Conservatives plan to end leniency for non-citizen criminals in Canadian courts

 

Conservatives to end leniency for non-citizen criminals

Non-citizens convicted of serious crimes should be deported,

not given leniency by virtue of their immigration status.

Michelle Rempel Garner

Aug 13, 2025

Should judges be allowed to use a non-citizen's immigration status to issue a more lenient sentence to a convicted offender for their crime?

While many Canadians would rightly say no,  2013 Supreme Court ruling (R. v. Pham) suggested otherwise, and legislation is urgently needed to address this problem. 

Here’s why.

The Pham ruling effectively allowed judges to, in certain circumstances, consider the impact of triggering a removal process under Canada’s Immigration Refugee and Protection Act (“IRPA”) provisions when issuing a sentence. Those provisions include deportation without appeal rights for non-citizens convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of at least 10 years, or for crimes in which a term exceeding six months has been imposed.

Lately, as public support for immigration has waned amid the Liberal government's rapid increases to the number of immigrants entering Canada that outpaced housing, healthcare, and job market capacities, several high-profile cases of judges applying leniency in sentencing due to potential impact on immigration status have emerged.

For example, a permanent resident received a conditional sentence after being convicted of trying to purchase sexual services from a 15-year-old, as a stronger penalty would have hindered him and his wife from obtaining Canadian citizenship. Another non-citizen in Canada on a visitor's permit was convicted of twice groping an 18-year-old woman's genitals under her skirt as she stood at the bar to buy a drink and received a discharge to avoid a permanent criminal record and allow a deportation appeal. There are many other examples that illustrate the trend of immigration status being considered in sentencing, with criminal lawyers now routinely arguing for lighter sentences so their non-citizen clients can evade deportation or denial of citizenship under IRPA's current provisions.

While it’s tempting to blame judges for this state of affairs, the fault squarely lies with the federal Liberal government, who, in spite of the increased evidence of leniency in sentencing due to consideration of immigration status in recent years, have declined to provide more clarity to judges through legislation. 

This is why once the House of Commons resumes in the fall, Conservatives will introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code to rectify this issue. Our bill will add a section after Section 718.202 of the Criminal Code which will expressly outline that any potential impact of a sentence on the immigration status of a convicted non-citizen offender, or that of their family members, should not be taken into consideration by a judge when issuing a sentence.

The rationale for this change is straightforward. Anyone seeking residence or citizenship in Canada has responsibilities as well as rights. The citizenship guide clearly states that citizens must obey Canada's laws and respect the rights and freedoms of others, and IRPA outlines the potential consequences for non-citizens who fail to do so. Without legislative clarity on considering immigration status in sentencing, judges can apply aspects of the Pham ruling to undermine that principle for non-citizens, effectively end-running the deportation consequences already enacted by Parliament through IRPA. 

In effect, the Criminal Code amendment that Conservatives plan to propose this fall will prevent judges from using aspects of the Pham ruling to prioritize the process of entering and staying in Canada over the responsibility to respect Canadian law required of those seeking to do so. It will also help quell anger from Canadians who have read about high-profile rulings where the perception has arisen that non-citizens are receiving leniency for a crime committed on Canadian soil simply by virtue of their non-citizen status.

The vast majority of people in Canada who have immigrated here or are on temporary visas  abide by the law. Removal from Canada for non-citizens after being convicted of a serious crime is a no-brainer to both protect Canadians, the value of Canadian citizenship, and every person who resides in Canada and plays by the rules. 

After a decade of Liberal post-nationalism and excessively high immigration levels, accepting this change would allow the Liberals to demonstrate some respect for Canadian citizenship by affirming that, at minimum, the privilege of residing here for non-citizens depends on adherence to the rule of law.

Conservative Senators Accused of Stalling Transgender Rights Bill

Senator Don Plett accused of using bigoted language by referring to transgender Canadians as 'these people'

Charlie Lowthian-Rickert, who is transgender, speaks alongside Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, right, as she makes an announcement regarding legislation on gender identity and

gender expression. Conservative senators are being accused of stalling the legislation, C-16,

in the Red Chamber. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

John Paul Tasker
Parliamentary Bureau, CBC

Ottawa, Canada

Conservative senators are deliberately stalling debate on the government's gender identity bill, putting transgender people at risk of further abuse and discrimination, a prominent Independent senator says.

Tories in the Red Chamber have been adjourning debate on the bill for months, Senator Grant Mitchell said in an interview with CBC News, and he fears the stall tactics could cause the bill to languish on the order paper until next fall, or outright fail to pass in the Senate.

Tensions over the bill spilled over late Tuesday when Independent Senator Marilou McPhedran accused Conservative Senator Don Plett — who has opposed the bill — of using bigoted language when he referred to transgender Canadians as "these people."

"To my ears, I heard 'othering.' Othering can be understood as an indicator of bigotry. Colleagues, bigotry does not strengthen an inclusive democracy," she said in her first speech as a senator.

Plett vehemently denied Wednesday he had ever made bigoted comments on the floor of the Senate. "To attribute such a serious charge as bigotry to the phrase 'these people' is preposterous," he said Wednesday, demanding the Speaker rule McPhedran's remarks out of order.

"I would like to kindly remind the senator, and all of us, that this kind of discourse, personal attacks, is not how we do things in this chamber," he said. "My grandchildren, my great-grandchildren will read that I was accused of bigotry on the chamber floor … accusing someone of bigotry is a personal attack of highest order."

McPhedran said she did not intend to call Plett a bigot, but rather that she simply took issue with the tone he had used during debate.

The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of gender identity protections for the transgender community, and sent Bill C-16 to the Senate last November. Months later, it is still at second reading.

"This is not a technical bill, this is a bill that affects people's lives," Mitchell said. "Trans people face extraordinary rates of suicide, homelessness, very low rates of pay, way below their levels of education, job loss … all of those struggles faced by trans people that can, at least in part, be fixed by this bill."

True to a point, but bigotry against trans people is not the major factor in their suicide rates and many other problems. The roots of their problems grow much deeper than that.

Bill C-16 would update the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include the terms "gender identity" and "gender expression."

If passed, the legislation would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression. It would also extend hate speech laws to include the two terms, and make it a hate crime to target someone for being transgender.

Mitchell said it is not only the trans rights bill that has been subjected to Tory stall tactics, but also Bill C-4, which would amend legislation dealing with unions, and Bill C-6, which would make changes to the Citizenship Act.

'You don't have a right to delay'

Mitchell said that Plett in particular, the critic of the bill in the Senate, has routinely sought to push off a vote that would send the bill to committee for further review.

"If you're opposed to the bill you have a responsibility to speak. You have a right to speak against, vote against, but you don't have a right to delay a bill that is critical for people living with the abuse and the prejudice that trans people face. The Senate has a job to do," the Alberta Independent senator said.

Plett has said he needs more time to study the legislation and prepare speaking notes on the bill. The Conservative deputy leader in the Senate, Yonah Martin, who has adjourned debate in her name, has said she did so to ensure everyone who wants to speak about the bill has the opportunity.

In an interview with CBC News last week, Plett said that all senators have a democratic right to speak on legislation and adjourning debate is a normal part of parliamentary procedure.

"We as an opposition, need to exercise our democratic right, and need to make sure things are done in the right way," he said.

"What goes around, comes around"

"Things just don't move at the speed that they should. I know how frustrated I was when I came to the Senate eight years ago," Plett said, adding Liberal senators then regularly stalled legislation, including a human trafficking private member's bill that was before the chamber at the time.

Mitchell, who serves as the government's whip in the Senate after leaving the Senate Liberal caucus last May, said he "doesn't buy" the argument that Conservatives need more time to gather research on the issue, given this is the third time a trans rights bill has been before the Senate since 2005.

The previous iterations died on the order paper after debate was punted to a later date. Unlike the past bills, Bill C-16 is government legislation.

Plett was a vocal opponent of those past bills, and in 2015 controversially amended the legislation from applying to "sex-specific" facilities such as public washrooms.

"I don't want to impugn his motives, he has concerns about this bill for whatever reason, but at some point you cross the threshold of legitimate opposition to delay for the sake of delay," Mitchell said, adding he did not want to brand Plett as transphobic.

"Our chamber must deliberate, but we must also decide."

Peter Harder, the government's representative in the Senate, delivered an impassioned defence of the bill in the chamber late Tuesday, urging senators to send the bill to committee without further delay.

"Each day a bill like this is adjourned, justice is denied. Canadians expect us to work as hard and diligently as they do."

The Liberal government is also pushing a bill to make 'Islamophobia' a hate-crime as though that is going to help matters. Soon, people who strive to tell the truth, like me, won't be able to write about much of anything.

The government does not understand that the more extreme it pushes in one direction, the more extreme will be the push-back in the next election. America's excessive liberalism led to Donald Trump being elected. Stephen Harper's personal unapproachability led to Justin Trudeau. Trudeau wants to fix the world's problems whether they are real or perceived and his haste is going to create a major backlash.