Parm Bains
Richmond East—Steveston, British Columbia · Liberal · Canada
“If successful, Montrose would become an official party to the litigation, and the record would be reopened so the court could receive Montrose's evidence and submissions, including submissions related to the impacts of the ruling.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that if we listened to colleagues who spoke earlier, the fearmongering we are talking about has to do with what the members opposite are implying: that private property lands will be taken away. I come back to the issue at hand. This is a provincial matter.”
“Besides the federal Crown, there are five other defendants in the litigation: the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the Government of British Columbia, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam first nation, and the Tsawwassen First Nation. The litigation began in November 2014.”
“On August 7, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court delivered its decision, ruling that the Cowichan hold aboriginal title over approximately 40% of the claimed area, as well as an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River.”
“Three related private real estate companies, which I will refer to as Montrose, operate in Richmond and claim they are the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial, be added as a party and file new evidence and argument.”
“We know that Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown at trial. Canada also defended the principle of transparency in this trial, particularly for parties that are not directly involved in this case but that may be affected by its outcome.”
The complete record
Every one of 132 lines we hold for Parm Bains, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, I talked about the Prime Minister taking responsibility to make sure Canadians know what our position as a federal government is, that we will have their backs. I will reiterate one more piece. The federal government would never negotiate Canadians' private property, but also, as members know, private land ownership and land deeds fall under provincial jurisdiction. This is why I am stating that this is a provincial matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, in 2017, the federal government applied to the court to make sure that they notify the residents. If we look at the question the member has brought forward with respect to the Prime Minister , the Prime Minister is taking responsibility for this country, and he wanted to ensure that Canadians understand that the federal government will not negotiate private property rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his hard work on this issue as well. With respect to the other members who are involved, the concerns are there. What they have shared is about having an opportunity to be involved in the case. I would like to mention that the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole , who has been talking quite a bit about this, sat as a Richmond city councillor when this issue was in court. He did not inform residents but is now bringing this issue forward. He also ran for the NDP provincial government that was responsible for the issue at the time, and now we are hearing contradictory information from the other side. Again, it begs the question about why misinformation is being brought forward into the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that if we listened to colleagues who spoke earlier, the fearmongering we are talking about has to do with what the members opposite are implying: that private property lands will be taken away. I come back to the issue at hand. This is a provincial matter. I have outlined how the federal government cannot and will not negotiate private lands. Most of these questions should be directed to the province and the Premier of British Columbia. A corresponding decision on a similar case happened in New Brunswick. That court of appeal issued a decision in the context of an aboriginal title claim on the issue of whether aboriginal title can coexist with fee simple title. The court found that it could make a finding of aboriginal title leading to compensation for an indigenous nation, but it went the other way.”
“At the same time, I will work with the Richmond city council and all levels of government to ensure that the residents of our city are engaged and informed on these matters as they proceed in the months and years to come.”
“This is not only because our government would never negotiate Canadians’ private property but also because, as members all know, private land ownership and land deeds fall under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level protects private property. In fact, no modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has led to Canadians' losing their privately owned land. As the member of Parliament for Richmond East—Steveston, I have been working and will continue to work with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to address residents' concerns and share constituents’ perspectives with the government, and to advocate for the people of our city.”
“If successful, Montrose would become an official party to the litigation, and the record would be reopened so the court could receive Montrose's evidence and submissions, including submissions related to the impacts of the ruling. The Montrose application is scheduled to be heard before the British Columbia Supreme Court on May 25 and May 26, 2026. (1320) The Government of Canada respects the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. Canada's approach in this litigation reflects the use of appropriate court process to address legal uncertainty, while continuing to advance reconciliation in accordance with the Constitution. I will add that private property rights are fundamental and that our government will always protect them. For the Government of Canada, private property cannot and will not be negotiated.”
“Three related private real estate companies, which I will refer to as Montrose, operate in Richmond and claim they are the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial, be added as a party and file new evidence and argument. Its application would allow the company to present its perspective on how the declaration of aboriginal title impacts its legal and financial interests. Canada has filed a response to support Montrose's application. It is important for all parties to be heard when they are directly and significantly affected by a court decision. Canada's position is consistent with the application it brought in 2017 regarding the need to provide notice of the trial to private landowners.”
“We know that Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown at trial. Canada also defended the principle of transparency in this trial, particularly for parties that are not directly involved in this case but that may be affected by its outcome. In 2017, Canada brought an application seeking an order requiring the plaintiffs to notify private landowners within the claim area in this case. The court declined to exercise its discretion to require the Cowichan to give formal notice to private landowners. I should note that every aboriginal title claim is unique, and the reasoning in this decision will not necessarily apply to other cases. It depends on the facts of the case in question. With that background in mind, I will turn to more recent developments.”
“On August 7, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court delivered its decision, ruling that the Cowichan hold aboriginal title over approximately 40% of the claimed area, as well as an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. Soon after the release of the decision, all parties took further steps within the court process. The court's decision is being appealed by all parties to the litigation, including Canada. Some of the court's findings have potentially significant implications, including with respect to private property rights. Because the decision is not entirely clear on certain points, that clarity is being sought through the proper legal process. I have also been working to seek clarity, and I recognize that the decision has raised questions or concerns.”
“Besides the federal Crown, there are five other defendants in the litigation: the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the Government of British Columbia, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam first nation, and the Tsawwassen First Nation. The litigation began in November 2014. The Cowichans sought a declaration of aboriginal title to 1,846 acres of land located in the city of Richmond, along with a declaration of an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. The claimed lands include federal lands owned by Transport Canada and managed by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Richmond municipal lands, and some lands held by private landowners. Given the complexity of the issues and the number of parties involved, it is not surprising that the case unfolded over several years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the matter of the Cowichan court decision, as it has understandably raised questions in the House; in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia; and across Canada. Let me first say that our government disagrees with the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision and that we immediately appealed the court decision. As the case is before the courts, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the ongoing aspects of the litigation itself. I will, however, provide background on the history of the case and speak about private property interests. It is helpful at the outset to understand the scope of the litigation and the number of parties involved.”
“Mr. Speaker, respecting the spirit of truth and reconciliation, Richmond residents in my hometown are seeking clarity following last summer's Cowichan decision and recent federal agreements with first nations in British Columbia. To dispel the misinformation, it is important that we continue to provide clear, factual information and constructive leadership as Canada moves forward with the important work of advancing reconciliation. Can the Prime Minister outline the government's position and explain how the government is working collaboratively to uphold reconciliation, while protecting private property rights for residents and businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for seconding the motion and for talking about young people. This is exactly what the bill would do. It would bring respect back to skilled trades and allow young people to think about the possibility of getting involved in something they may wish to do. They may want to be part of the national shipbuilding strategy and to work in Vancouver, but they are located somewhere else and doing their training in Ontario, for example. The bill would allow them to have the vision to be part of our defence programs that we are bringing forward in this country. I think this is exactly what young people are looking forward to doing: uniting this country and working towards something that matters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear that the member believes that things are working well between provinces, as they all are working hard to find ways to remove internal barriers. With the bill I talked about today, and I said in my speech, the framework that would be developed would be in conjunction with provinces and provincial labour associations so it would not exclude any province. In the unprecedented climate we find ourselves in now, regulators and trade associations alike have new imperatives to come to the table and find an agreement. Too much is at stake to allow minor differences to hold our country back at this time.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has been part of the opposition for many years and was previously in government. This has been a problem for decades, including under the Conservative Harper government and in numerous provincial Conservative governments. The truth is that federal and provincial governments have allowed the problem to fester for decades, and it is time to end the status quo. The member opposite knows the government did act immediately in July 2025 to address barriers that the federal government could address alone. Weeks after the election, the Government of Canada removed all 53 federal exemptions from the CFTA.”
“The bill would create a structured, collaborative process to bring those systems into alignment where possible and to make them more transparent and interoperable where full alignment is not feasible. The bill is also about national unity. Canada is one country with one economy. While regional diversity is a strength, unnecessary barriers that divide our labour market weaken us all. The legislation represents a pragmatic, collaborative and forward-looking approach to a long-standing challenge. It would respect jurisdiction, engage stakeholders and focus on outcomes. I look forward to collaborating with everyone if the bill advances to committee. I urge all members of the House to support the national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility act and to take this important step toward a stronger and more unified Canada.”
“Fifth, it would promote ongoing collaboration. This is not a one-time exercise, but a continuous process of improvement. The inclusion of indigenous governing bodies and organizations would be particularly important in ensuring that the framework reflects diverse perspectives and supports inclusive economic growth. (1740) Accountability is also built into the legislation. The minister would be required to table the national framework in Parliament within one year, ensuring timely action. Annual progress reports would track implementation, measure improvements in labour mobility and assess the effectiveness of the framework, and within five years a comprehensive parliamentary review would provide an opportunity to refine and strengthen the approach.”
“Third, and most importantly, it would introduce measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline regulatory processes. This would mean fewer redundant exams, faster recognition of credentials and clearer pathways for workers moving between provinces. Consider the impact of this on a carpenter relocating from New Brunswick to Alberta. Instead of navigating a confusing and time-consuming certification process, that worker could benefit from a system that recognizes their qualifications quickly and fairly, allowing them to get to work sooner. Fourth, the framework would support modernization. As industries evolve, so too must the standards that govern them. By coordinating updates across jurisdictions, we can ensure that Canadian tradespeople remain at the forefront of global best practices.”
“This would ensure the framework is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up, reflecting the realities of those who work within the system every day. The framework itself wishes to deliver several key outcomes. First, it would establish a comprehensive inventory of skilled trades across Canada. This may sound straightforward, but it is a critical step. Today, even defining what constitutes a skilled trade can vary among jurisdictions. A clear shared understanding is essential for any meaningful harmonization. Second, it would map equivalencies among provincial standards and credentials. This is where the real work begins. By systematically comparing requirements, we can identify where trades are already aligned, where minor adjustments are needed and where more significant differences exist.”
“Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce.” Let me be clear: This legislation does not seek to override provincial jurisdiction, and I look at my friends from Quebec. Provinces and territories would continue to regulate training, certification and labour markets within their borders. That is both appropriate and necessary. Through extensive consultations spanning at least nine months, the minister would engage with provincial governments, regulatory bodies, industry associations, labour unions, indigenous organizations, polytechnics and educational institutions.”
“I have heard from the Canadian Construction Association, and it said, “The CCA welcomes the introduction of Bill C-266 and the development of a national framework to modernize, streamline and harmonize skilled trade certification processes. Canada's construction industry is held back by a fragmented internal market where labour mobility restrictions create costly barriers for workers and employers alike.” From my alma mater, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, who is the president of the BCIT, agreed and said, “Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce.”
“However, this status quo is over. Since President Trump's unacceptable comments about Canada's sovereignty and turning his back on the deal that he signed, applying tariffs to Canadian lumber, steel and cars, Canadians have started to see our relationship with the U.S. in a new light, but more importantly, how we view ourselves and our future in a new light. The comfortable norms Canadians took for granted with our American partners, like trust and predictability, no longer exist. While time will tell if this relationship can be repaired, it is clear that Canada must forge a new path. As our Prime Minister has said, we can give ourselves far more than the Americans can ever take away. Bill C-266 is an essential step in charting a new path forward for Canada.”
“Efforts to harmonize certifications and labour regulations across Canada's economy made limited progress, not because electricians who reside in Manitoba have unique insight into the functions of an electrical circuit compared to electricians who reside in Nova Scotia or the risk to a trucker's safety changes radically when driving from B.C. to Saskatchewan, requiring different regulations and insurance, but because incentives favoured the status quo. Regulators looking to retain their authority and protect regional labour economies had little incentive to loosen their grip and provide easy access to competition from other provinces. (1735) Skilled workers, understandably unenthusiastic about acquiring and maintaining credentials across provinces, could always find ready work down south in the United States.”
“If we go back to the Agreement on Internal Trade in 1995, it would, “enable any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one Party to be recognized as qualified for that occupation by all other Parties.” Regrettably, the AIT did not achieve this crucial goal, which is why in December 2014, the federal, provincial and territorial governments began negotiations to strengthen and modernize into the Canada Free Trade Agreement. The Red Seal program has been an important step forward toward standardization, allowing certified workers in certain trades to move more easily between provinces. However, not all trades are covered, and even within the program, variations and administrative barriers can persist.”
“A welder trained in Saskatchewan may encounter different certification requirements when attempting to work on major infrastructure projects in British Columbia. These inconsistencies do not improve safety or enhance quality. They create duplication, inefficiency and unnecessary costs. The same holds true for major infrastructure projects. Whether it is expanding transit systems, upgrading ports or building clean energy infrastructure, delays in mobilizing skilled labour translate directly into higher costs and missed opportunities. Every week that a project is delayed because workers cannot be certified quickly enough is a week that Canadians are left waiting for essential services and economic benefits. Of course, there were efforts to correct this growing problem.”
“The IMF estimates that Canada's economy could gain nearly 7%, or $210 billion, in real GDP over a gradual period by fully removing internal trade barriers between the country's 13 provinces and territories. This is not just inefficient; it is unacceptable. Across this country, from the shipyards of Vancouver to the construction sites of Halifax, from energy projects in Alberta to housing developments in Toronto, employers are facing unpredictability. On one hand, there are acute labour shortages delaying critical projects, and on the other, there are skilled, qualified workers in other parts of the country who are ready and willing to step in, but they are held back by regulatory barriers that make mobility difficult, costly and slow.”
“Builders and everyday Canadian workers share my vision of a community and a Canada that works for them. It is for these Canadians that I tabled Bill C-266 , a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. At its core, this bill recognizes a simple truth: Canada cannot reach its full potential if the people who build it, our skilled trades workers, are prevented from working where they are needed the most. Movement of skilled trades and labour across Canada is essential to the country's economic development, productivity, infrastructure and competitiveness. However, our economy continues to be weighed down by a system of disjointed licensing requirements, certifications and other restrictions. This has evolved into significant non-tariff internal trade barriers.”
“moved that Bill C-266, An Act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-266. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South for supporting this bill. It is always a huge honour to stand in the House and speak on vital issues for Canadians. Today, I have an opportunity to speak at length on respecting skilled trades and labour. As a former aircraft maintenance engineer, I spent countless hours turning wrenches at a hangar in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia. When I was campaigning for re-election as MP for Richmond East—Steveston, I did not do it alone. I was supported by electricians, carpenters, construction workers and unions.”
“Mr. Speaker, global conflicts and chaotic and irrational decision-making with critical oil supply chains have led to increased global prices. While these events seem distant, they are already pushing prices higher at the pump and the grocery store and causing Canadians to rethink where they are booking their summer holiday. Budget 2025 laid out how Canada's new majority government will create a more independent and resilient Canadian economy. Can the secretary of state lay out how our government is supporting Canadians day to day?”
“Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Kidney Foundation of Canada are on the Hill this week. March 12 is World Kidney Day, and the foundation is launching its national strategic framework for chronic kidney disease, Canada's first unified road map to move kidney care from reactive and fragmented to proactive, coordinated and resilient. As someone born with a solitary kidney, who has undergone dialysis and who has received a transplant, I know the importance of early detection, timely treatment and strong medical teams. I am grateful to all the medical professionals and to organizations like Canadian Blood Services that offer hope to patients nationwide. Thanks to the dedicated medical and transplant teams at Vancouver General Hospital, I am here today.”
“On this World Plumbing Day, and as a former aircraft maintenance engineer, I understand the challenges trades workers face when they try to take their skills on the road. My bill would help these workers take their skills from the Pacific Salish Sea to the Atlantic. While respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction over training, certification and labour market regulation, my bill, an act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility, calls on the government to work with provinces, territories, trade skills associations and unions to modernize, harmonize and streamline credential recognition. I look forward to a spirited debate on this important issue for Canada's future. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“moved for leave to introduce Bill C-266, An Act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility . Bill C-266. Introduction and first reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present my first private member's bill. Movement of skilled labour across Canada is essential to the country's economic development, productivity, infrastructure, delivery and competitiveness. However, regulatory barriers, as well as inconsistencies between certification processes across provinces and territories, hinder skilled trades and workers' mobility, and they delay national development priorities like housing, transportation, infrastructure and energy projects.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2025, the port of Vancouver had a record-breaking year for exports, moving more Canadian goods to global markets than ever before. This is a point of pride for the constituents in Richmond East—Steveston, who help power this success every day through their work in trade, transportation and port operations. Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on what this record-setting year at the port of Vancouver means for Canadian workers and for Canada's growing trade opportunities?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard from many members across the way who claim that it would allow house arrest for serious crimes, such as extortion. This is simply incorrect. Conditional sentences or sentence orders are never available when the sentence is two years or more, which is typically the case. We also maintain mandatory jail time for extortion involving restricted or illegal firearms, as well as extortion connected to criminal organizations. It is clear. It is right there.”
“Mr. Speaker, whether the member likes it or not, Bill C-16 reinstates mandatory minimum sentences. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Parm Bains: I have already answered the question. Mr. Speaker, the member needs to read the legislation and join us. Let us make these changes quickly. I know members across the way from British Columbia want this to happen very quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I talked about how criminals adapt fast and how we have to stay ahead. Many of the measures we have introduced, many of which the member just indicated, build upon things that we have done, things like Bill C-70 , the foreign interference act. It has many measures that will help us deal with the issues around extortion. We need to move quickly on all of the measures that have been introduced in this House over the past few months to continue not only to adapt to what the criminals are doing but also to move ahead of them and make these changes quickly. We need the Conservatives to join us.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about how we talk tough, but we are doing more than just talking tough. What we are seeing here is a war of words. Quite frankly, we have made major additions, not only with bringing back mandatory minimum sentences but also with everything from Bill C-12 to Bill C-2 , the borders act. We can talk about strengthening something, but we need the Conservatives to stop blocking what we are doing here in this House and come along to make these changes.”
“Canadian law already establishes a threshold for serious criminality for the purpose of inadmissibility, one that, unlike the Conservatives' failed proposals, would not risk targeting the wrong people or providing relative leniency to temporary residents compared to permanent residents. We will uphold tough measures to address criminals, as well as the due process that demonstrates to us, to all residents of Canada, that we respect democracy and the rule of law. Criminals adapt fast, and government must do more than keep up. It must get ahead of them. In that spirit, we will continue to improve the sophistication of Canada's criminal response tools to keep Canadians safe.”
“The new information-sharing authorities would reduce duplication, improve efficiency and enhance program integrity. They would do this while protecting privacy. Any new use or disclosure of personal information from these new authorities would remain subject to existing privacy legislation, policies, guidelines and best practices, including privacy impact assessments. These safeguards would ensure that integrity measures are balanced with a strong protection of personal information. It is important to be clear about what Bill C-12 would and would not change in relation to criminality and removals. Bill C-12 would not alter existing thresholds for inadmissibility or removal.”
“We have introduced measures to make the system stronger and more efficient. For example, Bill C-12 introduces strong information sharing and coordination across departments, things that are essential to public safety. This measure could reduce the amount of time it takes to detect a problematic security issue and take action. When programs operate in silos, discrepancies and risks can be missed. Bill C-12 would modernize information-sharing authorities within IRCC and with authorized domestic partners to strengthen integrity and improve decision-making. These authorities would allow the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to share identity, status and document information with domestic partners when there is a lawful purpose for doing so, and that includes with our law enforcement.”
“Effective immigration enforcement is not measured by rhetoric but by results, and the results demonstrate that Canada's enforcement system is active and effective. In 2023-24, the Canada Border Services Agency prevented more than 9,000 individuals from boarding flights to Canada and denied entry to 34,000 people at ports of entry. Within Canada, the CBSA removed well over 700 individuals found inadmissible for serious criminality. The results for the first 10 months of 2025 surpassed the results for 12 months in 2024, showing sustained progress. Canadians want an immigration system that is fast and efficient and that upholds the independence of our judicial and law enforcement systems. That is why our focus has been on a system that carefully screens applicants, responds to new information and applies the laws consistently.”
“There is no special treatment for criminals, including violent offenders, under Canada's immigration law. Criminal proceedings take precedence over immigration proceedings. When a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime, they must serve their sentence, and immigration consequences follow. These consequences are set out in legislation and applied through established legal processes. These serious criminal convictions mean people are subject to a removal order. The Canada Border Services Agency is empowered to investigate, issue removal orders and carry out deportations. Its work is governed by the laws set by Parliament, following due process. Decisions are subject to review by the courts to place a check against potential errors.”
“When misrepresentation or criminal history is discovered, individuals may be found inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality and misrepresentation. Officials can move immediately under the law to issue a removal order. (1515) Under the Refugee and Immigration Protection Act, Parliament has carefully balanced thresholds for inadmissibility and removal based on Canadian law and international obligations, including our obligations not to create stateless people and not to return people to danger. The act already contains some of the strictest provisions among like-minded and democratic countries. Non-citizens convicted of serious criminality are inadmissible to Canada. Those sentenced to six months or more of imprisonment have no right of appeal to the immigration appeal division.”
“Included within these authorities are measures that would authorize the Governor in Council to make an order, when it is in the public interest, to cancel, suspend or change groups of immigration documents, to pause or suspend application processing or to stop the intake of new applications on a large scale. These authorities would ensure that the government is better able to manage immigration documents and applications when required to protect the public interest. This is just one example of how IRCC is continually strengthening control over our immigration and asylum systems to the benefit of Canadians and communities. Additionally, we work closely with domestic and international partners to identify risks, share information and respond to concerns as they are identified. The system is proactive as well as reactive.”
“To enhance our control over the system, our government has prioritized strengthening document control in recent years. Since January 2025, explicit authorities came into force for our immigration and border officers to cancel temporary resident documents, such as visas and electronic travel authorizations, on a case-by-case basis, when new information comes to light that someone is inadmissible or is no longer eligible to hold their document. They also have the authority in more limited circumstances to cancel study and work permits. This helps Canadians keep Canadians safe and migration orderly. Additionally, we are seeking new authorities under Bill C-12 that would further strengthen the government's ability to manage immigration documents and applications.”
“My remarks today will focus on immigration consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Security and public safety measures begin before arrival. Canada's immigration screening process is intentionally multi-layered. It involves Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Canada Border Services Agency; and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Every applicant is assessed for criminality, terrorism, human rights violations, organized crime, espionage and public health risks, despite a lot of the misinformation we hear coming from the other side. Screening occurs before travel, at the border, and where necessary, after entry into Canada. This layered approach ensures that the system is responsive, adaptable and capable of addressing evolving threats.”
“We want the decisions of our justice and immigration systems to be fair, efficient and final, and we expect that these decisions are made thoughtfully, lawfully and in alignment with our democratic values. Serious criminality has serious consequences in this country. These cases are deeply troubling, and our hearts go out to victims and their families. Our laws are already clear: Individuals who commit serious crimes face consequences. Immigration law is clear that serious criminality has serious implications for admissibility and continued presence in Canada. Before going further, it is important to clarify roles. Criminal investigations, prosecutions, sentencing and court procedures fall within the authority of police services, prosecutors and the courts. Those matters are addressed by other departments.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines . Today, I will focus on how our immigration system responds to concerns about non-citizens who are accused or convicted of serious criminal offences, as well as the decision-making process of admitting, investigating and removing a non-citizen. I want to emphasize how upholding these rules, and the independence of these processes, is critical to our country. Canadians rightly expect that our immigration system will protect everyone in this country and that our laws are applied consistently and respond to their concerns, especially concerns about serious criminal acts.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for all of his hard work, especially on this topic and the challenges we are seeing with extortion and other crimes. We all know that as criminal organizations evolve, they look at new ways to do things. Can the member for Surrey Newton let me know what he is hearing on the ground about the kinds of changes being made, and how important people think these changes are that we are bringing forward?”