· 142 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Mar 27, 2026 at 10:33 PM

Canada will cancel thousands of refugee claims under new retroactive law

Posted by Immediate-Link490

Canada will cancel thousands of refugee claims under new retroactive law
Toronto Star
Canada will cancel thousands of refugee claims under new retroactive law
Immigration and borders legislation known as Bill C-12 has received royal assent. It will mean thousands of asylum seekers have their claims terminated.
🚩 Report this post

142 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
YouCantSeeMe555 Mar 27, 2026 +2764
*“This government has given itself quite a bit of power to make changes to the immigration system,”* Shouldn't all countries have complete control over their immigration systems?
2764
ridelance Mar 27, 2026 +747
The Government as opposed to Parliament. When Canadians say “the government” it refers to our executive branch. 
747
YouCantSeeMe555 Mar 27, 2026 +285
No, I am Canadian I mean the government and there is only one federal government.
285
sillylittlguy Mar 27, 2026 +124
In this case, the Government of Canada seems to mean the IRCC (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada) and the Cabinet, which is ministers chosen by the Prime Minister, so it means the party currently in power (I added bold for emphasis): > The Government of Canada now has new tools to better manage immigration documents (such as visas, electronic travel authorizations, and work and study permits) and related applications. These measures will help the government respond quickly to emergencies or unexpected situations while supporting fairness, transparency and accountability. > When it’s in the public interest, IRCC may cancel, suspend or change a large group of immigration documents, pause application intake, or cancel or suspend application processing. “Public interest” grounds include fraud, administrative errors or concerns for public health, safety or national security. The decision can’t be made by a single minister—**each decision requires approval by the Governor in Council through an order in council recommended by Cabinet**. Decisions are published in the Canada Gazette and reported to Parliament. This process must be followed each time these authorities are used. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2026/03/new-immigration-and-asylum-measures-from-bill-c-12-the-strengthening-canadas-immigration-system-and-borders-act-have-become-law.html
124
eeevaughn Mar 27, 2026 +24
The Governor in Council in effect is the cabinet.
24
ridelance Mar 27, 2026 +69
Then I didn’t understand your question, sorry! 
69
YouCantSeeMe555 Mar 27, 2026 +20
No worries, have a great weekend bud.
20
Mental-Mushroom Mar 27, 2026 +43
Keep your stick on the ice
43
PossibleGeneral6605 Mar 28, 2026 +23
Award for most Canadian interaction.
23
Ham_I_right Mar 28, 2026 +12
This was entirely done while they both held the door open for each other. Some say they are still there deadlocked and unwilling to budge first. Tragic really.
12
Medallicat Mar 28, 2026 +6
The only way to break this stalemate is for someone to challenge them to a maple syrup drinking contest
6
belkarbitterleaf Mar 28, 2026 +3
I hear candied bacon, when maple syrup is used to candy it of course, could also be used.
3
tearsaresweat Mar 28, 2026 +3
They'll probably continue this conversation on the weekend over a double double at Timmies
3
-SatelliteMind- Mar 28, 2026 +2
Tims was bought out by Burger King and the customer base kind of bled away when McCafe started to be added to every McDonalds. Their Hot Chocolates are still okay, French Vanilla is good, their sandwiches and breakfast actually not too bad, but their coffee and donuts suuuuuuuuck now. There's still people in there in the mornings, but McDonald's certainly gets way more traffic in the morning (at least in my small Maritime town).
2
Remarkable_Beach_545 Mar 27, 2026 +8
Provincial? Territorial? Municipal?
8
otisreddingsst Mar 27, 2026 +12
Bud, the executive and the parliament are usually walking hand in hand. At this exact moment they aren't as they are a minority government
12
waylandsmith Mar 27, 2026 +7
That's news to me
7
cipheron Mar 28, 2026 +16
In a Westminster system they usually use the term "Government" to mean the appointed ministers who oversee departments, not parliament as a whole. That's why you'll get phrases such as "the attempt to form a government" after an election, or when they say "Starmer's government" in the UK they're referring to whoever Starmer appointed to run things, not talking about the entire legislature. Or another way to look at is is that the legislature debates and passes laws, but it doesn't actually enact anything. All actions are actually taken by the ministries and departments, so if you get to appoint those people you can get them to take actions which were not specifically debated and authorized by a vote in parliament. This is made possible since it's up to the ministers to interpret how any laws or directives are carried out. They can use "selective enforcement" of rules or creative interpretations to do what they want without parliament specifically having a say in that.
16
ridelance Mar 27, 2026 +19
Yep! For example the Ontario Government refers to Doug Ford and his Cabinet/Ministers, but does not include the Ontario Parliament (such as non-Cabinet MPPs or opposition MPPs). This is true federally, as well as in other Provinces - though names vary (MLAs, MNAs).
19
otisreddingsst Mar 27, 2026 +17
Government is the party with the most seats in Parliament. The premier / prime minister is the office of the executive
17
waylandsmith Mar 27, 2026 +4
I live out West and I've never heard that distinction.
4
ridelance Mar 27, 2026 +16
Interesting - now you've got me curious. So if you see an ad from the "Government of Canada" what does it mean to you out west? I generally would assume it was authorized by the current Government (i.e. PM Mark Carney, etc.) and not necessarily approved by the Leader of the Opposition (Pierre Poilievre) or other parties in Parliament.
16
Mental-Mushroom Mar 27, 2026 +14
Yes, and I assume that's what every Canadian assumes as well
14
purpletooth12 Mar 27, 2026 +9
The party that gets elected (wins the most seats) gets to form govt. The only exception would be a minority govt. that goes into a formal agreement with another party to form govt. but this hasn't ever happened at the Federal level. The official opposition is NOT the govt.
9
ridelance Mar 27, 2026 +7
Yeah, I think we're on the same page. That's why I'm curious about what /u/waylandsmith considers to be the Government...
7
purpletooth12 Mar 27, 2026 +3
it's basic Canadian Civics. All this can be found on the Fed govt. website. Everyone should have to take a course in high school on how the various levels of govt. function. You don't have to be a charter expert, but doesn't seem like a big ask to me to require this.
3
waylandsmith Mar 27, 2026 +5
Okay, that's fair. If I saw an ad, or an announcement from "The government of Canada" I would think it's the executive. But if I was having a general discussion about "the government", I would include parliament, but probably not opposition party members. I've never thought much about it, thanks.
5
y_not_right Mar 28, 2026 +6
Our executive branch is the monarch. Who is ceremonial. When we refer to the government we refer to the current federal party in power. Our prime minister is the head of government not head of state(executive) that’s the monarch
6
Antique_Eye_3200 Mar 28, 2026 +10
The executive branch includes the Governer General, Prime Minister, and the PM's selected Cabinet. The head of state and commander in chief is the Crown, represented -- in, as you say, a largely ceremonial capacity -- by the Governer General.
10
Zendofrog Mar 27, 2026 +44
The “government” in this case likely Refers to the current party in power. So it’s probably talking about the Liberals under Carney. It’s like saying this iteration of the government. And different governments can take more or less control over certain areas. So regardless of whether this is a good or bad thing, the power the government gives themselves is at least a factor that can be noteworthy.
44
SadZealot Mar 27, 2026 +21
The government also limits itself with frameworks like the charter, constitution, existing acts, treaties, independent legal bodies,etc. All of those things can be changed by a government with a large enough majority but it does take political capital and a public will to go ahead and do it
21
biskino Mar 27, 2026 +170
Governments have to act within the law. At least in Canada.
170
hillswalker87 Mar 28, 2026 +29
governments decide what the laws are so..
29
JG98 Mar 28, 2026 +22
Canada is a confederation, the federal government doesn't get unlimited power just because it is the federal government. Powers are split between various levels of government, which makes for a more stable and democratic country. Canada is a bit weak to be considered as a true confederation and leans more towards a decentralised federation by pure modern definitions (especially since becoming constitutionally independent), but the historic basis is there as a union of provinces. Immigration is also one of the areas where provinces also play a role, albeit legally the final authority rests with the federal government. In this case it is more so seems to be just about increasing power that was not explicitly in law.
22
prawad Mar 28, 2026 +46
Actually not true. The majority power decides what the laws are. You can form a government while being in a minority. And even if you have a majority you can face a lot of challenges while passing bills into law. The government of the day doesn't get to unanimously decide the laws of the country.
46
Strong_Judge_3730 Mar 28, 2026 +3
Not even, in the UK a high court ruled that arresting people for supporting Palestine Action is illegal. The government decided to appeal to a higher court which would take several months just to have the new case heard and while they are waiting they will ignore the court's decision. They could have decided to follow the court's ruling while they waited for the appeal. There are many cases where governments literally do illegal shit but just exploit the red tape of the legal system.
3
KimberlyWexlersFoot Mar 28, 2026 +13
And the Supreme Court has the power to overrule those decisions.
13
yodaspicehandler Mar 28, 2026 +13
... So they have laws and systems in place to prevent big changes without popular support. Like how trump didn't have enough support in Congress in his first term, he did less damage than he's doing now
13
its_mabus Mar 28, 2026 +3
The senate explicitly exists to stop major changes WITH popular support. I used to think of that as being entirely vestigial and unnecessary until Trump.
3
zoobrix Mar 28, 2026 +2
The Supreme Court can declare laws invalid. So many governments have had laws about criminal justice and prostitution thrown out it it's practically a tradition. The government can't make a law that violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, well they do sometimes, but that's what the Supreme Court is for.
2
Datools Mar 28, 2026 +10
What do you mean by control? Our parliament has full control to pass any laws and change the rules related to the immigration system. This quote means that they're doing this without passing by the parliament.
10
Easyd26 Mar 27, 2026 +23
Its only a problem when a western country does it for some reason
23
Lopsided-Engine-7456 Mar 28, 2026 +11
Except the US, according to to Listnook
11
yosisoy Mar 28, 2026 +2
Other than the retroactive bit, yeah
2
quietguy_6565 Mar 28, 2026 +3
For the Americans "this government" should read like "this administration."
3
DE_Auswanderung Mar 27, 2026 +2
>Shouldn't all countries have complete control over their immigration systems? In Western Europe we let obsolete treaties and unelected "judges" decide who is allowed to come into the country.
2
FrogsJumpFromPussy Mar 28, 2026 +1
If you wouldn't know the topic you'd think this is a conservative take on Trump's anti-immigrstion policies.
1
camerox888 Mar 27, 2026 +816
This is great news! Finally some justice for actual, genuine asylum seekers!
816
PhantasmologicalAnus Mar 27, 2026 +639
Who are also supposed to return home when the danger is over.
639
Lucifer_Delight Mar 27, 2026 +344
what a concept.
344
phormix Mar 28, 2026 +101
For me, it seems reasonable with certain limits of time etc. If somebody comes here as a refugee and spends the next decade building a life in and contributing to Canada then one day saying "oop, conflict is over, time to sell your stuff, pull the kids out of school and head back where you came from". If it's 6mo then sure, but many things go way longer than that.
101
MrBenSampson Mar 28, 2026 +75
Contributing to Canada should be an important factor when deciding if they may stay. If they’re a net negative to our economy, then we would be better off as a country if they went home. Just look at Sweden, where there are entire neighborhoods of asylum seekers who are living on welfare, raising children who then live on welfare. We don’t need that here.
75
phormix Mar 28, 2026 +14
I generally agree on this, so long they have the opportunity to do so. Immigrating to a country should mean becoming part of it, and for somebody who has embraced their host country that means giving something of themselves and receiving in turn.
14
cougarlt Mar 28, 2026 +1
"Just look at Sweden". Tell me you've never been to Sweden without telling me you've never been to Sweden. What happened in Sweden last night? I actually live in Sweden and know first hand how it is here. Are there people who exploit the welfare system? Absolutetly. Are there whole neighbourhoods of such people? Hardly so. Majority of refugees work and are net benefit to the country. Iranians and people from former Yugoslavia are especially well integrated. Others a bit less but you can't just say that there are whole neighbourhoods of welfare exploiters.
1
DinkleDonkerAAA Mar 28, 2026 +56
"Leave your new home and your job and all your friends and go back to a war-torn hell scape maybe your house will still be there!" Yeah no shit I wouldn't leave either
56
Akiasakias Mar 28, 2026 +82
And stop in the first safe country they enter. Where is Canada again?
82
Sufficient_Cat_5755 Mar 28, 2026 +26
According to the world canada is right next door to the middle east, africa, india, and Ukraine!
26
foghillgal Mar 27, 2026 +105
If you\`ve been here 10 years and you claim has been accepted and put roots then why would you go back after 10 years because your country of origin is now better. Better by not being a warzone mind you. Many do go back, like many Syrians now going home. Some even go back home even after becoming citizens like those that went back to Lebanon after the civil war. But, it shouldn\`t be expected or forced for those that were legitemate refugees initially.
105
SnooLentils3008 Mar 27, 2026 +48
It is easier for them to do that already. And it definitely should be. But, it should not necessarily be a guarantee unless there is also a benefit for us as a country as with any reasonable immigration policy So for example if you had a refugee who never got a job, had legal troubles etc. well they should go home when the danger is gone. That’s why it should not be automatic
48
Bitter_Sense_5689 Mar 28, 2026 +15
A lot of refugees who make it to Canada are often people who are educated and have money anyways. Essentially, they have enough money to fly out of their home country, but they don’t have the time to go through the process without endangering their lives or the lives of their families. I knew a family of Syrian refugees where the mother had a masters degree, and the father had a PhD. And I knew a Sri Lankan refugee back in the 90s who was a mechanical engineer. The reason the Syrians had to leave because of the war, and the Sri Lankan had to leave because his father was a journalist who ended up getting kidnapped by the Tamil Tigers, and they had targeted him as well. I think one of the Syrian refugees ended up working for one of the colleges in town, and the Sri Lankan refugee ended up working for the City in their mechanical department
15
PhantasmologicalAnus Mar 28, 2026 +7
A lot of them also aren't. What's your point?
7
For_The_Emperor923 Mar 27, 2026 +99
Because you came under a temporary. Overstaying and then appealing to empathy might have been okay when it wasn't the literal strategy of most coming over.
99
foghillgal Mar 27, 2026 +37
Refugees are only temporary until their claim is accepted, then they\`re no longer temporary.
37
purpletooth12 Mar 27, 2026 +25
Not necessarily. One could be here as a temporary refugee if they're say a student. Not common I wouldn't think but it does happen.
25
Programmdude Mar 28, 2026 +11
How would that work? They're in danger in their home country, they come over here and study, and when their study is over the government goes "okay, now go home and get killed"? There's plenty of temporary *immigrants*, of which student is a common one (so is work), but they're immigrants, not refugees.
11
Il_Valentino Mar 28, 2026 +5
Asylum rights should never be permanent because otherwise the asylum system completely undermines the regular immigration system. If you have a strong welfare system and a high trust society then limited migration is a crucial necessity to protect these things.
5
Koobetto Mar 27, 2026 +12
Why most immigrants can't absolutely wait to get back to their home country whenever they have the chance? Most south east Asians usually take one or two months off to get back to their country even for a simple vacation or visit, if they're not endangered there. 
12
Zendofrog Mar 27, 2026 +28
Wait does it say it’s only cancelling claims of fake asylum seekers?
28
Hefty-Reaction-3028 Mar 27, 2026 +29
The idea, i believe, is that the 'government' (whichever body they refer to) can examine each claim and determine which ones are valid in their eyes and which ones are invalid for some reason and should be cancelled. That user was overstating it by using the word 'fake'. They may have been referring to people who sought asylum due to economic conditions, which many people consider to be not the same as refugees from warzones, persecution, etc.
29
Vast-Website Mar 28, 2026 +26
Look at the countries we receive asylum applications from and the percentage of accepted applications. This law is literally just to stop Indians from clogging the system with baseless claims. Because when we require every single claim to have a hearing even though we know they’re abusing the system it wastes huge amounts of resources.
26
DinkleDonkerAAA Mar 28, 2026 +13
I don't wanna be hateful but legit the Indian thing is getting out of hand. It's mostly rich kids who have the money to go to school internationally because it's a fad for them right now. Like those rich Americans who go backpacking across Asia and beg to fund their way
13
Sageblue32 Mar 28, 2026 +6
That assumes it is evenly applied and goes for every person they can find. In US for example we've had issues with allowing people on temporary status since the 90s to stay despite the conflicts in their home country being long over. And when the Ukrainian conflict first broke out, they were allowed to get to front of line for refugee claims.
6
random20190826 Mar 27, 2026 +29
The one thing that this law does is it hurts people like the Ukrainians. Think about it this way, if you were a Ukrainian who came to Canada to study or work before Russia decided to invade (let's say you came before the pandemic, and by the time the war broke out, it was already 2-3 years), and now your country is being bombed, are you now not eligible? That, to me, is very inhumane.
29
WoodpeckerNo5724 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Preparing for the influx of American’s perhaps
1
Uncertn_Laaife Mar 27, 2026 +468
As a Canadian, good.
468
AdWestern1561 Mar 27, 2026 +71
Agreed Best news I’ve heard in a while
71
hatemakingnames1 Mar 28, 2026 +10
A great day for Canada, and therefore, the world
10
woo2fly21 Mar 28, 2026 +13
Yessir
13
pineapples-42 Mar 28, 2026 +40
Yup, incredibly happy about this. Only the tip of the iceberg with out problems with immigration but it's at least a start.
40
bot_or_not_vote_now Mar 27, 2026 +333
as a Canadian, I see this as an unfortunate but necessary step to tighten the rules to mitigate against people trying to game the system, and to help clear out some of the backlog of applications, which has resulted in delays for legitimate claims
333
stealth_veil Mar 27, 2026 +165
I don’t see why it would be unfortunate. If they come to Canada and don’t file an asylum claim right away, they aren’t here for asylum.
165
Lard523 Mar 28, 2026 +28
i believe asylum claims should be invalid if not made at the port of entry immediately upon arrival, and people should be required to provide proof that they where NOT in another safe country since the start of what made them refugees (if there’s any doubts). Also make people ineligible to claim asylum if they spent time in canada recently not as a refugee (eg. on a tourist visa) while the conflict in their home was ongoing, then went back home. Apply exeptions to this rule only for new conflicts (eg. someone is on holiday in canada and while they’re on holiday their home country becomes unsafe, then they have a valid claim to asylum despite already being here)
28
ieatyoshis Mar 28, 2026 +2
Counter-point: a Muslim comes to the country to study for a degree and while they’re there they come out as trans and cannot safely return home, so apply for asylum when their student visa expires. (I know of someone in this situation).
2
globehopper2000 Mar 27, 2026 +47
Pretty much this. Also the cost of having such a backlog is staggering.
47
yopetey Mar 28, 2026 +30
It's not unfortunate, it's called fix your countries problems first as in Canada, before taking on more responsibilities, regardless of refugee or any immigration for that matter. I'l glad the government is seriously looking at taking steps to still help those that need it but also addressing that fact that you have to balance what your country can handle, filter and integrate. If we don't do this properly we allow the the population to grow with anger and resentment, even if its silent , those build over time just look south to the US and you can see what a combination of mis management, poor policies and then combined that with the people voting based not on experience and whats best but based on emotion and knee jerk reactions to existing conditions they don't like.
30
bot_or_not_vote_now Mar 28, 2026 +6
by unfortunate, I mean that in addition to tossing out a bunch "gamed" applications, there's bound to be some legitimate claims that get swept out by this
6
theroguex Mar 28, 2026 +44
Why do people post paywalled or "subscriber only" stories?
44
IAmAGenusAMA Mar 28, 2026 +18
My generous assumption is that they have a subscription and forget that most won't. The bigger issue is that no one reads the articles before commenting regardless.
18
King0fFud Mar 27, 2026 +217
Trudeau opened the floodgates to international scammers and sanity has finally prevailed after a rather huge backlog was created for far too many people for us to take in. This should’ve never happened but better late than never.
217
ImGudLuhv Mar 28, 2026 +63
All it took was pushing housing costs to the limit & suppressing wages. Choices have consequences.
63
JustChillin3456 Mar 28, 2026 +35
The dude was so bad at his job he had to resign in shame And people still defend him 
35
[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 +4
[deleted]
4
JustChillin3456 Mar 28, 2026 -2
Made it so Canadians can never afford a home. Left his wife and kids for some celebrity. Made it so that 25% of Canada is foreigners.  And Listnook libs who probably aren’t even Canadian are now downvoting me 😂
-2
Chasoc Mar 28, 2026 +4
This is so funny, considering the issue with housing affordability has been in the making for decades before he was ever PM. Signed, someone who is in fact Canadian.
4
Mobile_Morale Mar 28, 2026 +4
This comment just sounds like maga in 2016, 2020 and 2024. Complaining about Obama then Biden for letting brown people into the country. I'm sure if they were white people foreigners y'all wouldn't be complaining
4
Flyingworld123 Mar 28, 2026 +4
Obama deported more people than Trump but both sides chose to hide this fact because it doesn’t suit their respective narratives. I’m certain that even if millions of white people suddenly came and overwhelmed our housing, jobs and healthcare system, we will be complaining. It’s not about the race as much as the total number. Would you fly on an airplane packed to the brim that all the aisles are filled with standing people? It’s the same thing here.
4
[deleted] Mar 28, 2026
[deleted]
0
JustChillin3456 Mar 28, 2026
lol that’s not the point I was making but take my internet points you’re doing me a favor 
0
globehopper2000 Mar 27, 2026 +163
The refugee system has been heavily abused lately. This is a positive step. There are some countries we should never accept refugees from like the US or India. I think it’s tough to make the case that people would be in danger in those countries. If you came as a student and applied as a refugee after failing to get PR, you should also be rejected immediately.
163
ihaveapunnyusername Mar 27, 2026 +29
Indians aren’t safe from India even in Canada. Remember that assassination? I can also see situations where certain Americans are also not safe in their own country with everything going on down south. It’s hard to flat out refuse refugees from any specific country.
29
lih9 Mar 28, 2026 +24
That isn't what is happening though. Student scammers are abusing the system, this is legislation introduced to close the loophole. [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-international-students-asylum-claims-increase/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-international-students-asylum-claims-increase/) It sucks because they are clogging up the system for legitimate asylum claims. Indian students have a problematic reputation in Canada, they won't be missed.
24
WoodpeckerNo5724 Mar 28, 2026 +5
But what they were responding to is a person saying never, under any circumstances should refugees be accepted from those places.
5
Man_Bear_Beaver Mar 28, 2026 +18
> Remember that assassination? We're talking what 1 in 1.5 Million? Those odds are pretty good... the odds of dying in a car accident are like 5 in 100,000....
18
KartFacedThaoDien Mar 28, 2026 +24
Considering so many people are saying Trump is opening concentration camps and ICE is the Gestapo. How can you not help the people being grabbed by masked men. 
24
Flyingworld123 Mar 28, 2026 +6
You should fight for it yourselves. We can’t handle millions of Americans.
6
finemustard Mar 28, 2026 +6
At least as the US stands now, I would flat out say no to accepting any refugees from there, mainly because there are still many parts of the US that are safe. Things may get worse in the future where that's something we'd consider, but I think it would be opening a huge can of worms due to their massive population compared to ours, and the fact that they're right next door.
6
MushroomBright8626 Mar 27, 2026 +39
Great news
39
BlamaeuxPrivateEye Mar 28, 2026 +27
"Irregular migrants entering from the U.S. between land ports of entry will also be denied the right to asylum." Illegal not irregular. Stop changing speech. Homeless not unhoused.
27
squirrel9000 Mar 28, 2026 +3
Proclaiming them "illegal" without due process is a violation of Section 11 of the Charter, (essentially presumed innocence). Irregular is not a great substitute, but it's not clear there's anything better. Homeless means someone without a permanent place to live. Unhorsed means sleeping outside. They're not the same.
3
urbanacrybaby Mar 28, 2026 +26
Every country but the US can do this and get praised.
26
TheOriginalBroCone Mar 28, 2026 +1
Problem with being at the top is that everyone tries to drag you down
1
Unique_Watch4072 Mar 27, 2026 +129
Countries shouldn't be taking in refugees unless they somehow align with their traditions. This whole madness in the Middle East, Africa etc should be solved on their own soil. The west is not a solution to this mess.
129
GuaranteedCougher Mar 27, 2026 +12
The refugees or the countries they come from? If refugees are coming from Iran right now they probably don't agree with Iran's government, for example
12
Sad_Prawn2864 Mar 28, 2026 +7
Cool, many other much closer countries they could go to, if they can afford to go to Canada then they go by choice.
7
jupfold Mar 27, 2026 +81
Don’t you know it’s racist to say that Canada should have its own identity? /s Edit: bring it on, downvoters. Bring it on. Even the mere suggestion of Canada having an identity so angers you all.
81
[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 +12
[removed]
12
Kurthog Mar 28, 2026 +4
Canadian = Nazi for canceling these claims! Shame on them!! /s
4
New-Independent-1481 Mar 28, 2026 +1
It's really amusing to see the persecution complex at work. Where are those downvotes, and who is apparently saying it's racist for Canada to have an identity?
1
BritneyGurl Mar 28, 2026 +4
Who's traditions? White Christians or the indigenous peoples? Waiting...
4
t1gerrr Mar 27, 2026 +6
What's your stance on Ukrainians?
6
xjester8 Mar 28, 2026 +20
There’s been a heavy Ukraine population throughout Canada for a long time
20
ItsMeTittsMGee Mar 28, 2026 +11
They helped settle the west.
11
Unique_Watch4072 Mar 27, 2026 +45
I probably shouldn't comment on this, but since I have Ukrainians living in my house I probably should. I like them. Their culture is closely connected to mine (as an Icelander) and our cultures enrich each other. So there's that.
45
PlumpHughJazz Mar 28, 2026 +3
Easier to relate to.
3
Alter_Kyouma Mar 28, 2026 +4
The West does not and has never taken any significant number of refugees compared to other countries. The only European countries that host a large number of refugees are Germany and Turkey. In Germany's case those refugees are Ukrainian! 71% of the world refugees are hosted by low and middle income countries. The western countries just cry and shout the loudest about it. And keep in mind a lot of these refugees are a direct consequence of the west meddling in the middle east so they don't get to act as if it's not their fault
4
gawdamn_mawnstah Mar 27, 2026 +56
But but but....racism!
56
Osiris-Amun-Ra Mar 27, 2026 +39
"thousands"....after letting in millions. That should be a drop in an ocean.
39
sherikanman Mar 28, 2026 +49
Key word refugees. We had only 300000+ applications active, which is not millions. And we absolutely have not had millions of refugees unless you expand the relevant dates to decades and in that case its meaningless, angry anti-foreigner sentiment. .
49
JustChillin3456 Mar 28, 2026 +13
As of rn 25% of Canada is immigrants 
13
Lafantasie Mar 27, 2026 +13
For context, this doesn’t mean the government will do anything but they’ve paved the road to do something about it if they wanted to. Considering almost all Canadian politicians serve corporate interests and the current status quo favours them, I doubt we’ll see any sizeable changes but they’ve created a lever.
13
superdooper26 Mar 27, 2026 +25
Thank god we legitimately do not have the infrastructure for any more foreign beings
25
Cicer Mar 28, 2026 +7
That’s because our infrastructure is held to standards. We could just degrade the standards until they match those of their country and then our infrastructure can easily “handle” that many people per sq km.  Sorry my attempt at humour. My city has turned into a nightmare of crowds for everything and anything and they are building a dozen very large apartment buildings just along my own daily routes. City wide it’s going to be ridiculous in a couple years. 
7
[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 +10
[removed]
10
z8_GND_5296 Mar 28, 2026 +8
Wow, only 10 years too late.
8
TheLastElite01 Mar 28, 2026 +11
this is good
11
FrogsJumpFromPussy Mar 28, 2026 +11
Sometimes Listnook seems to be taken over by r conservative. Same ridiculous gymnastics. As soon as people don't need to be against whatever Trump is doing they're showing their true face. Weird place.
11
grumble11 Mar 28, 2026 +7
Right now Canada has no claimant tracking system, deportations are self-deportation on the honour system and there are very poor controls on applications (a review found about 150,000 claims with significant irregularities but only 2,000 were investigated, which found massive fraud). Basically Canada has no real filter on the way in, checking when you are in, or forcing you to leave. And the whole process goes through courts backed up for years with more fraud and abuse.
7
Jonesdeclectice Mar 28, 2026 +5
Holy f****** rhetoric, I’m not sure there’s a single thing you wrote there that was actually true. In fact, f*** you for making me waste 10 seconds of my life, plus the time to write this response - time which I’ll never get back.
5
GarryModZ Mar 28, 2026 +4
Something makes sense for once
4
HistoryBugs Mar 28, 2026 +3
The headline is quite problematic. It's more like correcting wrongdoing than being retroactive
3
FigureMost1687 Mar 28, 2026 +3
Its only 29000 out of 300 000 applications might be canceled under the new law, not much ...just to let everyone know Harper tried the same thing years ago and court turned it down saying its against the constitution. So im expecting the same outcome...its just liberals trying to show they r doing something but they know this will be turned down by courts and in return they will blame the courts for their mess ...its just politics ...also this attempt might deter those students not to apply for asylum for now...once court turns it down there will be millions lining up for asylum...its a complete mess created by liberals ...
3
Vacuum_reviewer Mar 28, 2026 +1
Back to normal
1
← Back to Board