Alexis Deschênes
Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate. Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a bibli…”
“Here is the first one: 11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or…”
“Madam Speaker, in the drafting of Bill C‑9 , some interpretive clauses were added that, in my opinion, address the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I am going to read them, and I want my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is missing from these clauses so I can reassure them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. My colleague represents a riding on the other side of our beautiful Chaleur Bay. I want to ask him a question. He brought up remarks made yesterday in the House. I was there. It was about 11:50 p.m.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people. Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me.”
The complete record
Every one of 461 lines we hold for Alexis Deschênes, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“Currently, organizations are excluded, but victims can obtain some degree of restitution through damages and interest in consideration of the harm caused. For example, restitution is available if property was destroyed during the commission of an offence. If an offender enters a home and causes damage during an armed assault or a break and enter, a restitution order may be sought and the offender would be required to pay it. A restitution order may also be sought in the case of bodily or psychological harm to any person. For example, sexual assault is sure to leave psychological scars, and the Crown prosecutor may apply for an order. The court may also make a restitution order. This is always for damages and interest, but restitution may also cover loss of income.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for presenting their opinions on Bill C‑238 . Now it is my turn to do the same on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. The purpose of Bill C‑238 is to make restitution available for organizations, often community organizations, that provide frontline services to the community. It would allow organizations to claim damages and interest through criminal proceedings from offenders who commit crimes related to illegal drug trafficking, kidnapping and human trafficking. The addition proposed in this bill would permit organizations, meaning incorporated entities, to obtain restitution. At present, the law regarding restitution is set out in section 730 of the Criminal Code. A number of restitution orders may be requested at sentencing.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised the issue of ballots getting very long thanks to the efforts of a certain activist group. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that it can be studied in committee. The bill proposes various measures to limit the possibility of having very long ballots. They are detrimental to everyone except perhaps this group, which gains attention as a result. In particular, the bill proposes to make it an offence for a candidate to provide false or misleading information on a nomination form. It also proposes imposing penalties when signatures are obtained on a nomination form before a candidate has been identified. We agree with that. I would like my colleague's opinion on another measure, the one establishing an offence to deter a person from encouraging an elector to sign more than one nomination form.”
“I think that when these people are faced with incredibly long ballots, it hinders their ability to exercise their right to vote. Does my colleague agree with this part of the bill? Will the Conservative Party be able to work with us to ensure that the bill moves forward as quickly as possible so that, perhaps in a future by-election, we avoid a repeat of what happened in Terrebonne?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his explanations in support of changing the name of his constituency. He was very eloquent and convincing. I would like to turn to another part of the bill. I know that this was not the main focus of his speech, but nevertheless, the bill contains measures designed to counter an unfortunate trend we are seeing. We saw it in Terrebonne. I am of course talking about the longest ballot committee, which aims to put a very large number of candidates on the ballot. This worries us. While those people may have good intentions, what they are ultimately doing is making Elections Canada's job harder. I am worried about people who are illiterate, because I represented many illiterate people when I was a legal aid lawyer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate. He mentioned his concern, as a business owner, about placing a greater burden on Internet service providers. This bill does include this requirement, which will be added to ensure that businesses can comply with production orders and that they can also preserve their data. What is my colleague's solution: providing financial support to businesses or reducing the requirements in this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on one part of the bill that concerns me, specifically part 1. The bill allows law enforcement officials to obtain information voluntarily provided by service providers without judicial authorization. I am trying to understand what that might mean, and I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Normally, a warrant is obtained and the provider is forced to hand over the information. However, if providers are allowed to disclose information voluntarily, that puts them in a situation where they will be told that they have to provide it because they can do so voluntarily. People have a right to privacy and the protection of their personal information. I will just throw that over to my colleague to see whether he has an opinion on the matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's comments on a point that seems to be generating debate. If Bill C‑22 passes, it will change the burden of proof required to obtain a search warrant. Law enforcement officers will have to prove that they had reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than believe, that something illegal had occurred. Some university professors, among others, are concerned that the burden of proof is not stringent enough, and that personal data will be too easy for law enforcement to access. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the explanations he provided. I have a question for him. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I think he is knowledgeable enough to answer my question. I understand that law enforcement first contacts a service provider and that, without a warrant, the provider must state whether or not the individual is receiving services from that company. What I also see in the bill is that, at that point, the service provider has 24 hours to respond and five days to challenge the order before a judge if they so desire. If my colleague was involved in this, I would like to ask him how those deadlines were determined.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague the opportunity to finish his answer, but first I want to tell him that I appreciated his speech. I think he touched on an important question: How can we help law enforcement be more effective while respecting privacy? My colleague mentioned the importance of seeking a warrant before getting information. However, the threshold set out in Bill C‑22 is very low. Authorities will be able to obtain a warrant as long as they have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is something illegal going on that requires the transmission of information. Does my colleague think that the bar is set high enough to ensure that warrants are not issued to just about anyone for just about anything?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only reason the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner let the Minister of Finance off the hook is because he is not going to benefit from these actions personally. No, the ones that stand to benefit are the Liberal government and Alto, which will now have an easier time expropriating residents of Terrebonne from their properties. The ones who stand to lose out are the people living along the high-speed rail route imposed by Alto. Why are the Liberals not trying to rally support from the residents of Terrebonne by really listening to them, instead of stripping them of their rights and threatening their property?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister has not taken the necessary steps to distance himself. He himself introduced Bill C-15 in the House, and that bill includes measures to facilitate the expropriation of land from the people of Terrebonne. He is the one who requested that this bill be drafted in response to his budget, which he himself tabled. Again, the Liberal minister has close ties to Alto's management. The Liberal minister has introduced legislation to help Alto expropriate land from the citizens of Terrebonne. Is this really the kind of policy the Liberal government is offering Terrebonne voters today?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his Bill C‑15 , the Minister of Finance granted special powers to the Alto corporation to expropriate land from people in Terrebonne to make way for high-speed rail. Bill C‑15, which has become law, bears his imprint. However, media reports have revealed that the Minister of Finance has personal ties to Alto's senior management. Right in the middle of an election in Terrebonne, a Liberal minister is making it easier to expropriate land from the people of Terrebonne in support of a company with which he has close connections. Why is the Liberal minister working with Alto at the expense of the rights of the people of Terrebonne?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for her speech and for walking us through the legislative process. I have a question for her. Can she inform the House about the balance that we struck between the imperative need to protect our facilities from cyber-attacks and the need to avoid compromising people's privacy, particularly when Internet service providers are allowed to do certain things? How does Bill C‑8 strike a balance between these two important principles?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to look into what happened in order to try to restore some trust among the public. There have definitely been issues with adaptation. There has been a significant increase in asylum seekers and temporary residents. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada asked the colleges and universities to send in semi-annual reports, which it then set aside and did not process. When the minister was asked about this on Monday, her answer was that she had only been in office since May 2025. I think that the people who were in office when this happened should come and answer our questions and explain why they did not instruct their officers to act on this very worrisome situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill C-12 will provide some tools, and that is great. Now all we need is some leadership. On Monday, the minister came to talk to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We pointed out to her that there were serious problems with the integrity of the process regarding international students. I did not get the sense that we were talking to someone who is determined to fix the problem. It took me six minutes to get her to admit that she was somewhat concerned about the situation. I hope that Bill C-12 will be passed, that it will provide the necessary tools, but also that immigration officers will send a clear message that when they encounter potentially fraudulent cases, they do not just sweep them under the rug.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, that is what was discussed in committee, and it was determined that Bill C‑12 includes a deadline of one year, after which asylum claims cannot be made. It stands to reason that someone who fears persecution if they return to their country would be capable of submitting a claim within a year of arriving here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been the immigration critic for a few weeks, and my relationship with the minister is not yet close enough for her to tell me about her choices regarding her agenda, unfortunately. However, I do think that her presence could have enlightened the House, but perhaps not.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his well-reasoned question. With respect to the distribution of asylum seekers, I call on this government to show leadership and ensure that a distribution plan is put in place. That has not been done. It made a timid attempt to do so in the summer of 2024, if memory serves. In the end, roughly 200 asylum seekers were willing to resettle in Newfoundland and Labrador and a few dozen others went to New Brunswick; that was all that was achieved. There are 190,000 asylum seekers, so the results were nowhere near what is required. We need to find a way to distribute asylum seekers fairly, and if this government shows leadership, it will be able to engage in discussions with the various provinces that are currently not doing their fair share.”
“Mr. Speaker, extensive work was done in committee with the Bloc Québécois immigration critic at the time, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean . We think we were able to get our most important amendments adopted. That is why we are supporting Bill C-12 today.”
“The province wants $700 million from the Government of Canada, but the federal government is refusing to give Quebec the money. It is also refusing to distribute asylum seekers fairly. This issue is still ongoing, and we will continue to press the government to address it.”
“Still, the distribution of asylum seekers is relevant to the topic of this discussion, namely public confidence in the integrity of the process. I think the public understands the importance of immigration and the importance of welcoming refugees, as long as the government does its job properly and people feel the provinces are being treated fairly. There is no fairness now. Quebec accounts for 22% of Canada's population, but it is taking in 37% of all asylum seekers. Obviously, this is putting enormous pressure on Quebec's public services. I do want to be very careful when I say that, because 127,000 of the 190,000 asylum seekers in Quebec have work permits. These are people who want to get involved. However, there are a number of concerns that come with that. Quebec is incurring additional costs.”
“Earlier, I was talking about securing public trust in and support for our immigration system. For that to happen, the public needs to feel that there is equity, the process needs to be fair, and Quebeckers also need to get their fair share. However, as Quebeckers in Canada, we often feel that we are not getting our fair share, including our share of investments. As for our share of asylum seekers, thanks to certain geographic realities, Quebec took in 37% of asylum seekers from across the country in 2025, even though we represent 22% of the population. That creates pressure. At the same time, we have international obligations, and Quebeckers are a caring and welcoming people who have had wonderful experiences with refugees.”
“(1305) In addition, if the asylum seeker is not present in Canada, then their claim will not be considered. That seems obvious to me. A refugee claimant who fears persecution cannot be anywhere other than in Canada when their claim is received. Furthermore, the whole section related to the 14-day period has changed. Under the safe third country agreement, if someone enters Canada illegally and is intercepted within 14 days, then they will be returned to the United States. If they are intercepted after 14 days, then that is where things get interesting. In that case, they will be sent back to their country of origin. We see this as a step forward. There is one thing that the bill does not address, though, which is the distribution of asylum seekers. That is another matter, but it is important to us.”
“Where this power will prove useful is when Immigration Canada conducts investigations and uncovers fraud, by finding flaws or identifying large numbers of applications. Political action can then be taken to immediately withdraw certain asylum claims. If used properly, this exceptional power could clear up the system's backlog and dispose of fraudulent claims. Furthermore, Parliament would have oversight because, every time this power is used, a report must be sent to Parliament, where it can be debated. We can thus ensure that this power is being exercised properly. I still have some concerns in that regard, but I think it is the best solution to enable us to take action, given everything that is happening in relation to immigration.”
“The government will “authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection...have been abandoned in certain circumstances”. The minister will be provided with “the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred...have been withdrawn in certain circumstances”. That is important. In other words, the Minister of Immigration will have the power to consider all claims for asylum made in Canada even if they have been received by officers. This is an extraordinary measure that raises legitimate concerns because the board can make mistakes, but so can ministers. However, under the amendments to Bill C-12, when a minister exercises this power, they must report it to the House, and use of that power must still remain exceptional.”
“We think that this bill provides some useful ways to strengthen our immigration system, particularly when it comes to asylum seekers. What does Bill C-12 do in terms of immigration? First, there is part 5, which facilitates information sharing. That should enable various bodies to exchange information when fraudulent schemes are uncovered so that action can be taken. Part 6 gives the minister more control over asylum seekers. That is not without risk, but the government thinks it has to be done. For one thing, the minister will be authorized to “specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection”.”
“It decided to do nothing about those 800 cases. Our immigration system is having difficulty adapting. That is what is going on. The government failed to adapt the system to a reality that has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. There has been a sharp increase in applications, so the process needed to be improved, especially in terms of processing times but also in terms of integrity. I gave two examples earlier that demonstrate the system's inability to adapt, namely, claimants who were accepted without a hearing and international students who obtained their permits fraudulently and who have not been dealt with. This undermines the integrity of our immigration system, and that is why we support Bill C‑12 .”
“This is noteworthy because even though the Auditor General used random sampling, she was able to identify 800 cases that were reported to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada not as potentially problematic, but as problematic. Some 800 study permits were shown to have been issued based on fraudulent documents or inaccurate information. There are cases where people obtained study permits by claiming that they wanted to enrol in a Canadian university with a diploma that they had earned from a college that does not exist or from a college known to be a diploma mill. How did IRCC respond to these 800 fraudulent cases? It did nothing, even though it had the discretion to take action to ensure the integrity of the process. Public confidence in our immigration system is eroding, and the IRCC still made the decision to do nothing.”
“The reports indicated that the students who held those study permits might have failed to comply with the conditions. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada flagged 153,000 cases in 2023 and 2024, but only 4,000 of them were investigated. This shows just how fragile our immigration system really is. Investigations were launched for each of these 4,000 cases, but 40% of them were dropped because the applicant or person with the study permit failed to respond. These investigators were not exactly over-zealous. All the person had to do was not respond and the investigators left them alone. That is no way to protect the integrity of the process or the public's trust in it. (1300) The Auditor General also told us that there are 800 cases.”
“A list was drawn up of countries from which claims are often accepted because there are legitimate fears of persecution, and the decision was made to fast-track them on paper. Here is the issue. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, the information has spread and criminal groups in these countries may have been able to use it as a fast track to obtaining refugee status in order to be able to enter Canada. That is one recent issue. Here is a second recent issue. On Monday, the Auditor General of Canada tabled a report on international students. Once again, we see that there are concerns about the integrity of the process. The Auditor General said that 153,000 reports relating to study permits had been sent to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada by Canadian educational institutions.”
“There had been a significant increase in application volumes, and the IRB was under pressure to move faster. It therefore decided to just skip the hearings and approve the asylum claims. Some 35,000 asylum seekers have had their claims accepted in that manner since 2019. In 2025, 15% of all claims were accepted without a hearing to test credibility. When the IRB chairperson appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, she acknowledged that holding hearings enhances the integrity of the process because hearings allow the IRB member to verify the evidence submitted as part of the claim. The mechanism put in place by the IRB raises concerns about the integrity of the process.”
“In 2015, Quebec received 3,000 asylum claims. In 2020, that number had tripled to nearly 10,000. In 2024, it was 10 times higher than in 2015, at 35,000. That means that, in 10 years, the number of asylum claims jumped from 3,000 to 30,000. Asylum claims have dropped somewhat since 2025, but 190,000 asylum seekers in Quebec are still waiting for a final decision. The backlog across Canada is close to 300,000. The increase in asylum claimants has created enormous challenges for the integrity of the process. What is the best way to ensure that only refugees within the meaning of the Geneva Convention are accepted and that claims are processed at a reasonable pace? Is there a way to detect fraudulent claims? Recently, we learned that the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB, was skipping in-person hearings to speed up processing.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures , at third reading. As the critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I will explain why we support this legislation, particularly in terms of what it does for our immigration system. First, let us review the situation. The number of temporary residents has increased significantly in recent years under this Liberal government. In 2018, temporary residents accounted for 3.3% of the Canadian population. By 2024, that figure had risen to 7.5%, which is more than double. Since Bill C-12 focuses primarily on asylum seekers, let us look at the situation from that perspective.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about constitutional limits and about the fact that, in today's Canada, some sections of the Constitution would prevent the full integration of the Conservative ideology. Members of the Bloc Québécois are separatists. We would like Quebec to become a country so that we can set our own standards. In our opinion, the Constitution of Canada sets limits that prevent us, as French-speaking Quebeckers, from protecting our identity and culture and from implementing public policies that truly reflect our priorities. We know that constitutions can be changed. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Is the Conservative Party proposing to reopen constitutional negotiations to reform the Constitution?”
“Since 80% of applications are ultimately approved, this promotes the integration not only of the person who will be admitted as a refugee, but also of the child. What is my colleague’s response to this argument?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, for her remarks. She took the time to clearly explain the Kanyinda decision, a recent Supreme Court ruling. There has been debate in Quebec following this ruling as to whether Quebec will invoke the notwithstanding clause to opt out of it. This is a debate that will take place in Quebec, and it will be up to Quebeckers to decide. Various arguments are being put forward, and I would like my colleague to elaborate on the following point. There are currently 190,000 asylum seekers in Quebec. Of that number, 127,000 have work permits and are therefore working. When a mother who is an asylum seeker has a work permit and can work, she naturally pays taxes. Her child attends a day care where they learn French.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's opposition to Bill C‑12 . However, we think it is a balanced approach that is not without risks, but that addresses our legitimate concerns about the integrity of the process. In particular, the government wants to add a rule that would require asylum seekers to be on Canadian soil to have their case heard. What does my colleague have against that specific provision?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague’s opinion on the two interpretive provisions that were added to the bill in order to address certain concerns. Here is what is clearly stated in one of those provisions: ...nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement. Does that not reassure my colleague?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the only people who have anything to fear from Bill C‑9 are those who want to incite hatred—so they are already doing wrong—by hiding behind their religion, using passages from the Bible, the Torah or the Quran, for example. All the bill does is remove the religious exemption. Someone who is accused of inciting hatred would not be able to hide behind a text and say that they are simply quoting it. The bill includes interpretation provisions stating that, if the speech is part of a sermon and it is only reproducing a text, no charges will be laid. It has to be proven that the aim was to wilfully promote hatred. Why does my colleague object so strongly to what has been proposed in the bill so far?”
“If judges are prevented from taking this factor into account, mistakes could be made. In short, we are willing to look at everything to try to improve the system, but above all, we do not want to make it worse.”
“Basically, if someone has been convicted and is in the process of immigrating, the impact their conviction will have on their immigration status will be taken into account, but it cannot be a decisive factor. There are already examples in case law that prove the opposite, where people tried to have their sentences reduced by saying that it would prevent them from being deported, but their argument was rejected. Most notably, those arguments have been rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The case of Guzman v. R in Quebec is another example. The Conservatives need to prove that the current system needs to be changed. Our other argument is that it is important to preserve judicial discretion, because each judge can look at each case to ensure that a humane and appropriate decision is made.”
“The Supreme Court states that: ...collateral consequences related to immigration may be relevant in tailoring the sentence, but their significance depends on and has to be determined in accordance with the facts of the particular case. The general rule continues to be that a sentence must be fit having regard to the particular crime and the particular offender. [However], a sentencing judge may exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account, provided that the sentence that is ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.... I will close with this passage: These [immigration] consequences must not be allowed to dominate the exercise or skew the process.... That is how things currently stand.”
“A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Another important principle is the principle of parity and the correctional imperative of sentence individualization. Each sentence must fit the individual in order to have a deterrent effect and to reflect the degree of moral blameworthiness of each defendant. In this analysis, the court will be able to look at the collateral consequences of a sentence. It will consider any effect that the sentence will have on the offender themselves. The immigration status of the convicted person will be one of the collateral consequences and will be part of the judge's analysis. The judge has to weigh various objectives in determining the sentence, including the objective of assisting in rehabilitating the offender.”
“In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found Mr. Pham guilty of producing and possessing marijuana. At trial, he was found guilty but also sentenced to two years in prison. After the trial, his lawyer realized that if he had been sentenced to two years less a day, he would not have lost his right to appeal a removal order against him. That is when an appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal. What the ruling shows is that the Crown prosecutor believed that a sentence of two years less a day was fine. The Crown would have agreed to it if it had been asked. The question was whether the Court of Appeal could intervene in such a case. The Supreme Court reiterated that the current rule when it comes to sentencing is proportionality. That is a fundamental principle that is very simple to understand.”
“We can discuss that of course, but in my view, the rule is fairly well balanced. I will summarize it by quoting a few passages from that Supreme Court decision. (1730) It reads, in part: A sentencing judge may exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account, [judges currently have the right to do so] provided that the sentence ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The significance of collateral immigration consequences will depend on the facts of the case. However, it remains that they are but one of the relevant factors that a sentencing judge may take into account in determining an appropriate sentence. Those consequences must not be allowed to skew the process.... That is the state of the law.”
“If the person is a Canadian citizen convicted of certain more serious offences, they will not be able to sponsor family members. For non-citizens, the penalties are more severe. If a temporary resident, such as a student, worker or visitor, is convicted, they may become inadmissible. If a temporary or permanent resident is convicted of a serious offence, the sentences can range from more than six months in prison or at least 10 years in prison. That person will be inadmissible. It should also be noted that a criminal conviction will generally prevent someone from obtaining Canadian citizenship. That being said, let us come back to the Bloc Québécois's reservations. First, what is the current state of the law when a judge is sentencing a non-citizen? It is set out in the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in R v. Pham.”
“I am struggling a bit with this, but the National Post article states that the Conservative Party has identified several cases where it feels that criminal sentences for non-citizens were determined in such a way as to reduce the sentence in order to avoid deportation. The purpose of this bill is therefore to prevent judges from reducing sentences for non-citizens by considering the effect a conviction would have on the criminal's immigration status. To help the people watching at home understand what comes next, I want to say a few words about the consequences of a criminal conviction for an immigrant. The impact depends on the person's status, but the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides for adjustments when someone has been convicted of an offence.”
“We got some answers from an article published in the National Post on December 1, which reported that the Conservative Party was outraged that a court had permitted an adjournment in a criminal case to allow an accused to weigh how his reaction to the charges would affect his immigration status. Adjournments are very common in our courts. In this particular case, the adjournment allowed the accused to gather information and ultimately make an informed decision, which was to plead guilty. It also meant avoiding a trial and allowing a victim of sexual assault to avoid having to testify, as that was what the case was about.”
“Before I go over our reservations, let us look at the bill and its purpose. Bill C-220 contains a single clause that seeks to amend the sentencing portion of the Criminal Code. The clause reads as follows: “A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender's immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family”. If this bill were to pass, a judge would simply not be able to consider the impact of a criminal conviction on a non-citizen's immigration status. Why does my Conservative colleague want to go in that direction?”