Canada’s courts often consider the full picture at sentencing. Since R. v. Pham (2013), judges may weigh immigration fallout—such as removal—when choosing a sentence. Critics say that has, at times, softened penalties for some non-citizens. A new plan aims to change that. The headline: Conservatives to end leniency for non-citizen criminals by amending the Criminal Code so immigration status does not reduce a sentence.
Why is This Debate Surfacing Now?
Public attention is high. Policy shifts have raised immigration targets in recent years, while housing and health systems feel strain. In that climate, media reports of lighter sentences tied to immigration consequences draw sharp reaction. Supporters of reform say Parliament—not the courtroom—already set removal rules in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), so sentencing should not be adjusted to avoid them. Opponents warn that removing judicial discretion can produce unfair results in edge cases.
A Quick Primer on R.V. Pham (2013)
Pham did not order judges to grant lighter sentences. It confirmed that, within lawful ranges, judges may consider collateral effects—like deportation—when tailoring a fit sentence. That is part of individualized justice Canada has long used. Since 2013, lawyers have sometimes argued that a sentence just below a key IRPA threshold avoids automatic removal or preserves appeal rights. The controversy arises when the public perceives those arguments as decisive rather than marginal.
What the New Bill Intends to Do
Conservative MPs say they will introduce a Criminal Code change—positioned after s. 718.202—to make immigration status and any downstream effects irrelevant to sentencing. The practical goal is to prevent a court from reducing a sentence because it could trigger removal or limit appeal rights for a non-citizen or their family. If passed, judges would still weigh traditional factors: denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, proportionality, and parity—but not immigration fallout.
How the Change Could Alter Real Cases
Today, some sentences land just below thresholds that shift a person from removable-with-appeal to removable-without-appeal. With the amendment, those lines would no longer influence the outcome. Expect fewer “threshold-sensitive” sentences and, in some matters, slightly longer custody terms. For permanent residents and temporary residents, the immigration consequences would follow the sentence rather than shape it.
Who Would Feel the Impact?
- Temporary residents (workers, students, visitors): sentences that cross IRPA thresholds could fast-track removal with limited recourse.
- Permanent residents: longer custodial terms can trigger loss of appeal rights at the Immigration Appeal Division.
- Families: spousal and child hardship would remain relevant in immigration proceedings, but not as a reason to lower a criminal sentence.
- Courts and counsel: submissions will likely shift away from immigration-based outcomes and back toward core sentencing factors.
Snapshot: Current vs. Proposed Approach
| Topic | Current practice (post-Pham) | Proposed change |
| Can a judge consider deportation risk? | Sometimes, within a legal range | No—immigration fallout becomes irrelevant |
| Appeal rights under IRPA | May influence sentence length near thresholds | Sentences set without immigration calculus |
| Predictability for non-citizens | Mixed—case by case | Higher—criminal sentence detached from status |
Possible Benefits and Risks
Potential benefits include clearer lines, fewer perception gaps between citizens and non-citizens, and simpler appeals on the criminal side. Potential risks include harsher collateral outcomes for people with deep roots in Canada, less room to tailor to individual circumstances, and added pressure on immigration tribunals to address hardship after sentencing.
What Non-Citizens Should Do Now
First, know your status and any IRPA thresholds that may apply if you face charges. Second, seek qualified legal help early—both criminal counsel and an immigration professional—because strategy often hinges on timing. Third, keep documents current: police clearances, proof of residence, work history, and family ties. If Parliament proceeds, cases in the pipeline may be caught by new rules; early advice helps you plan.
What Employers, Schools, and Communities Should Watch
Employers may see quicker changes to an employee’s work authorization after a conviction. Schools could face sudden enrollment changes where a parent or student is removed. Community groups will likely field more requests for legal referrals and short-term support. Planning for these scenarios reduces disruption.
Key Questions Before the House Returns
Will the bill carve out rare exceptions for extraordinary hardship, or will it be absolute? Will it apply only to sentences imposed after Royal Assent, or also to matters in progress? How will immigration tribunals handle a likely rise in humanitarian and compassionate claims where criminal courts no longer weigh family impact?
Prepare for a Stricter Line Between Criminal Justice and Immigration
If enacted, the plan draws a bright line: sentencing first, immigration second. Supporters see this as fair symmetry with citizens—same crime, same sentence. Critics see lost flexibility where removal risks are severe. For applicants, residents, and sponsors, the prudent move is to plan for less judicial discretion and more downstream action in immigration forums.
Conservatives to End Leniency for Non-Citizen Criminals—What It Signals
The proposal branded as Conservatives to end leniency for non-citizen criminals would remove immigration status from the sentencing equation, shifting decisions about removal back to IRPA processes after conviction. For non-citizens, that means building stronger files, seeking early legal advice, and preparing for immigration consequences to follow—not shape—the sentence. If Conservatives to end leniency for non-citizen criminals becomes law, clarity will rise at sentencing, while the real fight may move to the immigration side of the system.
Leave a Reply