This was a Committee of the Whole examination of the immigration minister’s spending plans, where Conservative members used their questions to press the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on asylum numbers, border screening, visa decisions, fraudulent immigration consultants, temporary foreign workers, and the removal of people with no legal status. The minister pointed to falling asylum claim numbers, cooperation with provinces to relocate refugees, enforcement actions including the removal of 23,000 people last year, and Bill C-12 as a measure to further reduce asylum claims. Liberal members also used some questions to highlight immigration’s economic benefits and summer jobs for youth.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
171 statements
“If safety is so important, why is this person still allowed to stay in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, if public safety is so incredibly important, why does he remain in Canada?”
Mr. Chair, if public safety is so incredibly important, why does he remain in Canada?
“The minister will not talk about this woman's case. What message does it send to women when the minister does not protect them in her own system?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be sure to tell her that you cannot speak on her specific case as the Minister of Immigration for Canada. What message is the minister sending to this woman and other women like her when she does not protect them within her own system?”
Mr. Chair, I will be sure to tell her that you cannot speak on her specific case as the Minister of Immigration for Canada. What message is the minister sending to this woman and other women like her when she does not protect them within her own system?
“If the government takes these cases seriously, why is this man still free in Canada without a valid permit to scare this woman? Why is he still in the country?”
“Mr. Chair, if these cases are treated seriously, why does he remain free, without a valid permit, to terrorize her in Canada? Why is he in Canada?”
Mr. Chair, if these cases are treated seriously, why does he remain free, without a valid permit, to terrorize her in Canada? Why is he in Canada?
“A woman in my riding had to flee to a shelter with her child while the man who abused her works here illegally without consequence. Does the minister think that is acceptable?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be sure to take those stats to the woman in my riding. She now lives in a domestic violence shelter with her child, while he remains working here illegally and free without consequence. Is that acceptable to her as a parliamentarian, as a mother, as a woman?”
Mr. Chair, I will be sure to take those stats to the woman in my riding. She now lives in a domestic violence shelter with her child, while he remains working here illegally and free without consequence. Is that acceptable to her as a parliamentarian, as a mother, as a woman?
“I want to know if the minister will do anything to deport criminals who are in Canada illegally.”
“Mr. Chair, I have not heard yet that she will do anything about this. Will she do anything to remove criminals who are here illegally in Canada?”
Mr. Chair, I have not heard yet that she will do anything about this. Will she do anything to remove criminals who are here illegally in Canada?
“Will the minister take action and deport violent criminals from Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, one thing women learn from abusive relationships is that words mean nothing and actions mean everything. Will she take action and remove violent criminals from Canada?”
Mr. Chair, one thing women learn from abusive relationships is that words mean nothing and actions mean everything. Will she take action and remove violent criminals from Canada?
“A woman was strangled by her partner, who is not a Canadian citizen. He is still in Canada, and she is in a women's shelter because the government does not enforce the law. I want the minister to work with the justice minister to close loopholes so judges cannot stop violent non-citizens from being deported.”
“Mr. Chair, inaction speaks louder than words. What my colleague just talked about is a constituent who was strangled by her non-citizen partner and yet he remains in Canada. I believe he is trying to apply for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and she is living in a women’s shelter. It is because the government has done nothing to enforce the law. Will the minister commit to talking to the justice minister and telling him to close the loophole that allows judges to give sweetheart sentences to allow disgusting, non-citizen criminals like the person my colleague referenced to be deported from Canada?”
Mr. Chair, inaction speaks louder than words. What my colleague just talked about is a constituent who was strangled by her non-citizen partner and yet he remains in Canada. I believe he is trying to apply for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and she is living in a women’s shelter. It is because the government has done nothing to enforce the law. Will the minister commit to talking to the justice minister and telling him to close the loophole that allows judges to give sweetheart sentences to allow disgusting, non-citizen criminals like the person my colleague referenced to be deported from Canada?
“The minister let a legal loophole stay open, and now abusers are allowed to stay in Canada. I want to know why she will not push to deport them.”
“Mr. Chair, does the minister realize how inane and uncompassionate she sounds? She says, “Oh, there is nothing in the law that says this.” It says it in the law. My bill would have closed this loophole, and she could have gone to the justice minister and told him to close this loophole. She sat back and said that it was fine. No, the result is what my colleague just said: people being strangled and their abusers staying in Canada. Why will she not advocate to deport them?”
Mr. Chair, does the minister realize how inane and uncompassionate she sounds? She says, “Oh, there is nothing in the law that says this.” It says it in the law. My bill would have closed this loophole, and she could have gone to the justice minister and told him to close this loophole. She sat back and said that it was fine. No, the result is what my colleague just said: people being strangled and their abusers staying in Canada. Why will she not advocate to deport them?
“Judges are giving light sentences so non-citizens who commit crimes can avoid deportation. People who come to our country must follow our laws. I want the minister to ask the justice minister to close this loophole.”
“Mr. Chair, that is just not the case. Every day there is a new headline. For example, this one: “Judge gives lenient sentence so trucker can dodge deportation after fatal Ontario crash”. That is not a consequence. They get to stay in our country. Guests in our country have to abide by the rule of law. The rule of law is part of our national identity. Can she just say that she will go to the justice minister and say that they are getting roasted on this, and rightly so, and that they need to close this loophole?”
Mr. Chair, that is just not the case. Every day there is a new headline. For example, this one: “Judge gives lenient sentence so trucker can dodge deportation after fatal Ontario crash”. That is not a consequence. They get to stay in our country. Guests in our country have to abide by the rule of law. The rule of law is part of our national identity. Can she just say that she will go to the justice minister and say that they are getting roasted on this, and rightly so, and that they need to close this loophole?
“The Liberals let serious criminals stay in Canada because they will not close a legal loophole. I want the government to close it.”
“Mr. Chair, that translates to blah, blah, blah, another rapist stays in Canada, blah, blah, blah, another thief stays in Canada, blah, blah, blah, another extortionist stays in Canada. This is integral to Canadian national identity. They have to respect the rule of law. What the Liberals are saying is that if they commit a serious crime, as guests in our country, they can stay here because the Liberals refuse to close this loophole that is being exploited by a woke judiciary. Will they do the right thing and finally close it?”
Mr. Chair, that translates to blah, blah, blah, another rapist stays in Canada, blah, blah, blah, another thief stays in Canada, blah, blah, blah, another extortionist stays in Canada. This is integral to Canadian national identity. They have to respect the rule of law. What the Liberals are saying is that if they commit a serious crime, as guests in our country, they can stay here because the Liberals refuse to close this loophole that is being exploited by a woke judiciary. Will they do the right thing and finally close it?
“The government's justice bill removes mandatory minimum sentences. This will make it easier for judges to give light sentences to non-citizens who commit serious crimes, which lets them stay in Canada. Will the minister ask the justice minister to change this bill so these criminals are deported?”
“Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister talked about another justice bill. Bill C-16 renders all mandatory minimum penalties meaningless, which means that this problem of giving sweetheart sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes would only get worse. Will the minister go to the justice minister and recommend an amendment to Bill C-16 that would not juice this problem of judges giving lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, like the strangler my colleague just talked about, to ensure that they do not have the privilege of staying in our country and are deported like they should be?”
Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister talked about another justice bill. Bill C-16 renders all mandatory minimum penalties meaningless, which means that this problem of giving sweetheart sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes would only get worse. Will the minister go to the justice minister and recommend an amendment to Bill C-16 that would not juice this problem of judges giving lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, like the strangler my colleague just talked about, to ensure that they do not have the privilege of staying in our country and are deported like they should be?
“Youth unemployment in Canada is almost 15%. I want to know if the minister thinks this is a crisis.”
“Mr. Chair, I am going to split my time. I want to thank the minister for being here tonight. I want to thank the officials for joining in. I want to go back to something that the minister spoke about. The youth unemployment rate in this country stands at almost 15% right now. Does she believe it is a crisis?”
Question or comment in debate
Signal 33 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Chair, I am going to split my time. I want to thank the minister for being here tonight. I want to thank the officials for joining in. I want to go back to something that the minister spoke about. The youth unemployment rate in this country stands at almost 15% right now. Does she believe it is a crisis?
“Many young Canadians cannot find jobs. The government should not approve visas for low-wage temporary foreign workers when youth unemployment is so high.”
“Mr. Chair, there are thousands and thousands of youth who cannot find jobs, that is for sure, but should we be approving visas for low-wage temporary foreign workers at a time when youth unemployment is at a recession-level high, no matter what program she talks about?”
Mr. Chair, there are thousands and thousands of youth who cannot find jobs, that is for sure, but should we be approving visas for low-wage temporary foreign workers at a time when youth unemployment is at a recession-level high, no matter what program she talks about?
“The minister said fewer temporary foreign workers are coming to Canada, but the numbers went up this year. I want to know why.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister said earlier in her exchange that the temporary foreign worker program was down from 2024 to 2026, but I want to bring to the attention of the House that the minister activated 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, compared to 24,000 in the same period last year. Why?”
Mr. Chair, the minister said earlier in her exchange that the temporary foreign worker program was down from 2024 to 2026, but I want to bring to the attention of the House that the minister activated 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, compared to 24,000 in the same period last year. Why?
“Canada gave out more temporary foreign worker permits early this year than it did at the same time last year. Why is the minister increasing this program?”
“Mr. Chair, let us compare 2026 to 2025. There were 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, and there were 24,000 in the same period last year. Does she know that 33,000 is more than 24,000, and why on earth is she accelerating the TFW program?”
Mr. Chair, let us compare 2026 to 2025. There were 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, and there were 24,000 in the same period last year. Does she know that 33,000 is more than 24,000, and why on earth is she accelerating the TFW program?
“The minister is not answering my question. Temporary foreign worker permits went from 72,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2024, while youth unemployment is at 15%. The Prime Minister called this a failure. I want to know if the minister agrees with him.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister is failing to answer the question. She is failing to acknowledge that she has actually let in more temporary foreign workers. The TFW permits have gone from 72,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2024. That is a 163% increase, all while youth unemployment is at 15%. The Prime Minister himself called this a failure of execution. Does she agree with that statement, at least?”
Mr. Chair, the minister is failing to answer the question. She is failing to acknowledge that she has actually let in more temporary foreign workers. The TFW permits have gone from 72,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2024. That is a 163% increase, all while youth unemployment is at 15%. The Prime Minister himself called this a failure of execution. Does she agree with that statement, at least?
“The government investigates only 2,000 fraud cases a year, but there are 153,000 cases to check. It will take 76 years to finish them all. I want the minister to tell us if she thinks that is acceptable.”
“Mr. Chair, temporary foreign workers are up. Let the record show it. The minister cannot mislead the House by saying otherwise. However, let us talk about study permits for a second. The minister’s department can investigate 2,000 fraud cases a year. The Auditor General flagged that there are 153,000 cases. At that pace, it is going to take 76 years. That is probably longer than I am going to be here and probably longer than she is going to be here. Is that acceptable to her?”
Question or comment in debate
Signal 43 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Chair, temporary foreign workers are up. Let the record show it. The minister cannot mislead the House by saying otherwise. However, let us talk about study permits for a second. The minister’s department can investigate 2,000 fraud cases a year. The Auditor General flagged that there are 153,000 cases. At that pace, it is going to take 76 years. That is probably longer than I am going to be here and probably longer than she is going to be here. Is that acceptable to her?
“The minister's department found 800 cases of fraud among people claiming asylum at taxpayers' expense. I want to know why so few people have been charged.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister cannot cast aspersions on any members of the House and what they want. I am talking about the fraud in her department. Of those flagged applicants, 21,000 filed asylum claims at the taxpayer’s expense. The minister’s department confirmed 800 fraud cases. Why are there so few prosecutions?”
Mr. Chair, the minister cannot cast aspersions on any members of the House and what they want. I am talking about the fraud in her department. Of those flagged applicants, 21,000 filed asylum claims at the taxpayer’s expense. The minister’s department confirmed 800 fraud cases. Why are there so few prosecutions?
“In 2018, the government stopped requiring companies to talk to unions before hiring foreign workers. That rule protected Canadian skilled workers from losing jobs. I want the minister to tell us if she thinks that was a good choice or if she regrets it.”
“Mr. Chair, in 2018, the Liberal government removed mandatory union consultations from the LMIA process. It was a safeguard to prevent skilled trades workers from being unemployed. Does the minister think that was a good thing to do, or does she regret that decision?”
Mr. Chair, in 2018, the Liberal government removed mandatory union consultations from the LMIA process. It was a safeguard to prevent skilled trades workers from being unemployed. Does the minister think that was a good thing to do, or does she regret that decision?
“The minister clearly does not think removing the safeguard was a mistake, because she would not say so. How many skilled trades workers in Canada were without a job in 2025?”
“Mr. Chair, I can only take that as a “no”, she does not think removing the safeguard was a mistake, because she did not say it was a mistake. How many skilled trades workers were unemployed in Canada in 2025?”
Mr. Chair, I can only take that as a “no”, she does not think removing the safeguard was a mistake, because she did not say it was a mistake. How many skilled trades workers were unemployed in Canada in 2025?
