Lena Metlege Diab

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“Non-citizens who commit serious crimes cannot enter or stay in Canada. Our government introduced crime laws, but the opposition blocked them. We are also spending money to hire more border officers and police to protect Canadians.”

“Mr. Chair, non-citizens convicted of a serious crime are inadmissible, whether the crime happened in Canada or outside Canada. That means they are not allowed to enter Canada or stay in Canada if they are already here. We brought in many pieces of criminal legislation in this House, under this government, under our mandate so far, that the opposition has obstructed in each and every way. We have also invested in CBSA officers and RCMP officers. We are hiring many to protect Canadians.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“Our government has introduced many crime bills to protect Canadians. The opposition has blocked every single one of them.”

“Mr. Chair, for the benefit of the people listening, this government has brought in many pieces of legislation to protect Canadians, many pieces of crime legislation, and the opposition has been obstructing and has obstructed each and every one of them.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“We need to focus on immigration tonight. Border services made 23,000 people leave Canada last year.”

“Mr. Chair, again, let us bring it back to immigration and why we are here tonight. CBSA removed, as the public safety minister said today, 23,000 people last year.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“People who commit serious crimes should face serious consequences. Judges follow the law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court says the public's safety comes first.”

“Mr. Chair, again, as I said, serious criminals deserve serious consequences. Judges are applying the law within the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said public interest is the top priority. That is our—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“My job is to manage immigration. We have clear rules and are honest with Canadians. Anyone who commits a serious crime will be punished, investigated, and deported.”

“Mr. Chair, my role is to manage migration in Canada. We have clear rules. We are working. We have been transparent with Canadians. People who commit serious offences will be treated and should be treated seriously and sentenced. CBSA investigates and deports.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“The court said public safety comes first, and our government is following that rule. We hired more officers and will keep following our legal duties.”

“Mr. Chair, the court clearly and unequivocally stated that public safety is paramount, and that is exactly what this government is doing. We have hired officers. We are complying with our obligations, and we will continue to do that. There is nothing in our law that offers otherwise.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“I would work with the member if her proposed law followed the Constitution. It does not. The Supreme Court ruled more than ten years ago that it goes against the Constitution.”

“Mr. Chair, we would be glad to work with the member if the member would bring a law that is constitutional and within the law. That is not what the member did. Her law that she brought in was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada had ruled on that over a decade ago, that it is not within the Constitution.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“I am the immigration minister. The immigration law and rules do not allow what the member is talking about.”

“Mr. Chair, again, I am the immigration minister. I am looking at the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and regulations. There is nothing in that document and in those rules that permits what the member is alluding to.”

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“Immigration law does not give criminals shorter sentences. Border officers still investigate cases and deport people.”

“Mr. Chair, there is nothing in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that reduces sentencing or disallows people from receiving it. CBSA investigates those cases, and deportations are conducted.”

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“Criminals face consequences no matter their status, whether they are Canadian, temporary residents, or permanent residents.”

“Mr. Chair, criminals, regardless of their status, whether they are Canadian, temporary residents or permanent residents, face consequences.”

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“We are managing immigration to strengthen communities and protect our population. We are bringing in skilled tradespeople, helping rural areas, and bringing in more doctors and health workers quickly.”

“Mr. Chair, I will continue on the fact that we are strengthening our communities. We are protecting our population. We are managing immigration. We are bringing in talented tradespeople, strengthening rural communities, attracting health workers, fast-tracking physicians and—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 40 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Brad Redekopp

“I disagree with the member. Under my watch, asylum claims are down, and there are fewer temporary foreign workers and international students. We have improved our system to bring in the skilled workers we need.”

“Mr. Chair, I disagree with the member totally. If he really wants to look at my record, I am going to need a bit of time here, but asylum claims are down and temporary resident work permits and foreign students are down. Perhaps the member wants them at zero. I am not sure. Maybe he should be talking to his community. We have strengthened our program to attract the talent we need—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 35 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 analysis →

In response to a question from Brad Redekopp

“Serious crimes must have serious consequences. This should apply to everyone in Canada, no matter who they are or what their legal status is.”

“Mr. Chair, serious crimes deserve serious consequences. It does not matter who criminals are and what status they have in Canada.”

In response to a question from Brad Redekopp

“We cannot change that part of the law. It is not even in the act.”

“Mr. Chair, if I were not a lawyer who practised law for 22 years, I might fall into that trap. The point is, there is nothing to amend. It is not in the act.”

In response to a question from Brad Redekopp

“We do security checks before people come to Canada and at every step of their application.”

“Mr. Chair, there are security processes that take place prior to people’s coming into Canada, when they make application. There is ongoing security that happens at every stage of the process.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Brad Redekopp

“We work with the police and border officers to keep people safe. We are hiring 1,000 more staff to help them.”

“Mr. Chair, we work with partners in public safety, the RCMP and the CBSA. We have reinforced them. We are hiring 1,000 additional staff. We brought in various measures. I think Canadians in the community can feel safe.”

In response to a question from Brad Redekopp

“There are consequences for people who do not leave the country. Border officers have deported 23,000 people.”

“Mr. Chair, as I said, there are consequences for people who do not leave, and CBSA, as the Minister of Public Safety said today, has deported 23,000 people.”

In response to a question from Brad Redekopp

“If someone lies on their application, we have a process for that, and they can be deported.”

“Mr. Chair, if there has been misrepresentation, then there is a process and deportation is possible.”

In response to a question from Brad Redekopp

“Here are the facts. Officials reviewed 17,800 immigration applications to see if people should be kept out of Canada. They cancelled 239 visas, and border agents are currently investigating 176 cases.”

“Mr. Chair, I will quote the numbers again. Members like numbers. There have been 17,800 applications reviewed for potential inadmissibility and 239 visas cancelled by IRCC, and there are 176 investigations ongoing with the CBSA.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →