Conservatives Move to Stop Judges From Giving Non-Citizens Lighter Sentences Over Immigration Consequences

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

A debate over equal treatment in Canada’s courts has put immigration law and criminal sentencing on a collision course. Federal Conservatives have pushed to prevent judges from reducing or adjusting sentences because a non-citizen could face deportation, lose permanent resident status or lose the ability to appeal a removal order.

The issue centres on a longstanding Supreme Court principle allowing judges to consider immigration consequences when crafting a proportionate sentence. Conservatives argue that practice can produce lighter penalties for non-citizens than Canadians convicted of comparable offences. Critics counter that immigration consequences are only one factor judges may consider and cannot justify an otherwise unfit sentence. The Conservative attempt to rewrite that rule through Bill C-220 was narrowly defeated in Parliament, but the political and legal dispute it exposed remains unresolved.

Conservatives Wanted One Sentencing Rule Regardless of Immigration Status

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner introduced Bill C-220 in September 2025 with a straightforward objective: judges sentencing someone who is not a Canadian citizen would be prohibited from considering how that punishment could affect the offender’s immigration status. The restriction would also have covered immigration consequences affecting members of the offender’s family. Conservatives branded the proposal around the idea of “one law for all,” arguing that citizenship should not put someone at a disadvantage when compared with a non-citizen convicted of the same offence.

The Conservatives’ argument is rooted in a basic fairness question with considerable political appeal. A Canadian convicted of an offence cannot be deported because of the conviction. A permanent resident or temporary resident potentially can. If a judge deliberately selects a lower sentence because the higher sentence would trigger immigration consequences, Conservatives argue the criminal penalty is effectively being adjusted based on nationality. Rempel Garner has repeatedly stressed that the overwhelming majority of immigrants obey Canadian law while maintaining that serious criminal conduct by non-citizens should carry the immigration consequences Parliament established.

Bill C-220 Would Have Put a New Restriction Directly Into the Criminal Code

The actual legislative change proposed by Bill C-220 was remarkably short. It would have added section 718.202 to the Criminal Code, directing courts not to consider the potential impact of a sentence on the immigration status of a non-citizen offender or a member of that person’s family. That would have altered the framework judges use when balancing the many factors that determine an appropriate punishment.

Canadian sentencing is not based solely on the offence itself. The Criminal Code requires a sentence to remain proportionate to both the seriousness of the crime and the offender’s degree of responsibility, while judges also consider objectives including deterrence, rehabilitation and protection of the public. Bill C-220 would not have established mandatory sentences or increased maximum penalties. Instead, it targeted one consideration within that individualized process. That distinction is important: the fight was not primarily over whether non-citizens could be deported, because immigration legislation already permits removal for criminality. It was over whether a criminal judge should be allowed to factor those consequences into the sentence imposed before immigration authorities act.

A 2013 Supreme Court Ruling Created the Legal Foundation for the Debate

Much of the dispute traces back to the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous 2013 decision in R. v. Pham. The court concluded that immigration consequences can qualify as collateral consequences of a criminal sentence and may therefore be considered when determining a fit punishment. Crucially, however, the Supreme Court did not say immigration concerns should override the seriousness of an offence. The ultimate sentence must still remain proportionate to the crime and the offender’s responsibility.

The circumstances of Pham help explain why small differences in sentences can matter so much. At the time, the offender received a two-year sentence that affected his ability to appeal an immigration removal order. The Supreme Court ultimately reduced the sentence to two years less a day. The decision established a broader principle: where more than one sentence would otherwise be appropriate, a judge may consider the dramatically different collateral consequences those options could produce. The court also cautioned that immigration considerations cannot be used to create an artificial or inappropriate punishment simply to circumvent consequences established by Parliament.

The Six-Month Threshold Can Carry Consequences Far Beyond Criminal Court

Changes to immigration law since Pham have made the six-month mark particularly important in some cases. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, permanent residents and foreign nationals can be found inadmissible for serious criminality if they are convicted in Canada of an offence carrying a maximum sentence of at least 10 years or receive more than six months of imprisonment. A separate provision restricting appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division applies where serious criminality involves a Canadian sentence of at least six months.

That means a difference of days can sometimes determine whether a permanent resident retains an important avenue to challenge a removal order. The underlying criminal conviction does not disappear simply because the sentence falls below that threshold, and deportation can still be possible depending on the offence and immigration status. But the procedural consequences can differ sharply. This is the tension at the heart of the debate: Conservatives see sentence adjustments around such thresholds as interference with Parliament’s immigration rules, while defenders of the existing approach see those consequences as relevant to ensuring the total punishment experienced by an offender remains proportionate.

High-Profile Cases Gave Conservatives Fuel for Their Argument

Conservatives have pointed to several cases where immigration consequences affected sentencing decisions. Their case became especially politically potent after a 2025 British Columbia appeal involving Jae Won Lee, an Australian-born permanent resident who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and possession of a dangerous weapon following a stabbing in Surrey. A lower court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day while considering immigration-related consequences.

The B.C. Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence was too lenient and replaced it with a 42-month prison sentence, less credit for time already served. Importantly, the appeal court did not declare immigration consequences irrelevant in every case. Instead, it found that the lower sentence represented an unreasonable departure from proportionality despite those consequences. For Conservatives, the case illustrated why stronger statutory limits were needed before an appeal became necessary. For defenders of judicial discretion, however, the same decision showed that the existing system already contains a safeguard: prosecutors can appeal sentences and appellate courts can intervene when immigration concerns are given excessive weight.

Critics Say the Current Law Does Not Give Non-Citizens a Free Pass

Legal critics of the Conservative proposal dispute the characterization of the current system as automatic preferential treatment. The Pham framework does not guarantee a reduced sentence to anyone who faces deportation. Immigration consequences are one consideration among many, and a judge cannot lawfully select a punishment that falls outside the range of fit sentences merely to protect an offender’s status in Canada. Proportionality remains the governing principle.

That distinction has become central to academic and legal criticism of Bill C-220. Researchers writing through the University of Oxford’s Border Criminologies project argued that the Conservative framing overlooked how proportionality simultaneously permits and restricts consideration of immigration consequences. Ottawa lawyer Michael Spratt similarly argued in Canadian Lawyer that judges routinely consider collateral consequences unrelated to immigration, such as employment, professional and family repercussions. The disagreement therefore extends beyond immigration policy. It asks whether equal justice means imposing essentially identical criminal penalties whenever offences and culpability are comparable, or allowing judges to consider the substantially different consequences those penalties may produce for individual offenders.

The Bill Came Close, but Parliament Ultimately Rejected It

Bill C-220 reached a recorded second-reading vote on March 25, 2026. The proposal was defeated by 171 votes to 158, with 10 MPs paired. Because it failed at second reading, it never advanced to detailed committee examination, report stage or third reading and never reached the Senate. The Criminal Code therefore remains unchanged by the proposal.

The parliamentary debate nevertheless revealed that the disagreement did not divide neatly into simple pro- and anti-immigration camps. Liberal MPs opposed the legislation, arguing it interfered excessively with judicial discretion and the principle of individualized sentencing. Bloc Québécois MPs indicated during debate that they were willing to send the bill to committee while expressing serious reservations about removing judicial discretion and about preventing judges from considering consequences for an offender’s family. Conservatives, meanwhile, framed the question around equality before the law and the interests of victims. The relatively close 171–158 result demonstrated that the idea attracted substantial parliamentary support even though it fell short of passage.

The Larger Fight Is Over Where Criminal Justice Ends and Immigration Enforcement Begins

For now, Canadian judges remain permitted to consider immigration consequences when sentencing non-citizens, subject to the limits established by the Supreme Court. Immigration authorities, rather than criminal courts, continue to administer inadmissibility and removal provisions once convictions and sentences interact with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Bill C-220 would have placed a firmer wall between those two systems by instructing criminal judges to disregard immigration consequences entirely.

The Conservative Party signalled after the bill’s defeat that it had not abandoned the issue, meaning the proposal could reappear in another legislative form. Its political durability is understandable because both sides can frame their position as a defence of fairness. Conservatives argue Canadians should never effectively receive a harsher criminal punishment because they cannot face deportation. Opponents argue two identical jail terms are not necessarily equivalent when one offender returns home afterward while another can lose residency, appeal rights and potentially the country where they have built their life. That unresolved clash between uniform treatment and individualized justice ensures the sentencing debate is unlikely to disappear with the defeat of a single bill.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.