Build Canada LogoBuilder MP
← Back to bills

Canada Limits Immigration Factors in Court Sentences for Non‑Citizens

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing)

Summary

This bill amends the Criminal Code to require judges, when sentencing a non‑citizen, to ignore any potential immigration consequences to the offender or their family. It removes judicial discretion to adjust sentences in light of possible deportation, loss of status, or related impacts. The change is status‑blind and applies across all offences, without exceptions. It does not create new crimes or penalties; it only limits what factors a court may consider at sentencing.

  • Adds new section 718.202 to the Criminal Code.
  • Prohibits considering immigration status impacts on non‑citizen offenders and their family in sentencing.
  • Eliminates the practice of tailoring sentences to avoid deportation or inadmissibility thresholds.
  • Applies broadly across offences and jurisdictions, with no stated exceptions.
  • Likely fiscal and operational impacts on corrections and removal processes; public‑safety gains are uncertain and unquantified.

Builder Assessment

Neutral

The bill is narrowly focused on sentencing factors and offers no clear pathway to stronger prosperity, productivity, or competitiveness. It risks higher public costs for corrections and removals without quantified safety benefits, and may signal reduced flexibility that could deter global talent.

  • Conflicts with the goal of delivering efficient public services due to likely increased incarceration and removal expenditures.
  • No clear alignment with growth, productivity, export, or tax reform objectives; impacts are largely legal and operational.
  • Safety and security matter, but removing all discretion may produce disproportionate outcomes for low‑risk, non‑violent offenders without measurable deterrence gains.
  • Builders could consider a proportionality safeguard that preserves status‑blind sentencing for serious and violent offences while allowing limited discretion for low‑risk cases within established ranges.
  • Pair the reform with faster removal for serious offenders to enhance safety and reduce custody costs, and include clear sentencing guidance to minimize disparities without adding red tape.

Question Period Cards

What empirical evidence does the government have that prohibiting judges from considering immigration consequences will improve public safety rather than simply increase incarceration and deportation costs?

Share on

Has the Minister obtained a Charter analysis on whether denying non‑citizens consideration of collateral consequences is consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence on proportionality and sentencing discretion?

Share on

What are the projected fiscal and capacity impacts on Correctional Service of Canada, CBSA, and the Immigration and Refugee Board, and will the government table a costed implementation plan for this bill?

Share on

Principles Analysis

—

Canada should aim to be the world's most prosperous country.

Sentencing rules have, at most, indirect economic effects; any impact on prosperity is unclear and likely minimal.

—

Promote economic freedom, ambition, and breaking from bureaucratic inertia (reduce red tape).

The bill constrains judicial discretion but does not materially change economic freedom or reduce bureaucracy for workers and businesses.

—

Drive national productivity and global competitiveness.

No direct link to productivity or competitiveness; any reputational effects on talent attraction are speculative.

—

Grow exports of Canadian products and resources.

No direct implications for trade, market access, or export capacity.

—

Encourage investment, innovation, and resource development.

Potential signaling effects for global talent aside, the measure does not target investment or innovation levers.

✗

Deliver better public services at lower cost (government efficiency).

By removing a mitigating factor, the bill could increase incarceration time and drive more removals, raising costs for corrections, CBSA, and tribunals without clear efficiency gains.

—

Reform taxes to incentivize work, risk-taking, and innovation.

No tax policy changes.

✗

Focus on large-scale prosperity, not incrementalism.

This is a narrow criminal‑procedure change with limited macroeconomic relevance, not a driver of broad prosperity.

Did we get the builder vote wrong?

Email hi@buildcanada.com

C-220

PartyConservative
StatusOutside the Order of Precedence
Last updatedSep 17, 2025
TopicsCriminal Justice
Parliament45