November 4, 2025 • 8 mins
A new Conservative bill is sparking debate by proposing to strip judges of the ability to consider a non-citizen’s immigration status during sentencing.
The Bill’s Goal: The proposal aims to amend the Criminal Code to ensure “blind justice,” arguing that all individuals convicted of a crime should be treated equally, regardless of their citizenship.
Supporters point to cases where non-citizens received lighter sentences (e.g., for sexual assault or attempting to buy sex from a minor) to avoid deportation, calling this a “two-tier” system.
The Counter-Argument: Critics argue this removes necessary judicial discretion. They warn it could lead to disproportionately harsh punishments, as judges would be blocked from considering the unique vulnerability and severe consequences (like deportation) that a conviction holds for a non-citizen.
The core of the debate is a conflict between rigid equality and flexible, context-based justice.
The Bill’s Goal: The proposal aims to amend the Criminal Code to ensure “blind justice,” arguing that all individuals convicted of a crime should be treated equally, regardless of their citizenship.
Supporters point to cases where non-citizens received lighter sentences (e.g., for sexual assault or attempting to buy sex from a minor) to avoid deportation, calling this a “two-tier” system.
The Counter-Argument: Critics argue this removes necessary judicial discretion. They warn it could lead to disproportionately harsh punishments, as judges would be blocked from considering the unique vulnerability and severe consequences (like deportation) that a conviction holds for a non-citizen.
The core of the debate is a conflict between rigid equality and flexible, context-based justice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Right now though a regular On Tuesday, John Litkey joins us.
Good morning, John, Good morning Jeans.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Great to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
It's always great to have you on. I love your takes.
You know. A couple of months ago there was a
couple of cases and we covered this one extensively. It
was just north of the Third World country formerly known
as Toronto. It was a guy, an Indian national, waiting
for his Canadian citizenship and he got caught in a
(00:28):
police sting and he thought he was offering a fifteen
year old girl money for sex. Instead, if it's really
good sex, then he will continue to pay her money
for sex. Well, it was a sting operation. He was arrested.
It went to court and the judge gave this man
a conditional discharge, explaining that if he had been sentenced
(00:54):
like you and me Canadians, that it would hurt his
chances to get his citizenship and also ansor his wife.
I mean, my listeners had a meltdown. But now there's
a new bill which may prevent this that you've discovered.
Tell us about this new.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Bill, well, Jean, you know, let's just break it down
really simple. They want to amend the Criminal Code to
prevent judges from being able to consider a non citizens
immigration status when sentencing. You talked about what the motivations
were with there was a twenty thirteen Supreme Court ruling
that allowed judges to factor in immigration. This is reprehensible
(01:31):
the situation that we have at hand right now. I mean,
we should not be having a two tiered system of
justice that undermines the value of Canadian citizenship. I mean,
if I get caught breaking the law, and I would
not compare it to what we just talked about there,
but I would love to be able to get a
lesser sentence because I need to go to work, or
I have a family to take care of or whatever.
(01:53):
But that's not the way the system works. We have
a blind system of justice where everyone needs to be
treated equally. And I'm very happy that the CPC Michelle
Kretnical Garner MP is bringing us forward because what we
need to have is the actual foundations of what this
country was based on, which is classical liberalism, where you know,
(02:13):
it's much like the US, and that everyone is created equally,
we all have the same rights, we are all treated
the same by the government. But this is not what
that is. This is this is undermining everything that it
means to live in a stable, liberal democracy.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Well, at the time of this case, and we talked
about it extensively, you know, I said that if it
was me getting caught in the sting, I likely would
have gone to jail. I would not likely have been
given a conditional discharge. And what a lot of the
listeners were asking when we talked about this was why
wasn't this gentleman? Gentleman? Why wasn't he kicked out of
(02:48):
the country. Oh, I'm sure it really helped his marriage
a lot too, but why why does he get to stay?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Yeah? It makes no sense. I wish I could give
you an answer other than just liberal sensitive and kindness
and wanting to take care of everyone, And those are
all very important things to have. I think that the
idea of a judge being able to take in certain
considerations might make sense and certain factors. I'm not going
(03:16):
to go into what all those are right now because
I haven't thought that fully out. But if we're talking
about this is just this, to me so simple. Someone
who came here as a visitor, who has been welcomed
in this country has broken our laws. The law says
they need to go to jail or be deported, and
a judge has said, no, actually, I'm going to go
a different way about this because I don't think that's
(03:38):
fair or right or just come on, give me a break.
This is nonsense. Uphold the law.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
No, it was the old as I say on the
show all the time. It was hell, oh poor muffin.
You know, we've got to treat you nicely. Now. You
know what's interesting what the courts have been doing. Last Friday,
in a bizarre ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada said
the one year one year mandatory sentence for accessing or
possessing child porn was unconstitutional, saying it was cruel and
(04:06):
unusual punishment. Now, they based that on a hypothetical story,
and they were saying that if a seventeen year old
girl fell in love with a seventeen year old boy
and vice versa, and they sent each other through text
messages nude pictures of each other, that would be considered
child porn and they would have to serve that one
year mandatory sentence. Now that's the hypothetical. In fact, the
(04:30):
court was looking into a case from Quebec involving two
separate cases. In both cases, the men pleaded guilty to
having hundreds of images of children, in one case as
young as three years old being abused. I mean, these
kind of people should I mean, forget jail, just lock
them up, get rid of the keys. I mean, I
(04:54):
was shocked when I found out child porn is only
a minimum. But now, oh, that's cruel and unusual punishment.
I don't understand what these guys and women are thinking about.
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
I guess maybe this has to be defined as wocism.
I mean, it's a completely different system of government, of politics,
of morality, of how we operate than we've ever seen before.
This case that you just referenced there is obscenely horrific.
You have actual instances of hundreds and hundreds of the
images of child pornography, and they get off on it
(05:26):
because the judges decide, Ah, we don't care what the
case in front of us. We'd rather play make believe
and make up a different case. What is going on
in this country. We need to get our courts back
in order. We're seeing crime on our streets. We're seeing
rampant drug use. We're seeing now people who aren't even
Canadians getting lesser sentences than their equal parts would be,
(05:46):
and not even their equal parts in Canada, because Canadians
are a higher value than someone who hears just as
a visitor. So we need to get our house in order.
And I don't know if it's going to be Mark
Carnie that does that, or if it's going to be
an election that needs to trigger it. In a conservative
government that comes in. I've got no trust with the
NDP or Elizabeth May will be able to do anything
on this front. But something needs to be done because
(06:08):
this is just it's unacceptable and it's going to turn
our country into something that we don't want to be.
And I would verge to say it could be a
paradise for sex pert criminals.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Yeah, you nailed it. Hey, the budget's coming down today.
The Bank of Canada says we get used to living
in lower standards, and the Prime Minister says we have
to make sacrifices. Hey, John, I don't know about you,
and I don't know how old you are, but you
know I've worked all my life, even when I was
outside of Canada, I paid my taxes. I've never broken
the law except for some parking tickets. I worked as
(06:40):
an election clerk in two elections because I thought it
was my civic duty. I don't want to make sacrifices
and if I do, I want an election. What's what's
what's your take?
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I think you know,
this is still just a continuation of the justin Trueau government.
We're seeing some changes here or there, some tweaks and stuff.
I mean it's a more technocratic government for sure. But
I'm with you on that. I've been working my whole life.
I'm thirty seven years old, and I would love to
you know, don't I don't think the government should just
be handing things out. I don't think it should just
(07:13):
be here's a bunch of cash. But there was a
line from the West wing that it really resonated with me.
And it's a guy who takes his daughter to college
and he's talking with the guys from the White House
and says, you know, I don't want to handle it.
I just thinks should just be a little bit easier.
Shouldn't they things used to be easier. Why have they
gotten so much harder? Why are we in a society
where you need to have a dual income household to
(07:34):
be able to afford a house and then maybe even
another job, you'll to afford another kid. I mean, it's
just it's madness where we've gotten to. I don't know
what the solution is. I'm not an economist, but we
should just go back to what the basics are, because
it's clear that we're not at the basics. We're failing
our own citizens at the expense of our own citizens
and to the benefit of in any cases foreign citizens,
(07:55):
and that is that's an issue.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Well, you're not an economist, but the Prime Minister is.
So it's gonna be really really it's gonna be really
interesting to see what a guy who has a PhD
in economy is going to present after the market's closed today.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Well, if I know one thing, there's three things that
are true in life, death facts, and Elizabeth May being
in the legislature.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
You got it, especially during happy hour. That Okay, John,
always great to talk to you. We'll hang out with
you next Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
All right, thank you so much for you a great day.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
All right, great stuff, John Lidke. We love his take
Right now though a regular On Tuesday, John Litkey joins us.
Good morning, John, Good morning Jeans.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Great to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
It's always great to have you on. I love your takes.
You know. A couple of months ago there was a
couple of cases and we covered this one extensively. It
was just north of the Third World country formerly known
as Toronto. It was a guy, an Indian national, waiting
for his Canadian citizenship and he got caught in a
(00:28):
police sting and he thought he was offering a fifteen
year old girl money for sex. Instead, if it's really
good sex, then he will continue to pay her money
for sex. Well, it was a sting operation. He was arrested.
It went to court and the judge gave this man
a conditional discharge, explaining that if he had been sentenced
(00:54):
like you and me Canadians, that it would hurt his
chances to get his citizenship and also ansor his wife.
I mean, my listeners had a meltdown. But now there's
a new bill which may prevent this that you've discovered.
Tell us about this new.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Bill, well, Jean, you know, let's just break it down
really simple. They want to amend the Criminal Code to
prevent judges from being able to consider a non citizens
immigration status when sentencing. You talked about what the motivations
were with there was a twenty thirteen Supreme Court ruling
that allowed judges to factor in immigration. This is reprehensible
(01:31):
the situation that we have at hand right now. I mean,
we should not be having a two tiered system of
justice that undermines the value of Canadian citizenship. I mean,
if I get caught breaking the law, and I would
not compare it to what we just talked about there,
but I would love to be able to get a
lesser sentence because I need to go to work, or
I have a family to take care of or whatever.
(01:53):
But that's not the way the system works. We have
a blind system of justice where everyone needs to be
treated equally. And I'm very happy that the CPC Michelle
Kretnical Garner MP is bringing us forward because what we
need to have is the actual foundations of what this
country was based on, which is classical liberalism, where you know,
(02:13):
it's much like the US, and that everyone is created equally,
we all have the same rights, we are all treated
the same by the government. But this is not what
that is. This is this is undermining everything that it
means to live in a stable, liberal democracy.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Well, at the time of this case, and we talked
about it extensively, you know, I said that if it
was me getting caught in the sting, I likely would
have gone to jail. I would not likely have been
given a conditional discharge. And what a lot of the
listeners were asking when we talked about this was why
wasn't this gentleman? Gentleman? Why wasn't he kicked out of
(02:48):
the country. Oh, I'm sure it really helped his marriage
a lot too, but why why does he get to stay?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Yeah? It makes no sense. I wish I could give
you an answer other than just liberal sensitive and kindness
and wanting to take care of everyone, And those are
all very important things to have. I think that the
idea of a judge being able to take in certain
considerations might make sense and certain factors. I'm not going
(03:16):
to go into what all those are right now because
I haven't thought that fully out. But if we're talking
about this is just this, to me so simple. Someone
who came here as a visitor, who has been welcomed
in this country has broken our laws. The law says
they need to go to jail or be deported, and
a judge has said, no, actually, I'm going to go
a different way about this because I don't think that's
(03:38):
fair or right or just come on, give me a break.
This is nonsense. Uphold the law.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
No, it was the old as I say on the
show all the time. It was hell, oh poor muffin.
You know, we've got to treat you nicely. Now. You
know what's interesting what the courts have been doing. Last Friday,
in a bizarre ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada said
the one year one year mandatory sentence for accessing or
possessing child porn was unconstitutional, saying it was cruel and
(04:06):
unusual punishment. Now, they based that on a hypothetical story,
and they were saying that if a seventeen year old
girl fell in love with a seventeen year old boy
and vice versa, and they sent each other through text
messages nude pictures of each other, that would be considered
child porn and they would have to serve that one
year mandatory sentence. Now that's the hypothetical. In fact, the
(04:30):
court was looking into a case from Quebec involving two
separate cases. In both cases, the men pleaded guilty to
having hundreds of images of children, in one case as
young as three years old being abused. I mean, these
kind of people should I mean, forget jail, just lock
them up, get rid of the keys. I mean, I
(04:54):
was shocked when I found out child porn is only
a minimum. But now, oh, that's cruel and unusual punishment.
I don't understand what these guys and women are thinking about.
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
I guess maybe this has to be defined as wocism.
I mean, it's a completely different system of government, of politics,
of morality, of how we operate than we've ever seen before.
This case that you just referenced there is obscenely horrific.
You have actual instances of hundreds and hundreds of the
images of child pornography, and they get off on it
(05:26):
because the judges decide, Ah, we don't care what the
case in front of us. We'd rather play make believe
and make up a different case. What is going on
in this country. We need to get our courts back
in order. We're seeing crime on our streets. We're seeing
rampant drug use. We're seeing now people who aren't even
Canadians getting lesser sentences than their equal parts would be,
(05:46):
and not even their equal parts in Canada, because Canadians
are a higher value than someone who hears just as
a visitor. So we need to get our house in order.
And I don't know if it's going to be Mark
Carnie that does that, or if it's going to be
an election that needs to trigger it. In a conservative
government that comes in. I've got no trust with the
NDP or Elizabeth May will be able to do anything
on this front. But something needs to be done because
(06:08):
this is just it's unacceptable and it's going to turn
our country into something that we don't want to be.
And I would verge to say it could be a
paradise for sex pert criminals.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Yeah, you nailed it. Hey, the budget's coming down today.
The Bank of Canada says we get used to living
in lower standards, and the Prime Minister says we have
to make sacrifices. Hey, John, I don't know about you,
and I don't know how old you are, but you
know I've worked all my life, even when I was
outside of Canada, I paid my taxes. I've never broken
the law except for some parking tickets. I worked as
(06:40):
an election clerk in two elections because I thought it
was my civic duty. I don't want to make sacrifices
and if I do, I want an election. What's what's
what's your take?
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I think you know,
this is still just a continuation of the justin Trueau government.
We're seeing some changes here or there, some tweaks and stuff.
I mean it's a more technocratic government for sure. But
I'm with you on that. I've been working my whole life.
I'm thirty seven years old, and I would love to
you know, don't I don't think the government should just
be handing things out. I don't think it should just
(07:13):
be here's a bunch of cash. But there was a
line from the West wing that it really resonated with me.
And it's a guy who takes his daughter to college
and he's talking with the guys from the White House
and says, you know, I don't want to handle it.
I just thinks should just be a little bit easier.
Shouldn't they things used to be easier. Why have they
gotten so much harder? Why are we in a society
where you need to have a dual income household to
(07:34):
be able to afford a house and then maybe even
another job, you'll to afford another kid. I mean, it's
just it's madness where we've gotten to. I don't know
what the solution is. I'm not an economist, but we
should just go back to what the basics are, because
it's clear that we're not at the basics. We're failing
our own citizens at the expense of our own citizens
and to the benefit of in any cases foreign citizens,
(07:55):
and that is that's an issue.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Well, you're not an economist, but the Prime Minister is.
So it's gonna be really really it's gonna be really
interesting to see what a guy who has a PhD
in economy is going to present after the market's closed today.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Well, if I know one thing, there's three things that
are true in life, death facts, and Elizabeth May being
in the legislature.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
You got it, especially during happy hour. That Okay, John,
always great to talk to you. We'll hang out with
you next Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
All right, thank you so much for you a great day.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
All right, great stuff, John Lidke. We love his take
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com