Canada is in the middle of a hard conversation about crime, punishment, and race. The numbers are ugly. And they deserve attention.Statistics Canada says indigenous and black adults remain heavily overrepresented in custody. In 2023-24, indigenous adults made up 33.2% of people in custody across six jurisdictions, but only 4.3% of the adult population. Their incarceration rate was 89 per 10,000, compared with eight per 10,000 for non-indigenous adults. Overall, indigenous adults were incarcerated at a rate 10.2 times higher than non-indigenous adults. The highest overrepresentation was in Saskatchewan, where the rate was 19.4 times higher.For black adults, the pattern is also clear. In four jurisdictions, black adults were 12.8% of the custodial population but 3.3% of the general adult population. Their incarceration rate was 32 per 10,000 compared with eight per 10,000 for white adults..BARBER: US doesn’t need Canada anymore and that changes everything.These gaps are real. They are persistent. In some cases, they are growing.But here is another truth that often gets buried under the slogans, which is that crime is colour blind.A break-and-enter does not ask who you voted for. A fentanyl dealer does not stop and check someone’s ancestry. A sexual assault does not spare victims based on skin tone. A car thief does not leave a note saying, “Sorry, wrong demographic.”.Crime targets the vulnerable. Always has. And the vulnerable come in every colour.That matters, because Canada is drifting into a dangerous idea that justice should be judged not only to the offence, but to the offender’s personal circumstances — including, increasingly, their immigration status or being indigenous.Canadians should reject that..WENZEL: Canada’s new culture war is being fought in Google reviews.Judges are supposed to hand out sentences that fit the crime. They are not supposed to act like unofficial immigration consultants.Yet this is already happening.In R. v. Pham, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with a permanent resident convicted of drug offences. He was originally sentenced to two years in jail. Under the immigration rules at the time, a sentence of two years or more triggered serious consequences: it stripped away his right to appeal a removal order. The sentence was reduced to “two years less a day,” specifically so he could keep that appeal right. The top court upheld the change and confirmed that immigration consequences can be considered as a “collateral consequence” in sentencing..Think about what that means in plain English.Two people commit the same crime. Same facts. Same harm. Same criminal record. One is a Canadian citizen. The other is not. Under this logic, the non-citizen can argue for a shorter sentence because the law might kick them out of the country.That is not equal justice. That is preferential treatment — for non-citizen criminals..ALBERS: Something big is beginning to grow in Alberta independence movement.Defenders of this approach call it “individualized sentencing.” They say judges are allowed to consider the full impact of punishment. Fine. But the public also gets a say in what fairness looks like. And most Canadians understand a simple principle that a sentence should reflect the crime, not someone’s immigration status.Immigration status or being indigenous is not supposed to be a shield.In fact, Parliament wrote the opposite idea into law. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act lays out when permanent residents and foreign nationals can be found inadmissible for serious criminality, including convictions that result in a term of imprisonment of more than six months..It also restricts appeals in serious criminality cases.The intent is obvious: if you are not a citizen and you commit serious crimes here, Canada is not required to keep you.That is not “harsh.” It is basic national self-respect..WS OPINION: Carney’s EV tariffs are driving Canada into a wall.But in real courtrooms, defence lawyers have learned how to work the system. Legal resources openly explain that a sentence length can decide whether someone loses their right to appeal removal — and that “six months less a day” can be the magic number to preserve that right.So now we are left with an uncomfortable question.Are we giving lighter sentences to avoid deportation consequences?.In some cases, yes. And Canadians are right to be angry.This is not a debate about race. It is a debate about standards.If a person is indigenous, black, white, Asian, Middle Eastern, or anything else, the rule should be the same. If you break the law, you face the consequences. If you are in Canada as a visitor, student, worker, refugee claimant, or permanent resident, the bar should be higher, not lower. You are a guest in someone else’s home..TIAN: From cheap gas to expensive vegetables — Alberta is wasting its best asset.Here is the deeper problem. When the courts bend sentences for immigration reasons, they send the message that citizenship matters less than criminal “equity.” That is a slap in the face to law-abiding immigrants who follow the rules and wait their turn. It also punishes Canadians who expect their courts to put public safety first.And public safety is not a theory. It is a mother afraid to walk to the bus stop. It is a senior who gets scammed. It is a neighbourhood that watches drug crime spread block by block..Every time a sentence is shaved down to keep someone from being removed, the system tells victims their pain is negotiable.Crime is colour blind. Justice must be, too..OLDCORN: Senator Paula Simons’ Alberta independence ‘racist’ and ‘transphobic’ smears go too far.No special deals. No “less a day” games. And no softer sentences for criminals who are trying to stay in Canada.It’s time to protect Canadians from criminals regardless of their immigration status.
