Michelle Rempel Garner
Calgary Nose Hill, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, non-citizens' committing serious crimes in Canada and then getting sweetheart sentences in order to avoid deportation, which the Liberals are letting happen right now, is undermining Canadians' desire for immigration.”
“Mr. Speaker, after a year, how can she put that falsehood forward in the House? People are getting sweetheart sentences in order to avoid deportation. There is a story every week.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives proposed a law that would ensure that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada do not get sweetheart sentences so they can avoid deportation, but the Minister of Immigration voted against it. It is her job to maintain order in Canada's immigration system, but the system is clearly out of control.”
“Mr. Speaker, last year, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said this, referring to Alberta: “I am not certain that oil and gas qualifies” to define a culture. A leftist Canadian podcaster recently claimed, “Alberta has ZERO culture. None.”
“The people who try hard to beat the culture of self-determinism out of my province do so to their own detriment and to the detriment of the entire country. A stronger Alberta in a united Canada means acknowledging and giving thanks for Alberta's culture, and praying hard that Alberta will be lucky enough to get more of it.”
“Of all of the human virtues, these qualities are hardest to master, and there is no harder place to learn them than in front of the screens of millions of Canadians while sitting in the pressure cooker that is the Ottawa bubble as an elected leader. I see my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 546 lines we hold for Michelle Rempel Garner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 11.
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. What we have seen from the Liberals over the last 10 years, including that incomprehensible tirade from a backbench Liberal member whom I just dunked on, is that the Liberals have lost the fact that calling things racist and not addressing the real problems Canadians have, that whole process, is what has undermined Canadian pluralism. One of the things that I am very excited about in Canada is that, rather than like in the U.K., where we see people starting to blame immigrants for the problems that previous governments and the current government there had in terms of bringing too many people in too fast, Canadians are saying, no, that is not where the finger should be pointed; it should be pointed at the Liberal government.”
“Colleagues, a minority Parliament means the government has to work with the opposition to develop legislation. I am proud to say that we forced the Liberals to do something that resembled work.”
“This amendment should give recourse to committee witnesses who raised concerns about the lack of clarity on how these powers should be used and how the government should be held to account after. Additionally, thanks to a Conservative amendment, use of these powers would now require a substantive reporting requirement to Parliament each time the powers are used. Conservatives also amended the bill to prevent the Liberals from using the powers to turn temporary residents into permanent residents en masse. We would not want that to happen. It is my understanding that the amendment I am presenting today and speaking to now, to ensure part 7 powers could not be used to mass extend temporary work visas or foreign student permits, will also be supported by the government.”
“This is possible, because Bill C-12 included some supportable, but in need of amendment, components of Bill C-2 that exclude the non-supportable parts. These Conservative amendments include one that would see a pending asylum claim deemed abandoned if a claimant returned to the country they were fleeing from. This is a no-brainer. I would just like to say that Conservatives will support the clarifying amendment from the government on this matter. Other Conservative amendments that remain in the bill include new substantive quarterly reporting requirements and new processes for terminating bogus asylum claims. (1645) Finally, Conservatives also successfully amended Bill C-12 to better constrict and make transparent the extraordinary powers in part 7 that would allow officials to mass change, extend or cancel immigration documents.”
“They missed an opportunity to immediately fix the system. That said, I want to thank colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, particularly the members for Lac-Saint-Jean and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon , for working in good faith with us to pass close to half of our amendments. However, when the bill was reported back to the House, the Liberals initiated procedures to try to gut many of the proposals that passed. In spite of their best efforts, I am pleased to report that several still remain in the bill. It is my understanding that, after negotiations, the government intends to support the amendments that remain in the bill today in order to receive our collective support for the bill.”
“To fix these issues, Conservatives attempted to constructively amend Bill C-12 and make the following changes that would strengthen our borders: clarifying the definition of “serious criminality” under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to be conviction by an indictable offence or a hybrid offence where the Crown proceeded with an indictable charge; preventing non-citizens ordered removed from blocking deportation by barring repeat pre-removal risk assessments unless substantive new evidence of changed circumstances was presented; and modernizing the time period and processes related to the enforcement of removal orders. It is deeply disappointing that the Liberals opposed most of our amendments, which I suspect they will have to work into legislation in the near future anyway.”
“Recent reports show that the Liberals have lost track of nearly 600 non-citizen convicted criminals scheduled for deportations, and that there are tens of thousands of deportations that should have been carried out long ago but have not been.”
“The second objective of our amendments was to strengthen Canada's border security vis-à-vis non-citizen criminals. Bill C-12 purports to strengthen Canada's border security, but it would leave gaping holes for non-citizens convicted of an indictable offence in Canada, such as sexual assault, to avoid deportation penalties. For a non-citizen, our laws and practices state that staying in Canada is a privilege, not a right. Non-citizens who are convicted of an indictable offence, like sexual assault, in Canada should face deportation. To be effective, those deportations should be carried out in an expeditious manner, which currently they are not.”
“It needs to be far easier for MPs to get the data they need in these areas in order to hold the government to account. (1640) To fix these issues, Conservatives attempted to amend Bill C-12 to undertake the following system changes: removing the ability of migrants with failed asylum claims to claim any federal social benefits beyond emergency health care; disallowing asylum claims to be made by nationals of, or by those arriving in Canada having transited through, a G7 or EU country; modernizing security requirements; requiring educational institutions that accept foreign students to share the cost of any bogus asylum claims made by foreign students they welcome to Canada; requiring that claims made by migrants who return to their home country while their claim is pending be abandoned; rejecting claims made after a claimant is found to have lied to an officer; placing the onus on a claimant to prove they have made their claim in a timely manner, not the government; requiring asylum claimants arriving in Canada to immediately provide, on the record, their full grounds for seeking protection, preventing the later use of unscrupulous lawyers to game the system; creating a new, transparent and clear reporting requirement for the government to disclose the amount of federal benefits received by asylum claimants; updating the content of the annual report to Parliament; and introducing merit-based appointments at the Immigration and Refugee Board to better consider the provinces and to include more board members with law enforcement experience.”
“In effect, the Liberals would be off-loading their illegal migration mess onto strained courts and past the next election cycle. Committee testimony exposed further flaws untouched by Bill C-12 . It would fail to disincentivize people from coming to Canada to make bogus claims. For example, rejected asylum claimants have the right to appeal to a judge. While those cases work their way slowly through our clogged courts, they continue to receive full health care, housing and social benefits. The pedantic and loophole-ridden process for appealing a bogus claim and removing bogus claimants from Canada also begets system abuse and needs reform, which C-12, as written, would not provide. The asylum and deportation system also urgently requires greater accountability and transparency.”
“Canada's asylum backlog has exploded from fewer than 10,000 claims in 2015 to nearly 300,000 today under the Liberals, due to their foolish #WelcometoCanada and open-border policies. We all remember the #WelcometoCanada tweet in 2017. We all remember the Roxham Road border crossing. We all remember the government lifting the visa requirement on Mexico with no plan to stop illegal, bogus asylum claims. Here we are today with a broken asylum system and a loss of faith in Canada's immigration system. Unfortunately, the immigration measures in Liberal Bill C-12 would fail to substantively address these problems. Committee witnesses testified that the system changes Bill C-12 proposed were half measures, certain to face immediate court challenges that would further clog an already overburdened justice system instead of curbing their abuse.”
“on a Friday a couple of weeks ago, over six months to develop nearly 40 substantive amendments that, taken in combination, present one of the most substantive sets of immigration policy reforms seen in decades. Given Bill C-12 's scope, our amendments had two objectives. The first was to truly fix Canada's broken asylum system. Once an efficient and compassionate means for Canada to welcome and protect the world's most vulnerable and truly persecuted persons, in the last decade the system has morphed into a backdoor, lucrative means for illegal migrants who likely would not have otherwise had a pathway to permanent residency in Canada to skip the line and stay here. The evidence of this is overwhelming.”
“It has also begun to tear apart Canada's social fabric, just as it has in the U.K. The volume of people the Liberals have allowed to enter Canada has also made security screening difficult. A recent explosive news story claimed there are, at a minimum, hundreds of people in Canada with links to a state-sponsored terrorist organization. All of this has led to a precipitous drop, very concerningly, in support for immigration among the Canadian public, and this must change. If that is the why, then this is the how. Conservatives proposed a series of substantive reforms to address these issues, presented as amendments to Bill C-12 during its clause-by-clause review at committee. I want to thank my colleagues Miguel Ricin, Andrew Evans and Chloe Clifford for working literally endless hours with me, until 1 a.m.”
“In fact, between January 2022 and October of this year, the United Kingdom had around 375,000 people enter the country and make asylum claims, representing about 0.5% of their population. During the same time frame in Canada, we saw nearly 500,000 claims, or roughly 1.2% of our population today. The fact that the Liberals also paired the surge in illegal migration and bogus asylum claims with allowing record levels of temporary foreign worker and foreign study permits is extraproblematic. This is an incredibly serious situation that has strained Canada's public health care system and many other taxpayer-funded social programs past their breaking point. It has made housing unaffordable, caused a youth jobs crisis and led to heavier reliance on social programs.”
“Madam Speaker, after a decade of Liberal mismanagement, describing Canada's immigration system as a tire fire sorely in need of competent management and dramatic reform would not be an exaggeration. Therefore, Conservatives, to show we are a government in waiting, proposed multiple constructive amendments to the immigration components of Bill C-12 in an attempt to improve the legislation and fix Canada's broken immigration system. Here is what we proposed and why we did it. First is the why. Recently, Britain's governing Labour Party proposed drastic, sweeping immigration reforms in response to the ongoing illegal migration and bogus asylum claim crisis in its country. Those who think the situation is better on our side of the pond are profoundly wrong.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague as well for her collaborative efforts in amending Bill C-12 . The member for Jonquière raised the issue that the government took several of the amendments we had worked collaboratively to pass and then, on its own initiative, exercised House procedure to strip out those amendments. I wonder if my colleague could expand on the fact that, in regard to a lot of the measures we passed that were in the bill that came to the House, the government is probably going to have to undertake them anyway. We have been talking about House time being wasted. Would it have not been better for the Liberals just to let those amendments go through, rather than initiating House procedure to remove them?”
“However, that Liberal member went on to lose his seat in the next election, while Albertans went through unnecessary hardships and lost jobs because of Liberal anti-energy ideology. Alberta has the right to develop its natural resources, and voting in favour of yesterday's motion would have been a step in the right direction. It would have reassured the province that the government could do something better, but the member did something opposite. He should do better. What a shame.”
“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal obfuscation and obstruction, Albertans have had enough. We need a pipeline to the Pacific, but yesterday, the Liberal member for Calgary Confederation voted against a motion that would have reassured his constituents that hope was possible— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Speaker, they are applauding him for doing that. It reminded me of the time a few years ago when another Liberal MP for Calgary told Albertans that he would bang on the table for pipelines. He then betrayed his constituents by supporting the Liberal tanker ban and the Liberal “no more pipelines” bill. It seems like history is repeating itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week, the member rose in this place and said that, if somebody was being sexually assaulted in this country, a non-citizen, judges would not give them special treatment. He said that. Then he stood in the House and gave many examples of that, including a 13-year-old girl who had been raped. I thought he was going to apologize for saying that, but I guess hope springs eternal.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is so exciting to see a Conservative elected in Windsor. It is awesome. My colleague is standing up for jobs in his community. While the Liberals are spending tens of billions of dollars on companies that are taking investments to other countries, with no job guarantees, he is standing up and saying he is going to protect the auto sector in his riding. I say kudos to him, and no, of course we should not trust the Liberals. There is great work coming from Windsor with that guy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that my colleague and I spent at the public safety committee last week trying to improve Bill C-12 , which was so lacking with regard to border security. I will note that, every time the Liberals say they are going to hire more border security, they do not do it. It is about the announcement. Colour me skeptical if I do not believe anything they say they are going to do. Just to reiterate some of the work that my colleague did last week, we tried to advance measures which would have made it more difficult for people who have a criminal past or criminal intent to enter the country by proposing common-sense, cost-free measures to Canada's immigration system, and the Liberals rejected that. Shame on them.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would be a productivity superdeduction if the government scrapped the temporary foreign worker program and stopped allowing businesses that have no reason to bring in temporary labour to continue to suppress our wages and suppress productivity in this country. I think about how badly the government has distorted productivity measures by allowing literally millions of temporary foreign workers into this country, which also takes opportunities away from Canadian youth. That is probably one of the key productivity drivers in this country. However, my colleague across the way wants my constituents to pay more for basic common sense. No, of course we will not.”
“I know there are people in my community, which was once very well off, who have lost their houses. There are now parts of my community where homelessness is a problem in a big way, and people cannot afford to make ends meet. I know there are seniors in my community who thought they were going to have a safe retirement but now cannot afford to buy groceries. The Liberals are now asking us to support $78 billion when a company they gave $15 billion to just transferred $13 billion of it to the United States. Come on. Something has to give. The Prime Minister told Canadians that he would be the person who could better manage Canada's finances. All he did was rack up debt on the credit card. He is not the only economist in this room. His economic policy is bad; it is failed socialist policy that does not benefit anybody.”
“There are not enough houses, doctors or jobs for people in Canada right now, yet they are juicing these numbers. In one bill in front of the House of Commons right now, Bill C-12 , the Liberals are trying to give themselves powers to mass extend temporary resident visas. We have an amendment that I hope the government will support on that front. Everything is about increasing the size of government, increasing the largesse of the Liberals' corporate friends and increasing the population in unsustainable ways through immigration, and my constituents are left with having a can of soup that an executive of the company calls not nutritious and highly processed. At a bare minimum, in a G7 country, people should have more to look forward to than a bare cupboard at night.”
“In this budget, the level of debt is shocking. It is kind of tricky of the Prime Minister to say we are saving money, because he has tried to cook the books and restructure how expenses are categorized. We are not that dumb. He might think we are. That is how he treats some of his cabinet ministers or journalists when he tells them to “look inside” themselves instead of answering a question. That level of arrogance is not going to make my constituents able to go out for a nice dinner or just afford basic groceries. I am the shadow minister for immigration, and I have never seen a more incompetent immigration minister in the Liberal government's history, and that is saying a lot. Through this budget, the Liberals are continuing immigration levels that are unsustainable.”
“In Alberta, the 127 reporting food banks were visited 210,000 times, a jump of 21.8% compared to last year and 134% since 2019. We have a budget where the government is dumping billions and billions of dollars, endless dollars, into corporate lobbyists and corporations that are not even trying to keep jobs here. The ministers did not even bother reading the contracts. Meanwhile, we should have some highly processed soup for dinner. There is nothing in the budget for Canadians. There is a lot for the Liberals' rich friends and and a lot for corporations that have other benefits, like regulatory benefits that keep cellphone bills high. The layers of ways the Liberals screw the average Canadian, between regulatory capture and just forking out direct cash to their friends, are so magnificently bad.”
“Do members know what they were saying? They are investing $13 billion in the United States, a direct transfer from Canadian taxpayers to the United States of America, while rich Campbell's lobbyists, who I am sure are probably friends with some of these guys across the aisle, are talking about people who have to eat their soup. I do not think Canadians should be condemned to eating soup. They should have choice in food. (1800) There was a startling report today showing that next year, an average Canadian family will have to pay, at minimum, an extra $1,000 for basic groceries. That is on top of the already huge increase in food prices. In the province of Alberta, in my riding, food bank visits are at an all-time high.”
“There are all sorts of issues making their life worse, but the government is spending more. How is it that the government is asking us to support a bill that keeps seeing Canadians' lives getting worse while the Liberals spend more? That is a “no” for me. It is a “no” for most of my constituents too. I want to also highlight the level of waste that we see in the government. Some of my colleagues have been litigating and doing an excellent job. Our shadow minister for industry , for example, has been doing a great job litigating the fact that the Liberals spent $13 billion or $14 billion on Stellantis. An hon. member: It was $15 billion. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Speaker, they spent $15 billion, and Stellantis just left the country. Yesterday, guess where Stellantis was. Its representatives were at the White House.”
“At the end of the day, what people want to look at or see in a budget is prudence and something for them. What we have seen out of the Liberal government over the last 10 years are funding announcements that result in nothing for Canadians, waste, deficit, higher taxes, and the inability to have a steak dinner. Most people in Canada want a steak dinner. That would be nice. I am an Albertan. Alberta beef is the best, but people cannot afford it anymore. They cannot afford protein. I am not talking about just some Canadians. I am talking about most Canadians, those who, in many jurisdictions, would be considered solidly middle class. They are double-income families, but they are sometimes working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They have seen their rents increase. They cannot get access to timely health care.”
“Although the Liberals have tried to sell this budget, it has, I think, a record deficit. We have never seen money like this in Canadian history. Economists and experts have talked about the fact that it is going to bankrupt future generations and that we are likely going to see a credit downgrade in the country. It has made our country less resilient. It is one of the most intensely deficit-laden budgets in history. I wanted to see what is in it for my constituents. I thought we would see something like maybe a GST cut for all the money that the Liberals are spending, or maybe a rocket ship to the moon or a highway paved in gold, but instead I think it condemns my constituents to more soup nights. Please, sir, can I have some more Liberal deficits and Campbell's soup?”
“The reality is a lot of people in Canada work really hard and used to be able to go out and afford a steak dinner once or twice a month or think about having a beef rib roast at Christmas. That was not much of a problem 10 years ago, but those are the people now eating Campbell's soup. The arrogance in that executive's comments, I think, is exactly what the arrogance is of the Liberal government in tabling this budget. I looked at this budget through the lens of one of my constituents and wondered if they would think I was doing my fiduciary responsibility and standing up for good, wise stewardship of their tax dollars by supporting this. The first question I asked myself was, what is in it for my constituents? Is there anything in it for my constituents?”
“Mr. Speaker, lost in all of the media stories last week was a CBC story that talked about a Campbell's soup executive getting caught in a meeting making fun of the “poor people” who ate their soup. This executive apparently said that Campbell's soup was for “poor people” and was a “highly processed food” that poor people had to eat. When I saw that story, it seemed to be the perfect analogy for the Liberals with this budget. In the story, the executive, by his own admission, is selling highly processed food. If a person goes to Walmart, I think the price of a can of Campbell's soup ranges between $1.50 and $2.50. Frankly, it is what a lot of people in Canada are eating right now, yet this executive was making fun of the people, the poor plebes, who have to eat a can of Campbell's soup.”
“Mr. Speaker, last year, well after the pandemic, where were more than half of Canadian citizenships conducted? It was online, by clicking a box. How does that unify Canadians? How does that imply and impart the responsibilities of being Canadian? She is standing up here and defending a postnational strategy. Will she end one-click, virtual citizenships?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister completely did not answer the question. She did not listen to it. My colleague asked why she was allowing one-click citizenship, which, to repeat a famous line in the House, we found on the government's website. People get their citizenship by doing a virtual ceremony and clicking a box. That is what we are talking about here. I cannot believe she is still the minister. Will she end one-click, virtual citizenship ceremonies?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2022 a Jamaican national was convicted in the United States of an aggravated felony of sexual abuse of a minor, but in 2023 the Liberals welcomed him to Canada. Worse, they allowed him to claim asylum, and today that child sexual abuser is still in Canada. The Liberals voted against Conservative measures to prevent non-citizen child sexual abusers from entering Canada, abusing our immigration system and avoiding deportation. Why are the Liberals protecting non-citizen child sexual abusers? Why did they not support our policies?”
“Mr. Speaker, in a CBC interview when he was the immigration minister, the new minister of culture dismissed premiers' pleas for support for a flood of Liberal-enabled fraudulent asylum claims by saying, “I think what they're [the premiers are] advancing...is a complete crock of [bleep].” In reality, he oversaw billions of dollars going to house bogus asylum claimants while emergency rooms overflowed. My question is this: If the failed former immigration minister can get a promotion, does this mean that the current Prime Minister will promote the current immigration minister too?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is quite the indictment when the Liberals do not even let the immigration minister answer a question about immigration. In a CBC interview when he was the immigration minister— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Madam Speaker, in that case, the government found out that the person was a polygamist and lied about it, and it still let them stay here. We also this week heard the Liberals argue against my bill that would remove the ability of activists, judges and lawyers to give leniency to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault. For a non-citizen, being able to stay in Canada should be considered a privilege, not a right. Non-citizens convicted of sexual assault or those who are caught lying about polygamy should not be rewarded with the ability to stay in Canada; they should be removed. It is a no-brainer.”
“Madam Speaker, people with no legal right to be in Canada should not have access to federal health benefits. The Liberals have given yet another chance to stay in Canada to a Dutch Somali national who gave multiple false names and birth dates to immigration officers and who also lied about being in a polygamous marriage. Lying to immigration officers should immediately invalidate somebody's ability to stay in Canada. The decision to let someone enter or stay in Canada should be made on truthful information; this is a no-brainer. Why are the Liberals rewarding non-citizen liars with the right to stay in Canada?”
“Madam Speaker, millions of Canadians do not have a family doctor, and Canada's emergency rooms are overflowing, but non-citizens who have had their asylum claims rejected are eligible for all sorts of federal health benefits that Canadians are not entitled to, such as mental health support and vision care. It is unfair to offer people with no legal reason to be in Canada better federal health benefits than what Canadians have access to. Why are the Liberals giving bogus asylum claimants, who have no legal reason to be in Canada, access to better health services than Canadians rather than simply deporting them?”
“Mr. Speaker, a senior Liberal debating my bill to stop leniency for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes said this: “If someone is going out there and raping another individual, do we really believe that they are going to get special treatment from a judge...?” Well, the very next day, there was a report of a non-citizen in Barrie being convicted of raping a 13-year-old little girl and impregnating her twice, and the rapist had been given an adjournment to see what impact his guilty plea would have on his immigration status. Will the Liberals admit that they were wrong?”
“They do not seek restitution for victims, and they make it unfair for every immigrant who comes here and plays by the rules, which is most immigrants. This is a no-brainer bill. Every week, there is one of these stories, and every week, if the government—”
“Mr. Speaker, this is why the bill is so important. In order to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship, we need to understand there are responsibilities associated with being in Canada, not just privileges and benefits. In order to have those privileges and benefits, there are responsibilities. The bare minimum, as outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already, is not to get convicted of a serious crime. IRPA says that if a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime, they should be deported. I am sorry, but the will of Parliament needs to be supreme. I am actually not sorry, to be clear. Parliament needs to assert its will, rein in these activist judges and do what the federal government has not done. It has let them run amok for a decade and let them undermine the value of Canadian citizenship.”
“Maybe that is what the Liberals want. After a decade of postnationalism, saying there is no national identity and eroding the rule of law, this where we are at. They need to support this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will speak to two provisions briefly. The Criminal Code already states that sentencing needs to consider the impact on a victim. My colleague is absolutely right. However, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also clearly states that a non-citizen who has been convicted of a serious crime should be deported. This is for any serious crime, because there is a victim in any crime but especially in serious ones. What has happened through the Pham decision is that activist judges have perverted the original ruling, subverted the rule of Parliament, proliferated a set of leniencies for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault, and undermined public confidence in both the justice system and the immigration system. This is no way to uphold a pluralism. In fact, that is how a pluralism falls apart.”
“Mr. Speaker, I outlined in my speech why my bill upholds the principle of judicial independence. It also outlines how the Pham decision intended for the courts not to do exactly what they are doing right now, which is to subvert the will of Parliament. It has already been exerted in IRPA, which clearly states that a non-citizen convicted of a serious crime should be deported. My colleague is introducing a principle for crimes like fraud and drug trafficking, or other offences. If somebody reaches the threshold of serious criminality in IRPA, they should be deported. He laughed at this. For everybody watching at home, the Liberals laughed at the principle that underpins Canadian citizenship. To him, if someone commits a serious crime, they should stay here if they are a non-citizen. It is garbage.”
“It is well within Parliament's purview to reassert this general sentencing principle by further clarifying for judges that they should not take into account an offender's immigration status. In closing, I would like to thank Sean Phelan, an unsung hero in Canadian history. A lot of people will not know this name, but he has single-handedly worked to reform Canada's justice system over the last 10 years. I thank him for his help on this bill tonight.”
“Third, subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.1) lists the following as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing: evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation Many of the cases I highlighted tonight involve sexual assaults, which obviously have a significant impact on the victim and disproportionately impact women. Our bill seeks to re-establish this general sentencing principle, which has too often been ignored. Finally, paragraph 718.2(b) states: a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; Obviously, giving the offender a lighter sentence just because of their immigration status offends this principle.”
“I would argue that Canadians lose respect for the law when it is not applied equally, as it has not been done in the case of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault. Second, section 718.1 states: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. I would assert that at no point has Parliament intended to say that the “responsibility of the offender” is reduced because of their immigration status. To suggest otherwise is to remove agency from an individual just because they were born in a different country, and that is wrong.”
“Without legislative clarity on considering immigration status in sentencing, judges can apply aspects of the Pham ruling to undermine that principle for non-citizens, effectively end-running the deportation consequences already enacted by Parliament that exist in IRPA. To those who would say this bill offends the principle of judicial independence, I want to make it clear that it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to offer guidelines to the courts on sentencing. Section 718 already does this in countless ways, but I will highlight four examples. First, the very beginning of section 718 in the Criminal Code states in part that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is “respect for the law”.”