Michelle Rempel Garner

“We need a new law to deport non-citizens who commit serious crimes. The minister voted against one. In Calgary, a non-citizen sexually assaulted a teenager and got an easy sentence so he could stay in Canada. I want the minister to explain why he is still here.”

“Exactly, Mr. Chair, we need a new law, but the minister voted against the law that would have prevented this. People who are sitting at home and who are listening to example after example of the lived experiences of non-citizens getting sweetheart deals and being able to stay in this country after serious crimes are listening to her drivel and wondering how Canada got this way. A non-citizen sexually assaulted an 18-year-old girl in a nightclub in Calgary and then was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister try again? What is she going to tell the victim of this criminal? Why is he still in Canada?”

“My bill was constitutional, and the minister voted against it. A non-citizen committed a sexual crime and got an easy sentence to avoid deportation. Why is he still in Canada?”

“Mr. Chair, as a lawyer, she should know that what the court ruling actually said was that there was nothing in the charter that gave people these rights, and my bill was constitutional, so shame on her. She voted against it. A non-citizen spied on his roommates while they used the bathroom. The minister is sitting here arguing that it is okay for this person to be in Canada, yet he was given a lenient sentence so that he would avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victims of this disgusting rapist why he is still in Canada?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 94 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “shame on her”.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives tried to pass a bill to fix a loophole, but the minister voted against it. Now, a non-citizen convicted of a major crime got house arrest instead of being deported. Why is she allowed to stay in Canada?”

“Mr. Chair, there is nothing to prevent it, either, and that is why the Conservatives brought in a bill to close this loophole. The minister could have told the justice minister to support it, but in fact she voted against it. This is her fault. A non-citizen was convicted of major theft, a crime that carries a punishment of 10 years. Instead of being deported, she received house arrest to avoid deportation. Why should she be allowed to stay in Canada?”

“A non-citizen was caught trafficking cocaine and got a light sentence so he would not be deported. Why is he still in Canada?”

“Mr. Chair, this non-citizen did not face serious consequences. He was caught trafficking cocaine and was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell Canadians, in spite of all her claims, why he is still in Canada?”

“A non-citizen was convicted of assault and got a light sentence so he would not be deported. I want the minister to explain to the victim why this person is still in Canada.”

“Mr. Chair, the minister claims that, yet it is still happening over and over again. A non-citizen was found guilty of assault then broke his no-contact order, yet he was still given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell his victim why he is still in Canada?”

“A non-citizen truck driver got a light sentence after causing a fatal crash so they would not be deported. I want the minister to explain to the victim's family why this person is still in Canada.”

“Mr. Chair, they do not. A non-citizen trucker received a lenient sentence specifically so they could dodge deportation after they caused a fatal crash in Ontario. Can the minister tell the family of the victim why this person is still in Canada?”

“A judge gave a light sentence to a non-citizen who beat his girlfriend so that he would not be deported. I want the minister to explain to the victim why this person is still in Canada.”

“Mr. Chair, a non-citizen in Kitchener battered his girlfriend, then a judge gave him a lenient sentence so he would not be deported. Can the minister tell the victim why this person is still in Canada?”

“The law says non-citizens who commit serious crimes must be deported, but the minister has not closed a loophole that lets them stay. A temporary foreign worker assaulted and robbed a woman, but got a lighter sentence just to avoid deportation. I want the minister to explain to the victim why this person is still in Canada.”

“Mr. Chair, the law requires that non-citizens convicted of a serious crime be deported, yet the minister refuses to close a loophole that keeps them here. A temporary foreign worker assaulted a woman then robbed her, yet he was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victim why this person is still in Canada?”

“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?”

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“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?”

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“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?”

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“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?”

“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?”

“The minister's immigration policy is straining provincial social services. Will she support giving provinces more control over immigration if they ask for it?”

“Mr. Chair, the provinces’ social services are being strained by the minister’s policy. She is issuing 215,000 new foreign worker permits this year. The asylum system is still out of control. If a province asks clearly for more control over immigration, would the minister commit to advocating for that?”

“Does the minister realize that failing to answer will upset a province at a critical time?”

“Mr. Chair, does the minister realize that her non-answer, putting it mildly, would be an irritant at a critical time for a certain province?”

“I want to know if the minister will give all provinces the same power over immigration if they ask for it, instead of just giving that power to one province.”

“Mr. Chair, the question, specifically, was this: If a province wants more autonomy over immigration, would the minister be open to granting it? I will ask the minister this: Does she support the principle that the federal government should grant equal autonomy over immigration powers to all provinces that request it, rather than giving it to one province while denying the same power to others?”

“The government brought in too many low-skilled immigrants too fast, which has strained housing, schools, and health care. Does the minister support letting provinces have more control over immigration so they can lower the numbers and put their own residents first for jobs?”

“Mr. Chair, the Liberals’ policy of bringing in too many low-skilled non-citizens too fast meant that public services that provinces maintain, such as social welfare, subsidized housing, health care and primary education, have become strained. Does the minister support giving the provinces that want it greater control over immigration for the purpose of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving their own residents first priority for new job opportunities?”

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“Young Canadians cannot find jobs. Yet the minister is approving 250,000 new work permits for foreign workers and international students. How many of them will work at Tim Hortons?”

“Mr. Chair, I will take that as her saying she will not cancel the permits and that Tim Hortons will continue to get TFW permits. It also claims that it is committed to hiring locally, but then admitted it could include non-citizens on foreign student visas. The minister is approving 250,000 new TFW and foreign student work permits this year during the middle of a youth jobs crisis. How many of those workers will be employed by Tim Hortons?”

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“Tim Hortons said it does not need the temporary foreign worker program anymore, but it is still advertising over 80 of those jobs. Will the minister cancel those permits and stop issuing new ones?”

“Mr. Chair, after years of rampant misuse of the temporary foreign worker program, a national headline read, “Tim Hortons says Temporary Foreign Worker program ‘no longer necessary’”. However, it currently has more than 80 TFW positions advertised on the Government of Canada website. Will the minister cancel these permits and not issue any more?”