A provocative opinion piece by Chris Selley, published on December 2, 2025, has cast a spotlight on a simmering controversy within Canada's justice and immigration systems. The core issue revolves around whether judges should adjust criminal sentences for non-citizens to spare them from automatic deportation, a practice that critics argue undermines the law and common sense.
The Case That Sparked the Controversy
The debate was ignited by a specific case in Bradford, Ontario. A 47-year-old non-citizen pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to the sexual abuse of a young girl. Disturbingly, reports indicate one offense occurred while he was on bail for prior charges against the same victim, whom he allegedly impregnated twice before she turned 13. According to Canadian law, a prison sentence of six months or more for a crime of "serious criminality" should render a non-citizen inadmissible, triggering deportation proceedings.
However, during the trial, proceedings were adjourned to allow the accused to explore how a guilty plea would impact his immigration status. For many observers, this prioritization of immigration consequences in a severe criminal case was shocking. As Selley argues, deportation for such a crime would strike most Canadians as a straightforward and just consequence, not a lenient or excessively harsh punishment.
The Judicial Practice of "Sentence Discounting"
The controversy extends beyond a single case. There is a reported practice among some judges of deliberately handing down sentences of less than six months to non-permanent residents. This "sentence discounting" is done specifically to avoid triggering the mandatory deportation process, thereby keeping the offender and their family in Canada.
This is not a fringe theory. As noted in the original commentary, Radio-Canada reported on the issue in August 2025 under a headline stating "Conspervatives say the justice system favours non-citizens. Experts disagree." Yet, the experts cited did not squarely refute the claim. Instead, they focused on the complexity of sentencing, with one Toronto immigration lawyer noting judges cannot be "blind" to the additional immigration consequences a non-citizen faces.
This raises the central, non-rhetorical question: Should judges be considering these immigration consequences at all when determining a fit sentence for a crime? Critics, including Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner, believe the answer is a firm no.
A Political Clash and a Proposed Solution
The issue has become a point of political contention in Ottawa. The Conservative Party, led on this file by Rempel Garner, is pushing for legislative change. They propose a law that would explicitly prohibit judges from considering immigration consequences when determining sentences for criminal offenses.
The argument is that this would ensure equality before the law and uphold the principle that serious crimes carry serious consequences, including the potential loss of the privilege to remain in Canada. The Liberal government's position, as interpreted by commentators like Selley, appears more ambivalent, with some MPs and party members seemingly reluctant to acknowledge or address the judicial practice of sentence adjustment.
The underlying critique presented is that when governments struggle to solve complex problems, there can be a tendency to downplay or ignore them. The case of the 47-year-old offender from Bradford and the broader judicial practice of sentence discounting for immigration purposes is framed as a prime example of this dynamic, where common sense and the letter of the law are being subverted by procedural complexities and political hesitation.
