Evidence of meeting #17 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right. We're moving right along.
(Clause 38 agreed to)
(Clause 39 agreed to)
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you. I believe a hard copy was circulated at the commencement of the hearing.
This amendment directs judges not to consider the fact that the accused, who has just been convicted of an offence...could have some sort of an effect on their immigration status and, therefore, give them a more lenient sentence. We've seen a number of situations, in recent years, in which courts decided to impose a more lenient sentence so as to not cause prejudice to a person who had just been convicted of offence vis-à-vis their immigration file. Conservatives believe that Canadian citizenship is a unique gift, and those who are not Canadian citizens should not enjoy a more lenient sentence, because they're not citizens and are potentially working...the immigration process.
I think that this very much makes sense.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I have a question for the experts, for Mr. Taylor or someone else.
Doesn't this amendment go against what the Supreme Court, in the context of the reform, has already established as a valid interpretation of the charter?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The Supreme Court discussed this issue in R v. Pham. The court discussed the ability of sentencing courts to consider what they referred to as collateral consequences as part of sentencing, and, for an offender, the immigration consequence of a sentence is considered a collateral consequence, just like how the impacts on a person's employment may be considered a collateral consequence as part of the sentencing stage in the criminal justice system.
The courts have been clear that sentencing courts can consider collateral consequences, like immigration consequences, but only insofar as that consideration doesn't change what would otherwise be a fit sentence. If a court concludes that a fit sentence is three years, and they take into consideration the immigration consequences, for example, and they say, “I'm taking those into consideration, and I'm going to, instead, impose 18 months imprisonment”, that would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the guidance of the court. However, if it is a difference of a week, a couple of days, when it's still within a range of proportionate sentences, that is something the courts have said is permissible.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Therefore, as currently worded, this amendment would go against the principles of the Pham decision. Do you agree?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think so. If this amendment were adopted, it would be impossible for the court to consider the impact on immigration in the event that someone is found guilty.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to bring another matter to the committee's attention.
Our Conservative colleague, Ms. Rempel Garner, introduced Bill C‑220, which is before the House and deals with this very issue. I'm not sure what stage it's at.
This amendment would go against the principles established by the Supreme Court. There is already a bill on this issue, and it will be referred to us. I therefore think we should vote against this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I'm really perplexed by what I'm hearing here.
What Mr. Taylor discussed are the permissible frameworks that the Supreme Court established for the application of this section, which is collateral considerations. What Mr. Taylor said, and he's nodding in agreement, is that a court would be entitled to consider collateral considerations, like an immigration status, and would be able to reduce the sentence if the sentence would otherwise be fit irrespective of the collateral consideration.
He gave an example of an outrageous sentence that would not be permissible. He could have also said something like, if three years would be a fit sentence and the court considered the immigration file and gave two years, and two years would be appropriate under the circumstances irrespective of the immigration file, then that would be supportable. That would be permissible.
Is that correct, Mr. Taylor?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think—
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
No, I don't.
That doesn't mean the application of the collateral consideration is somehow charter protected.
We talk about the principles of sentencing every day of the week, and we talk about them in this bill, as well. For instance, we direct the courts to consider the principles of deterrence and denunciation. This is despite the fact, Mr. Fortin, that courts may have other considerations.
This is what I want to question. This is what I would like an answer to. Yes, it may be a current principle of sentencing, but it doesn't mean that this principle of sentencing, collateral considerations, is constitutionally protected.
Is that correct, Mr. Taylor?
February 4th, 2026 / 11:35 p.m.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't know whether there is appellate jurisprudence that considers the constitutional dimensions of that.
If I could just reiterate something I said earlier in response to one of your questions, Parliament is entitled to enact laws that can alter the common law. As I indicated in my response to Mr. Fortin, if this amendment were to be adopted and the bill passed, then that would be Parliament setting a new sentencing rule that courts would not be permitted to consider the immigration consequences of the sentence.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you.
In other words, it may be inconsistent with the current....
If I may, to my Bloc colleague, I don't think that my Bloc colleague—whose attention I don't seem to have right now—has properly understood what Mr. Taylor was saying.
I don't think Mr. Taylor made it clear that the proposal here does not violate the charter. I would appreciate it if the official, again, would be a little bit more fair—
Liberal
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
We're asking questions of officials. Officials are answering, and then we're somehow trying to clarify or interpret what the answers are with another colleague. I'm not too sure if that's procedurally correct, Mr. Chair, but I'd like you to address this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I think it's a fair point. I tried to address this earlier, Mr. Baber.
These five witnesses are here to assist us. They're lawyers. They work for the Government of Canada. They're here to answer our questions. They're not here to be challenged or argued with.
If you have a different opinion, I would encourage you to ask them a question. If you don't like the answer, you can deal with that later in submissions. This is not a courtroom. There's no jury.
Please, I would ask that you show some respect to the witnesses.
We all have differences of opinion. We're entitled to them.