Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

During question period on immigration, Michelle Rempel Garner of the Conservatives said non-citizens who commit serious crimes are receiving light sentences that let them avoid deportation, criticized the immigration minister for voting against a Conservative proposal to close this loophole, and asked her to fix the law so such offenders can be deported. Minister Lena Metlege Diab replied that everyone who commits a crime is dealt with under the full extent of the law regardless of immigration status, that immigration law does not allow shorter sentences, and noted over 22,000 people have been removed. Sean Fraser of the Liberals added that serious crimes should bring serious penalties and that temporary residents who commit them can be found inadmissible and deported, while judges should retain discretion over sentences; he asked all members to support the government’s proposed legislation to impose harsher penalties on violent repeat offenders.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

3 statements

Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill

Conservative
“We wanted a law to stop criminals who are not citizens from getting light sentences just to avoid deportation. The immigration minister voted against it. Why was an attacker given a light sentence to keep them in Canada?”
Official Hansard

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. Can the Minister of Immigration tell the victim of an assault why the non-citizen who assaulted them and then broke their no-contact order was given a lenient sentence so they would not be deported?

Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill

Conservative
“People convicted of serious crimes are avoiding deportation through light sentences. The minister voted against closing this loophole. I want her to fix this law now so these criminals can be deported.”
Official Hansard

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. Section 34 of a law that she maintains, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, requires them to be deported, yet she voted against a law that would close a loophole that prevents people who have been convicted of serious crimes from being deported. Why will she not stand up for people? Why will she not maintain an orderly system? She should be closing this loophole now.

Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill

Conservative
“Non-citizens who commit serious crimes are getting light sentences so they will not be deported. The Liberals are allowing this, and it is hurting public support for immigration. I want the minister to say if she will close this loophole and deport these criminals.”
Official Hansard

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. It is what is breaking the consensus on immigration in Canada, yet the Liberals stand up and say nothing is wrong. This is the immigration minister’s fault. I am going to give the minister one more time to answer, possibly the last time before a shuffle. Will her legacy in this role be closing this loophole, bringing these non-citizens to justice and deporting them?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 139

  1. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 53 statements
  2. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 14 statements
  3. Government Orders Arab Heritage Month Act 3 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 13 statements
  5. Oral Questions Government Priorities 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Government Priorities 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Housing 11 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  11. Government Orders Government Orders 3 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 5 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  14. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions Gender-Based Violence 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  17. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  19. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  20. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  22. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  23. Oral Questions Prime Minister of Canada 2 statements
  24. Oral Questions Official Languages 2 statements
  25. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements