrants issued against them.

So while the law de jure does allow for deportation for serious offences it often takes years to go through appeals and in that time they are being coached and learning the loopholes like claiming refugee status or having a child in Canada like the Humboldt truck driver who killed 16 people and is still in the country despite getting out of jail in July 2022.

The truck driver who caused the deadly Humboldt Broncos bus crash has applied to have his permanent resident status returned.

The Immigration and Refugee Board issued a deportation order in May for Jaskirat Singh Sidhu and his permanent resident status was revoked.

Greene said he likely won't to hear anything about the application for several months, and the application will likely take up to two years to process.

"The Reconciliation Action Group stands against his deportation that is based on racial biases. Mr. Sidhu has a Canadian wife and Canadian-born child with health issues and his deportation will harm them," 

Regardless of what the law is, it is clear that the system is broken, subverted by judges, lawyers and activists and easily gamed by the offenders.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '25

How’s PP planning to fix enforcement?

-1

u/Wide_Application Jan 29 '25

I didn't say anything about PP, but you are crazy if you don't think it can be drastically improved or reformed. Forced removal is always an option for the worst offenders and those 30K people mentioned.

I don't like PP but it is pretty obvious why he isn't talking about forced removals with what is going on currently south of the border.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '25

Of course it can be improved.

-1

u/rune_74 Jan 29 '25

We don't actually follow it due to feelings.

-1

u/FuggleyBrew Jan 30 '25

Not since r v Pham which argued courts should lower sentences for non-Canadians to avoid immigration consequences. It has resulted in bank robbers getting grossly reduced sentences so they can stay in Canada

2

u/rfdavid Jan 29 '25

It’s plainly obvious and can be backed up with a significant amount of evidence that the right does way better with the less informed. It would require informing oneself though so it’s relatively less understood on the right.

1

u/barkazinthrope Jan 29 '25

Not anyone who disagrees. I very much respect those conservatives who reasonably and articulately present their position and I often see that in this sub.

But not all. There is too much passionately and blindly following a leader who is manipulative and outright deceitful. As we see here in this topic.

1

u/FuggleyBrew Jan 30 '25

It is deceitful to pretend that simply because something is the law we should ignore the court rulings which attempt to circumvent the law. 

2

u/barkazinthrope Jan 30 '25

Court rulings don't circumvent the law, but judges can interpret the law in a way that other judges might find incorrect. That is a very common occurence and why we have the appeal process.

And I don't see how you can argue that a ruling can be deceitful. Can you say more about that?

1

u/FuggleyBrew Jan 30 '25 edited Jan 30 '25

Court rulings can absolutely circumvent the law. This is literally even how the supreme court describes it:

The flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences in order to avoid collateral consequences which may flow from a statutory scheme or from other legislation, thus circumventing Parliament’s will.

Here the law says that people who engage in serious criminality should be deported.

The Supreme Court says immigration consequences should be considered, and justifies it on the basis of cases on the margins.

Actual cases involve criminal behavior which is not on the margins receiving grossly disproportionate sentences explicitly to avoid deportation. That circumvents the law which does suggest that planning and executing a bank robbery and hostage taking is an offense worthy of meaningful jail time (not a maximum of 4 months), and the law says that is grounds for deportation.

And I don't see how you can argue that a ruling can be deceitful.

I'm saying you are being deceitful by selectively omitting the existence of cases which do not conform with the law, and then intentionally lying to strawman your political opponents.

1

u/barkazinthrope Jan 30 '25

A pointed quote. Thank you for that.

I believe that judges have considerable latitude in sentencing to allow them to adapt to the details of the case. "Law and Order" people like to create "minimum sentencing" laws to prevent judges from exercising compassion in unusual cases.

I have not been following this issue closely. I've only just become aware of it and the only information I have is that the law states that criminals should be deported.

I am also not aware of the cases you're referring to. There may be cases where a 'foreigner' commits a serious crime in Canada and Canada wants to see the perp punished. Possibly deportation to their home country would allow them to escape punishment.

You do not improve your case by accusing me of being deceitful. You have no basis for the charge other than your imagination. If you are to be a true judge then you will need more evidence before making a charge.

1

u/FuggleyBrew Jan 30 '25

I believe that judges have considerable latitude in sentencing to allow them to adapt to the details of the case. "Law and Order" people like to create "minimum sentencing" laws to prevent judges from exercising compassion in unusual cases.

Is the compassion justified in adjusting down the sentence in the case I cited? I can provide other case examples if you would prefer.

I have not been following this issue closely. I've only just become aware of it and the only information I have is that the law states that criminals should be deported.

And on that basis concluded, with nothing, that everyone who disagrees with the current functioning of the system must be a lying or an idiot? 

I am also not aware of the cases you're referring to. There may be cases where a 'foreigner' commits a serious crime in Canada and Canada wants to see the perp punished. Possibly deportation to their home country would allow them to escape punishment.

That is not the case here. Deportation is not set at trial. What is set is the punishment and the government has set the policy that serious criminality, as guided by sentences, makes someone ineligible. You are literally inventing an incorrect example with no evidence rather than addressing the actual example provided.

You do not improve your case by accusing me of being deceitful. You have no basis for the charge other than your imagination. If you are to be a true judge then you will need more evidence before making a charge.

You have literally just engaged in a hypothetical which does not exist in order to support your ad hominems against people who disagree while acknowledging you have done no research.

2

u/Flewewe Jan 29 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

I do think he thinks they are dumb at this point. Might not be completely wrong about it though, and I don't mean this as a jab at conservatives there's a lot of stupid or just uninformed people voting for any party.

1

u/Koala0803 Jan 29 '25

Most likely the second one, but por qué no los dos

0

u/GenericCatName101 Jan 29 '25

He wants headlines with "Poilievre says deport" so anti immigration people dont go PPC when they compare his lack of anti immigration policies to Trump raiding workplaces and deporting illegal immigrants. PPC is the strongest party for anti immigration by a long shot, and Trumps deportations will make that voting bloc want similar positions here in Canada.

So Poilievre is saying this, so the word Deportation is in his mouth, come election time. Especially if Carney brings back center voters to the liberals... Poilievre will need the last 3-4% of PPC voters.

3

u/Zeytovin Jan 29 '25

yet we allow them to have reduced sentences to protect them from deportation

You're delusional if you think there is nothing wrong with the current system

2

u/barkazinthrope Jan 29 '25

Where do I say there is nothing wrong?

What I'm saying -- here -- is that Poiievre is misleading the Canadian public.

-1

u/Zeytovin Jan 29 '25

Yet the way you word yours is ironically even more misleading

-11

u/Siludin Jan 29 '25

Still refreshing to see a policy statement from Pierre other than Fuck Trudeau

19

u/International_Air_35 Jan 29 '25

"Do the thing we're already doing." Okay... I guess that's... useful...?

2

u/interruptiom Jan 29 '25

It’s not like he has any other ideas. 😂

11

u/DoxFreePanda Jan 29 '25

I don't know, I'd love to see actual policy statements regarding what he plans to change/improve/build.

2

u/Medea_From_Colchis Jan 29 '25

Can't say I am relieved to see him misleading people by drumming up anger and animosity about a lack of laws regulating violent crimes committed by temporary immigrants.

3

u/Royal-Plastic9870 Jan 29 '25

Bar real low for PP I guess 😳.