Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, last year we lost 5,630 Canadians to the opioid crisis. That is 15 lives lost every day. Emmy Liu, 14 years old, was one of the increasingly alarming number of young Canadians whose lives were stolen by the fentanyl traffickers. These criminals who profit from producing and trafficking opioids should face serious consequences. That is why Conservatives introduced Bill C-289 to strengthen penalties for these criminals. Emmy's legacy could be more than a tragedy. After the decade of Liberal rule that ushered in the opioid crisis, will the Liberals stop grandstanding and deliver results by supporting this bill?

Madam Speaker, the bill would basically strip away the right of a person to quote from their holy text. It would open the door to criminalizing people for uttering words that they are reading from their holy text. I wonder if the member can share with us why the Liberal government did not consult with faith communities across the country to see what the impact would be of taking away these statutory rules that have been in place for so long now, that protect people and allow people to have freedom of speech and freedom of faith. There is a difference between state and faith. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to criminalize anyone who dares to quote from scripture, a religious text, and that is crossing the line, as far as I am concerned and as far as a lot of Canadians are concerned. It is the difference between the state and religion, the state and faith. The more concerning thing is that when we bring these issues to committee, as we have in all other committees, the Liberal members have been tone-deaf. They have basically shot down every single amendment brought forth by members of the opposition. Can the member tell me how she feels about her participation when she voices an opinion of her constituents and recommends very reasonable amendments that get shot down time after time by this manufactured majority government on the other side?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's luxurious travel around the world has racked up a nearly $1-million catering bill. That is enough to feed a family for 55 years. While the Prime Minister eats five-star meals, Canadians are struggling. A record 2.2 million Canadians use a food bank every single day, and today, 24,000 children will walk through the doors of a food bank hoping to find something to eat. Canadian families are spending more than 120% of their income on food and rent. Canadians are right to ask why they are paying sky-high taxes to cover the Prime Minister's luxurious catering budget, while they cannot afford their own groceries. The Prime Minister and his policies are completely out of touch with the reality in our communities. The Conservatives want to lower food prices by taking the tax off gas and diesel for the rest of the year, to cut red tape and carbon taxes driving up the cost of everything, to end wasteful spending and to replace Liberal excess with results for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, record-high youth unemployment in Canada is a direct result of the Liberal government's reckless immigration policies. By flooding the labour market with temporary foreign workers and residents, the current government has created a wage-suppressing crisis. Instead of protecting opportunities for young Canadians, these policies have locked our youth out of the workforce, fuelling a devastating job crisis. Ethan Miranda is a bright young man who did everything he was supposed to do. He studied hard, earned excellent grades and was accepted in one of Canada's top universities in a highly competitive program. He graduated with honours and expected to find employment in his field. After 500 applications, he was forced to accept a job just barely above minimum wage. Now the Liberal government has launched an international campaign to recruit more foreign students to Canada who compete with Ethan and other young Canadians who are struggling to find work. The Liberal government should stop pandering to lobbyists and start putting Canadians first. Conservatives would replace the temporary foreign worker program with one that would prioritize Canadian youth and Canadian workers.

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the rhetoric in that speech and the pat on the back that the member is expecting, there is a disconnect between what he said and what we are seeing on the ground. As a matter of fact, in communities across the country today, Canadians are struggling to afford food to put on the table. Young people cannot find a job. Housing is completely out of reach for everyone. Does the member know that schools are not open at dinnertime? Food Banks Canada has reported that 2.2 million people are visiting food banks every month, one-third of whom are children. While the member wants a pat on the back, 24,000 children today are going to walk into a food bank, hoping to find something on the shelf to eat because they are hungry. What does he have to say to those hard-working Canadians, those families and those children who cannot afford to put food on the table today?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to talk about these fancy big things. It is a complete disconnect from the reality we see. Food banks have 2.2 million people visiting them every month. In Richmond Hill, a municipality that the hon. member and I have the huge honour of sharing the responsibility of representing in this House, the Richmond Hill Community Food Bank has record numbers of visitors. I wonder if the member can tell us what he is hearing in the community about the fact that Canada is not number one, not number two and not number three, but in fact the very last of all G7 countries in terms of food affordability.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the dubious record now of having the worst food affordability amongst all G7 countries. In our communities, we see young people struggling to find a job, and people who cannot afford to buy a home. We see a tremendous backlog in the health care system. We also see the Liberals stand up and tout their credentials on the economy. Does the member opposite think that it is good public policy to bring in an omnibus bill like this and not allow for enough debate to happen in the House?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal asylum system is a dumpster fire. The minister told Canadians the government stopped paying for asylum seekers' accommodations, but it is now simply bankrolling municipalities to do that for it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has found that nearly 74,000 failed asylum claimants are also still receiving luxury health benefits. After a year, the Prime Minister's immigration system looks like the anniversary edition of the last 10. Will the Prime Minister stand up, admit that his Justin Trudeau-inspired immigration policies have failed and finally end the luxury health benefits for failed asylum claimants?

Mr. Speaker, we just came back from two weeks in our constituencies, where we had the opportunity to meet with the people we represent. In my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, I heard story after story of families and small businesses that are struggling. I wonder if the member could share with us what she heard in her riding at the other end of the country. I represent a riding in Ontario; she represents one in British Columbia. I wonder if she would share with us the types of things she was hearing. Perhaps it was different than what I was hearing in my riding.

Mr. Speaker, the minister highlighted three areas that are very important to Canadian families, which are housing costs, food prices and gas prices. He has been sitting around the cabinet table since 2017. This is his ninth year. Here is where we are nine years later. Nine years later, we have the highest cost of housing in the country. We have high food prices. In all of the G7 countries, Canada has the worst food affordability. That is our record there. Of course, gas prices have become astronomical. Now, apart from presenting the spring economic update, the minister has an opportunity to support our very sensible common-sense motion to reduce all fuel taxes for the rest of this year. Will he stand up and show some true leadership that will bring real, meaningful—

Mr. Speaker, the member has been sitting here since 2015. He stands up in his speech touting the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau's record as if it were an accomplishment. Here is where we are today. We have the highest housing prices in the history of our country, Canada is the worst country in the G7 for food affordability and gas prices are astronomically high, but he has the audacity to stand there and talk about the accomplishments of his party over the last 11 years. Why will he not stand up, show some leadership and vote for our common-sense motion to take all gas taxes off for all Canadians for the entire year to give some real relief to Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian families?

Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich for the Liberal government to be talking down a very important motion like the one we are putting through today, which would, of course, eliminate all taxes on fuel and all taxes on gas for the entire year, especially given the fact that the government has created the highest housing costs in the history of the country. The government has the highest fuel and gas prices that we have ever seen in the country. The government has created the worst food affordability record of all the G7 countries. We have completed two weeks in our constituencies and met with residents in our ridings. I wonder if the member could share whether the residents in his riding are feeling the same thing that I have heard in my riding, which, of course, is an abysmal thing that families are facing, that they cannot make ends meet. I wonder if he is hearing the same thing, or if it is somewhat different in that part of the country.

Mr. Speaker, any time we make a very thorough and good explanation and ask questions of the government, we hear the Liberals get up and go back to 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and refer to other places, other governments and other prime ministers. Does the member think that is an effective or responsible way for our government to respond to members of the opposition, when we have a right in the House to question, to make suggestions and to make legislation better?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration bungled a simple decision to stop a known IRGC terrorist from entering our country, and Canadians still do not have clear evidence that the terrorist was stopped and turned back. There are reports, in fact, that say he just turned himself around and left the country. The Liberals are keeping the minister from answering questions, because they are concerned about what she will say next. Everyone is wondering why the Prime Minister is protecting the minister and not letting her answer questions. Can he tell Canadians, please, why she still has a job?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak about the spring economic update. Before I begin that, I want to reiterate what a privilege and an honour it is to represent the wonderful people of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, a very vibrant, diverse and dynamic community in the heart of the GTA. Today, we are debating the spring economic update. I want to give a little context as to where we are. The Liberal government was re-elected on April 28 of last year. We were waiting with bated breath to see the first budget come out. We thought it would come out in May or June at the latest. Given that the fiscal year started on April 1, we thought that it would be prudent to at least present the budget a couple of months in, given that the election delayed that a bit, but no, the Liberal government decided that it would be best to present the budget to the House of Commons, to Parliament, a good seven months after the fiscal year had begun. In essence, seven months after it had spent seven-twelfths of the money in the budget that it was to present, which of course makes no sense at all and certainly does not make any sense to Canadians who know that one cannot spend money before one earns it or has the right to spend it. Nonetheless, the Liberals presented their budget with much fanfare, an omnibus project in a book that was some-464 pages, I believe, which showed that they were continuing more of the same kind of leadership they had learned over the years from the prime ministership of Justin Trudeau. Of course, we know that there is not much change on the other side, because most of the ministers were Trudeau ministers. We were not expecting much change, but we thought that with a new Prime Minister touting a résumé of economic and banking credentials, we would see something somewhat different. Unfortunately, what we saw was more of the same deficits year after year, giving very little hope to Canadians that the Canadian economy would turn around anytime soon. Nonetheless, the budget was presented in the House and debated. We went back and forth, and then we waited with much anticipation for this new document that the finance minister presented in the House on Tuesday of this week, which he titled “Canada Strong For All: Spring Economic Update 2026”. I thought, “Maybe there is something in this. Maybe they needed more time to get it right and get it together.” Then I was further encouraged, as were Canadians, because the day before this was presented, the Prime Minister went to the media and said that we were going to have “good news” from the finance minister. The day when the economic update was presented at four o'clock in the afternoon, literally 90 minutes before this document was presented in the House, every single Liberal minister or secretary of state responding to questions in question period made sure that they got the following words in: that within the next hour and a half, we would hear “good news” from the finance minister. I thought, “There has to be something good here.” I waited for him to get up, as did all of us in the House and many Canadians across the country who were hoping for some pocketbook relief for them, their families, communities and businesses from coast to coast to coast in this country. Then the finance minister started speaking and these books were distributed to all parliamentarians. We quickly looked through to get the summary. What did we see? We saw deficit after deficit, year after year. In fact, the previous prime minister, who the current Prime Minister considers a mentor, only had a $31-billion deficit projected for this year. This document came out, and the finance minister announced with much fanfare that it was good news for Canada that we were going to lose $67 billion. The only person who uttered that was him. Then, of course, there was resounding applause from the Liberals, very happy and thrilled that Canadians and the Government of Canada were going to lose another $67 billion. I scanned through the book to see what their projections were. I thought maybe, just maybe, it was just this year, but no. Over the next five years, they are projecting loss after loss, indebting Canadians an additional $363 billion. There is no hope for turning the economy around, no hope for making life more affordable for Canadians. In fact, we then see they are borrowing all this money. They cannot print the money; they are borrowing it from banks and financial institutions. One would assume they are borrowing from Canadian banks, American banks, Asian banks and European banks. They are borrowing the money wherever they can. What does that mean? That means we have to pay interest on that, like every Canadian has to on their mortgage, their car or any loan they have. Canadians pay interest for this. Interest payments are projected this year to be more than the amount of money we spend on health care. I think if we knock on the door of any Canadian family and ask them what is more important to them, paying interest or having better health care, we would get a 100% response that it should be health care. Instead, we see the opposite here. The Liberals keep borrowing, ballooning that interest line item in the budget to about $80 billion in five years. Here is what $80 billion a year can do for Canadians. With $80 billion, we can twin the TransCanada mountain pipeline. With $80 billion a year, we can build 47 hospitals the size of the very beautiful new Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital in the heart of Vaughan, in the York region where I live. With $80 billion, we can buy 800 F-35 fighter airplanes. Eighty billion dollars is more money than all the money transferred as part of the Canada health transfer. At that time, $80 billion will be about $30 billion more than we are putting into health care. We could cut the GST to zero if we had that $80 billion. Every Canadian would benefit, but no, we are putting it in interest. The economist, banking Prime Minister may have a good education from good academic institutions from around the world, but what he does not have is practical experience. The guidance he has given, which he learned from his predecessor and mentor Justin Trudeau, to the finance minister is to continue more of the same. Let us put Canada more and more in debt. In fact, they are trying these fun, fancy words now, such as the sovereign wealth fund, which of course we know is a debt fund. They could have a wealth fund, but they would have to have money for it. They do not have money when they are coming to Parliament and saying they are losing $67 billion this year. They certainly do not have money when they are saying they are going to be paying $80 billion in interest within five years, or that they are going to add more debt to the tune of $363 billion, so he comes up with this fancy thing. The other thing they are saying over there is that they spend less so they can invest more. How are they spending less? They are not spending less. They are spending more. In fact, the highest the Government of Canada has ever spent in the history of the country since Confederation is in this year's budget. Where they are spending, there is no transparency. We should not expect transparency from these Liberals. If we had transparency, we would know who had the green slush fund money. If we had transparency, we would not have the finance minister saying he is recusing himself from talking about Alto, the $90‑billion fiasco, because his wife is a senior vice-president in the firm. He said he was part of the decision, but now he is recusing himself because the world has found out that he has a vested interest in this from a family perspective. The bottom line is that Canadians are concerned about affordability, their grocery bill, their mortgage payment, their business and employment. The government is entirely tone-deaf to what Canada wants.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary would have some credibility if he had not been saying the exact words from his seat in the House of Commons for the last 11 years. Liberals have had 11 years to get this right. For 11 years, he defended Justin Trudeau and now he is defending the current Prime Minister. For 11 years, we saw deficit after deficit. For 11 years, they have not delivered for Canadians. He is right about one thing, and that is that we say to get out of the way. We actually mean that they should get out of the way. They should listen to what we are saying and let the Conservatives run this country. Then we would see a big difference, because Canadians would be the beneficiaries of that, not their elite friends.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, because we are talking about the future generation, our youth in this country. When we look at the budget, we are planning for the future and the youth are the future leaders of this country. Unfortunately, hope has been taken away from them. They cannot find jobs or buy a house. When they get married and start their families, they cannot live in the community in which they grew up because things are so expensive. When I said “tone-deaf”, I mean that. I wish the parliamentary secretary, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government would knock on Canadians' doors and find out what these young people are feeling. They are feeling despair and that the future is not bright for them. They are looking for opportunities outside our country, which would be a travesty.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for acknowledging that I am brilliant in this debate. I appreciate him making that comment. The member refers to three by-elections in the country and is trying to correlate it somehow to what is happening in this debate here. We are debating the budget of the government and the indebtedness it is putting on Canadians. He wants to talk about politics and percentages in elections. I can say that if they keep this up, we will see what happens in the next election. We are here and not going anywhere. We are going to keep fighting for Canadians. Our job as members of the official opposition in this country is to hold the government to account. It is getting no free lunch. Canadians deserve better than what they are getting.

Madam Speaker, what we see, yet again, from the Liberal government and the Liberal minister is another power grab giving more autonomy to the minister to make decisions, which, of course, leads to less transparency, less accountability and less parliamentary oversight. Does the member opposite think it is a good thing to give more power to the ministers and to have less transparency, less parliamentary oversight and less debate for all parliamentarians?

Mr. Speaker, what we see here is yet another attempt by a Liberal minister, and the Liberal government, to consolidate power around the office of the minister in giving full discretion to the minister and overlooking the importance of parliamentary oversight, debate and listening to other opinions, which, of course, leads to questions of transparency. I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks it is a good idea to consolidate power in the hands of the minister and not allow parliamentarians to have a fulsome debate on an important issue like this.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just another tax-and-spend Liberal specializing in costly credit card budgeting. Canada now faces the worst grocery inflation, the worst household debt, the highest housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Canadians know they cannot borrow their way to prosperity. There is more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes and more of the same. Will this Liberal Prime Minister commit to capping the deficit at no more than the already reckless $31 billion left by his predecessor and mentor, Justin Trudeau?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General found massive security screening failures with people allowed into Canada by the Liberal government. Ahmed Eldidi entered Canada on a visitor visa. The Liberals let him in despite a 2015 ISIS propaganda video showing him participating in a brutal beheading-style attack. This guy is just one of many, as the same porous Liberal vetting process has allowed hundreds of IRGC agents into our communities. Will the Liberals support the Conservative request for the Auditor General to audit all immigration screening processes, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(b), I rise as a member of the official opposition supporting the dissenting opinion appended to the report. We found that the government failed to consult communities on whether they could sustainably handle the massive influx of international students. While institutions collected record profits, international students were left at food banks and suffering from the heightened local housing crisis their large numbers were causing. The lack of oversight from the government has recently come to light in the Auditor General's report, which found that the government investigated only 2.6% of the 153,000 suspected cases of international student fraud. For these reasons, our recommendations include, among others, one, that international study permit approval be tied directly to regional housing availability, health care capacity and employment; two, that there be stronger language proficiency requirements to ensure student success; and three, that financial liability for institutions should be established when students overstay or file asylum claims. I ask that the dissenting report opinion be appended to the committee report.

Madam Speaker, the member speaks as if this is something that should take five, six or 10 years to complete. He is talking about 2030-31, as if we are supposed to be looking forward to really accomplishing something five or six years from now. I do not know that he can look seniors in the face in his own riding and say that we are going to get it straight and that they should come back around in about five or six years, and then we will see if we can get the cheque they need every month sorted out for them. The member also speaks about, and this is interesting, the standing committees of Parliament. He does not currently sit on a standing committee of Parliament, so I give him a bit of leeway. If he did, he would know that for any suggestion of any opposition member, whether it is a member of the Bloc or the Conservative Party, any amendments we propose, the Liberals very cleverly vote against them. If they do not get their way in a standing committee, they just bring it to the House and get the NDP to vote for them and vote us down anyway. In terms of getting meaningful amendments across and actually listening to what other members of Parliament have to offer in order to make legislation better, the member and his party always vote against. My question to the member is simply this: Why is it taking so long to get this program? He says it is the biggest ever in the history of Canada. There are other countries around the world that are a lot bigger than Canada, and the member knows very well that it does not take them five, 10 or 15 years to get a program right.

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague hit the nail on the head with respect to how the government looks at Parliament and how it acts when it comes to having to do something as important as the system we are talking about today. My question for my hon. colleague is simply this: Why does she think the government would not say that it has made a mistake and that it did not do a good job? Being humble is a good attribute. Why do the Liberals not just say that they did not do a good job and they did not want to listen to us at the standing committee? Why do the Liberals not just ask us to help them get the job done right? There are seniors, people and families across the country who are so dependent on the system that they are unfortunately suffering as a consequence of the lack of action from the government.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the member's speech, right at the beginning, he said this is an important piece of legislation. I could not agree more. All legislation that comes before the House is important. This particular piece touches on immigration, the IRCC, the IRB and the CBSA. There are all of those issues. The member referred to 2014. He has conveniently and completely avoided saying the name Trudeau in this House. I do not think he has mentioned it once since the 45th Parliament started. We all know what has happened to the immigration system over the last 11 years. The Liberals have completely destroyed it. This is an important piece of legislation. I wonder why the minister is hiding behind the member and not standing in her place, if it is such an important piece of legislation to the department, to speak to it in the House and defend it. Instead, she has asked the parliamentary secretary to the House leader to speak to it.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's excellent speech highlights many issues and many problems we have seen and continue to see in our immigration system in Canada. In fact, as the House very well knows and Canadians know, for the past 11 years there has been a systematic decline in how we manage the immigration file. More importantly, perhaps, I want to thank the member for the tremendous work she has done in the House, in the Parliament and in previous Parliaments, focusing on these issues and bringing concrete solutions to the Liberal government, to hopefully get it to listen, which it has not done yet. Today, we have two former ministers of immigration and one current Minister of Immigration. They are not standing in their place to speak. Why is the Minister of Immigration, today, not standing to speak to what she deems to be an important piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct. It does not seem like the minister is willing to resolve any of the problems in immigration. In fact, we have terrorists being allowed into the country. Over 700 IRGC agents have been allowed into the country, and one has been deported. The government thinks it is a record to gloat about, but only one has been deported. The international student program was a complete fiasco from the get-go. We have seen nothing but a deterioration of our immigration system over the past 11 years. We are calling for the Prime Minister to fire not only the Minister of Immigration but also the two previous ministers who were very complicit in the problems we are having today. I wonder if the member can share his thoughts on whether he thinks incompetent people should be kept in their portfolios by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today in celebration of Greek Independence Day, a powerful symbol of bravery, courage, unity and the enduring human desire for freedom. On March 25, 1821, the people of Greece rose against centuries of Ottoman occupation, inspired by the Hellenic spirit, a deep love for their homeland and a belief in self-determination. Their struggle was not easy, but through resilience and sacrifice, they secured their independence and inspired movements of liberty around the world. Greek Independence Day is a celebration of history and a reminder of the values that define a nation: freedom, democracy, the rule of law and cultural pride. These ideals, born in ancient Greece, formed a foundation that continues to shape societies today. May their legacy continue to inspire generations to come. I wish all my friends in Canada, Greece and across the world a happy independence day. [Member spoke in Greek and provided the following translation:] Long live liberty. Long live Greece. [English] Long live Canada.

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of disastrous Liberal policies, the immigration crisis is worse now than ever before. The Auditor General's latest findings revealed widespread fraud and dangerous gaps in the Liberals' oversight of foreign student work permits. In spite of this, the Liberals are pushing ahead with hundreds of thousands of new foreign work permits with no plan to remove the millions of existing expired foreign visa holders who remain in Canada. The Liberal Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for promoting the ministers who created this chaos. Why are three of the most incompetent and destructive ministers in Canadian history still in his cabinet?

Mr. Speaker, successive Liberal immigration ministers have destroyed our once-respected immigration system. Yesterday, the Auditor General revealed that the Liberals only reviewed 2.6% of 153,000 suspected cases of foreign student work permit fraud. The Liberals have allowed hundreds of IRGC agents into the country. Yesterday, the immigration minister practised the art of deflection. It seems that when it comes to the safety of Canadians, the Liberal ministers play a game of “Who, me? Yes, you! Not me! Then who?” Why are some of the most incompetent and destructive ministers in Canadian history still in cabinet?

Mr. Speaker, Canada has lost over 100,000 jobs in the first two months of this year. Canada is the only shrinking economy, and it has the second highest unemployment, the highest household debt and the highest food inflation in the G7. The Liberal Prime Minister cannot just blame global factors when the other members of the G7 are dealing with the same issues. These are problems the Liberals have created and that this Liberal Prime Minister has worsened. He is running the biggest deficit and the highest spending this country has ever seen outside of COVID, and the results are disappearing jobs and a shrinking economy. He failed to unlock growth by killing anti-energy laws and red tape. He failed to approve a single new pipeline or major project, and he failed to secure a trade deal by his promised date, July 2025. The Liberals need to get out of the way so Canadians can get back to work. If this is the Prime Minister's version of economic success, Canadians truly cannot afford to see his version of failure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to what my colleague from Huron—Bruce said. He referred to the time when we had a Conservative government here, the Harper government. During that period of time, we signed 38 free trade agreements, alongside numerous foreign investment promotion and protection agreements. We know what that was worth and what the value was. My question for the member is simply this: Has he seen a number from the government, from the Prime Minister, for what the quantifiable number is or what the impact of these trade agreements he has embarked upon in relation to what the overall trade is with the United States?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak to Bill C-220, a bill that has been very thoughtfully presented to Parliament by my outstanding colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. She has done an exceptional job, not only with this bill but also in pointing out the numerous ways that the Liberal government has taken an immigration system that was once the envy of the world and made it the laughingstock of all people who want to take advantage of Canadian generosity. The bill is of great importance, not only to my constituents of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill but indeed to all Canadians. Ten years of disastrous Liberal immigration and soft-on-crime policies has given birth to a two-tiered justice system that prioritizes the comfort and feelings of offenders over the safety of our communities. Right now, due to hug-a-thug Liberal laws, judges can consider immigration status when deciding convicted criminals' sentences. Yes, that is right: If a Canadian and a non-Canadian commit a crime, the Canadian will go to prison, but the non-Canadian will get a bit of a break because they have an immigration status pending. I do not know how that makes sense. It makes absolutely no sense, as it did not make sense when the member for Davenport said that we would be taking these people away from their families. Here is a news flash for the member for Davenport and for all of the Liberals across the aisle: If someone is a criminal, they belong in jail and they are going to be away from their family anyway. Their family is not going to be in prison with the criminal. Judges are actively considering immigration status and are reducing sentences for serious criminals, specifically to keep them below the threshold that triggers automatic deportation. Here is another news flash for the Liberals: Canadians do not want non-citizen criminals in their communities. When we allow different sentencing standards based on immigration status, we send a message that the law is negotiable and that Canadian safety is secondary. Non-citizen criminals are celebrating this weakness. They are celebrating the Liberal laws that allow them to commit heinous crimes and receive reduced sentences to stay in the country where they can continue to terrorize our communities. The Liberals are creating a class of offenders who can commit crimes on Canadian soil without facing the price of losing the privilege to stay here. It is an insult to every law-abiding immigrant who followed the rules, and it undermines the very foundation of equality under the law. The consequences of this failure are written in the headlines of our local papers. Take the case of Medhani Yohans in Guelph. A non-citizen, high-risk sex offender and frequent flyer in our courts, Yohans was arrested again and again on February 3, 2025, just hours after being released. This is a man who has proven time and time again that he has no regard for Canadian life or law. Why is a non-citizen with a track record still here to victimize our community? This is bewildering, not only to me but also to Canadians across our country. Even more disturbing is a case from Bradford. A 47-year-old man raped a young girl, resulting in pregnancy. This level of depravity should meet the unyielding force of Canadian law. Instead, our system hit the pause button. The court granted this predator an adjournment, specifically to explore the effect his plea would have on his immigration status. That is mind-blowing. While the victim lived through an unimaginable nightmare, the judicial system allowed accommodation for the perpetrator so he could dodge deportation. There is also the case of Munir Ahmad Malhi, a former Pakistani cop linked to crimes against humanity. Despite his 37-year career with a force known for atrocities, a federal court judge recently gave him another shot at refugee status so he can stay here and terrorize Canadians. When crimes against humanity are met with a second chance to stay in Canada, our refugee system has lost its moral compass, as I believe the Liberals have. The Liberals' high tolerance for non-citizen criminals extends beyond the courtroom. They are more sympathetic to non-citizen criminals than to the victims who have been raped, murdered, extorted or assaulted. For years, Conservatives have sounded the alarm about the IRGC, a designated terrorist organization operating freely on Canadian soil. While the Liberals give speeches, the reality on the ground is a disgrace. The CBSA has identified at least 26 individuals currently in Canada who merit deportation due to their ties to this repressive regime. News outlets have reported there are more than 700 individuals in Canada with alleged links to the Iranian regime. Many have been accused of intimidation, surveillance and harassment of our own citizens right here in Canada, in our communities. How many have actually been removed? Here is a newsflash: It is just one. One person has been removed from Canada from all these characters who are here, perpetrating havoc in our communities. There has been just one single deportation, while dozens of regime agents continue to treat Canada as a safe haven, because the Liberal government has allowed that to happen. The media reports for the last two weeks have been chilling. We have seen reports of IRGC-linked sleeper cells and acts of intimidation against the Iranian diaspora in our communities. This is the safe Canada the Liberals have built, a country where foreign agents feel comfortable to intimidate people on our streets, because they know the government lacks the spine to kick them out. We are also seeing a surge in non-citizen criminals using the asylum system to avoid accountability. We see it in cases of extortion rings, where individuals, once caught, suddenly claim refugee status to freeze their removal. This is what the Liberal government has allowed. By filing last-minute, baseless claims, extortionists buy years of time in Canada in our backlogged asylum system. That is another Liberal immigration failure, where it is highly possible these non-citizen criminals receive better health care coverage than most Canadians receive at a time when many Canadians cannot find a family doctor. Here is the reality. Under the Liberals, non-citizen criminals get a pass and victims get punished. If the Liberals spent as much time figuring out how to protect people as they do twisting themselves in knots to be kind to thugs, murderers and rapists, Canada would be safer, and our immigration system would be more respected. Canadian citizenship is one of the most coveted prizes in the world. Canada offers safety, freedom and opportunity, and in exchange, the newcomer pledges to uphold our laws. When a non-citizen commits a serious crime, they have violated that agreement, and they should be thrown out of our country. It is not fair to Canadians to consider immigration consequences when sentencing convicted criminals. Actions have consequences. Non-citizens who rape, extort and murder should not be allowed to stay in our country, yet the current system is geared towards letting the criminals stay through endless appeals and lenient sentences. That is why this bill, put forward by my colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, would specify in the Criminal Code that sentences should not depend on the potential impact on the immigration status of a convicted non-citizen offender or that of their family members. It is so desperately needed. Conservatives will always fight to protect Canadians, the value of our citizenship and the safety of every person who lives here. Becoming a Canadian is a privilege, not a right. Right now, we are losing economically productive immigrant entrepreneurs, job creators and highly skilled workers. They are making productive contributions to the economy and want to stay in Canada to build a better life, but they look at Canada's skyrocketing cost of living and nightmare immigration system and are deciding to move to the United States or back home. We are witnessing a brain drain of the talent we need. The Liberals' immigration policy seems to be making a trade-off. While they cover for non-citizen criminals to stay in Canada, law-abiding job creators, skilled workers and those humbly looking for a better life, which the vast majority of immigrants are, get left out in the cold. The current trajectory of the government is a betrayal of the Canadian promise to immigrants. Anyone seeking residence or citizenship in Canada has responsibilities as well as rights. Liberals need to stop prioritizing the immigration consequences of criminals and start prioritizing the safety of Canadian families. The vast majority of Canada's immigrants and temporary residents abide by the law. Removing non-citizens convicted of a serious crime is a no-brainer. I will end with this. There are two directions Canada can go in: the Liberal direction, which is high chaos on everything related to immigration and crime in our country, or the Conservative approach, which is to value Canadian citizenship, have that restored, deport non-citizen serious criminals, reward honest immigrants and restore our immigration system back to a system that Canadians can be proud of again. That is why I wholeheartedly support and would urge every member in the House to support Bill C-220, put forward by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have successively failed to address the fact that we have terrorists on our streets, and there has been zero enforcement of the laws that are already in place. This is happening because the seven Liberal immigration ministers in the last 10 years have failed to protect our borders, and now hundreds of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps agents safely reside in Canada, many in my community in Richmond Hill. This is because Liberal public safety minister after Liberal public safety minister has failed to deport them. When will the Liberal government finally start to—

Madam Chair, I would like to begin by reminding members from the governing party what it is we are actually speaking about today. We are talking about the oppressive and brutal Iranian regime, the very regime that for 47 years has perpetrated atrocities on its own people and supported and wreaked havoc throughout the whole Middle East region and other places around the world. Let me bring up a couple of examples. Justice 88 is a group that commemorates, on an annual basis, what happened in 1988, when this very brutal Iranian regime decided to arbitrarily murder 30,000 people it claimed to be political prisoners in its prisons in one shot. Majid Reza Rahnavard was a very vibrant young man who dared to speak truth to power and wanted democracy in his own country. Not only did the Iranian regime murder him, but hanged him from a crane in Mashhad so that anybody driving by could see that, if they dared speak one word against the regime, they would hang there dead for their fellow citizens to see. Mahsa Amini was a 22-year-old young lady who was wearing a hijab, but it was not to the liking of a particular IRGC monster who wanted it lowered to her eyebrows. When she questioned why, she was brutally murdered. Many members stood up and made statements in the House about Mahsa Amini, I want to remind the hon. members in the House. Another atrocious monster programmed the machine, pushed the button and fired not one, but two missiles into a civilian plane, flight PS752, murdering 55 Canadians, 30 permanent Canadian residents and a total of 176 people, including children. This is who we are talking about when we are talking about de-escalation and diplomacy. We cannot have diplomacy with people who behave like this. These are not normal human beings. Here in Canada, Iranian communities are living in fear that someone is in our community who is going to squeal on them and something is going to happen to their families back home or they will live in danger in their own homes in the communities that we represent. I represent an area of the York region that is the heart of the Iranian Canadian community in Canada. Repeatedly, we have seen these things, yet we see a Prime Minister who has decided to be radio silent in Parliament on this issue. He has not stood in his place, he has not addressed Parliament and he has not voiced any opinion except when someone puts a microphone in his face wherever he is travelling around the world doing his own things. Four different times, he has changed his mind on how he sees the effort of the United States and Israel and the incursion into Iran. What they are doing is trying to help the Iranian people get their country back and to have their own voice. It is a very inconsistent and incoherent message coming from the Prime Minister of Canada. It is unfair to Iranians. It certainly is unfair to all Canadians, especially Canadians in a very vibrant, dynamic Iranian community. Flip-flopping on issues like this is not advisable at any time, but especially in this particular instance. Today, I gave notice of a motion at the citizenship and immigration committee that would, amongst other things, do a few things to address the abysmal record of the immigration file of the Liberal government's seven ministers in the last 10 years. In a nutshell, in the interest of time, I asked to expedite the deportation of non-citizens known to be IRGC operatives and to release the name of the individual reported on February 6, 2026, who asked and obtained the right for his name not to be revealed, who is known to be an IRGC operative. The names of all IRGC operatives and all people threatening people in our communities in Canada must be disclosed expeditiously so people in Canada can live safely. Iranian Canadians and Canadians across our nation deserve to live in safe communities. Canadians have a right to live in safety. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the government to ensure that we unequivocally support the overthrow of the brutal Iranian regime and return the beautiful country of Iran back to its people.

Madam Chair, in fact, not only the community itself but friends of the community gathered together with hundreds of thousands of people gathering over roughly the past 10 days. There were 350,000 people who gathered in Richmond Hill with one voice, asking for the overthrow of the regime, asking for support of the American and Israeli effort to overthrow the Iranian government. People are fed up. They are fed up because they are living in fear. They are fed up because of what is happening to their families back home. Their loved ones are being taken out of their homes, beaten to death because they dared to say, “We want to have a voice in how we are governed”. That is what we are dealing with. It is a brutal regime. With people that behave like that, we cannot have diplomacy. We cannot have de-escalation talks. They are not people who have de-escalation talks. Their way of resolving problems is by hanging people from cranes in Mashhad in the square.

Madam Chair, it is hard to put a dollar sign on this, monetize this, or speak in financial or economic terms when talking about people's lives. I will share with my hon. colleague the following story of a constituent of mine in Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill who came to me and told me their first cousin was taken from his bed, in his bedroom where he was with his parents. The young man was taken from there. He disappeared for three days, only for the family to be informed three days later to go pick up his body at a specific corner on two streets in Tehran. When they went to find the person, their loved one, he still had a pulse, but he was near death with a note on him that said, “If you dare take him to the hospital or dare call a doctor, we will not only kill him, but we will kill all of you as well.” I find it very difficult to sit here and talk about what will perhaps have an economic effect on Canada and, at the same time, say it does not matter what happens to people living in Iran because they are living there and we are living here. That is not human. I cannot participate in a discussion at that level.

Madam Speaker, the safety of our communities is of utmost importance. For 10 years, we have seen the soft-on-crime Liberal government prioritize the interests of criminals over the safety of law-abiding Canadians. Just a few months ago in my riding, Amir Shafei, an innocent man, a quiet man, walked outside in front of his house and was accosted by a repeat violent offender who was out on bail. Amir would be alive today if this heinous killer had been in jail. Since the Liberals took power in 2015, extortion has skyrocketed by a staggering 330%. This, along with many other types of crime, is the direct, predictable result of the government's soft-on-crime agenda. Its record on crime, defined by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, has replaced a culture of accountability with a catch-and-release revolving door. Criminal organizations have seen the signals coming from the government, and they have concluded that the risk of consequence justifies their actions. Families in Surrey, Brampton and right across the GTA, including in my riding, are waking up to threats, firebombings and bullets through their windows. Small business owners, many of whom came to Canada to build a better life for their families, are being told to pay protection money or face the consequences. This is the Canada the Liberals have created, one where thugs feel emboldened and citizens feel abandoned. When we gut our judicial system and then tell the judges to use the principle of restraint for repeat violent offenders, we are not just being lenient; we are fanning the flames of the crime wave that follows. This failure is compounded by a loophole within our judicial and immigration systems. We are witnessing a pattern whereby judges are granting reduced sentences specifically to ensure that a non-citizen's immigration status remains unaffected. Under current law, a sentence of six months or more triggers a serious criminality designation, making a non-citizen inadmissible and eligible for deportation. Instead of applying the law, we see sentences of five months and 29 days handed out to bypass this threshold. Even NDP Premier David Eby has called for these laws to be changed, describing these loopholes as “corrosive” to public confidence. Here are some real criminal cases in which judges have considered immigration status in sentencing: A man, Aswin V Sajeevan, spied on a woman in a bathroom, where he made video recordings; another man raped a 13-year-old girl; Rajbir Singh sexually assaulted a young woman in Calgary. My question to the Liberals is this: Is it really the position of the government that we should give rapists, peepers and those who sexually assault women in Canada a second chance to stay here? If it is not, they should vote with the Conservatives to end the practice of leniency to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to avoid deportation. It makes sense: When a judge considers a criminal's immigration status as a mitigating factor in sentencing, they are essentially saying that a non-citizen deserves lighter punishment for the same crime than if it had been committed by a Canadian citizen. This is the definition of a two-tier justice system. We cannot have a safe society if the right to stay in Canada is placed over the right to be safe for those already here. Conservatives have repeatedly raised concerns about how our immigration system is being gamed. We have seen cases where individuals accused of violent crimes use our asylum system as a shield to protect themselves. NDP Premier David Eby called this out as “ludicrous”. I do not agree much with David Eby, but I agree with him on this. It is crazy that individuals who come to our country and proceed to terrorize our citizens would be allowed to stay here. Canada is a country built on immigrants, my own family included, who came here to work hard, play by the rules and contribute to the peace and prosperity of this great nation. When we allow violent extortionists to claim refugee status to avoid being sent back to their home countries, we are making a mockery of the genuine refugees who are fleeing actual persecution. It is a slap in the face to every law-abiding immigrant who waited years, followed every rule and respected all of our laws. Conservatives proposed an amendment that would have updated the immigration protection act to bar asylum claims from being made by those who have been convicted of serious crimes in Canada. The Liberals rejected it. In fact, they rejected removing the ability of migrants with failed asylum claims to claim any federal social benefits beyond emergency health care. The Liberals rejected disallowing asylum claims to be made by nationals of, or by those arriving in Canada having transited through, a G7 or an EU country. They rejected modernizing screening requirements. They rejected requiring educational institutions who accept foreign students to share the cost of any bogus asylum claims made by the foreign students they welcomed to Canada. The Liberals rejected requiring that claims made by migrants who return to their home country while their claim is pending be abandoned. They rejected rejecting claims made after a claimant is found to have lied to an officer. They rejected placing the onus on a claimant to prove they made their claim in a timely manner, not the government. They rejected 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. They rejected modernizing the appeals and judicial review processes associated with the asylum system. In fact, they also rejected creating a new transparent and clear reporting requirement for the government to disclose the amount of federal benefits received by asylum claimants. They rejected modernizing the content of the annual report to Parliament. They also rejected modernizing the IRB appointment process to better consider the provinces and include more merit-based candidates, particularly those with law enforcement experience. Our opposition motion today would make our streets safer. It would restore order and increase fairness in our judicial system. By barring non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims, we would send a clear message that our asylum system is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for organized crime and for those who want to unscrupulously use it. This closes the loophole through which a criminal can delay their deportation by filing a claim the moment they are caught. They are here, they get caught and, all of a sudden, they are claiming asylum. By barring non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims, we are actually protecting Canadians. That is our job. The primary responsibility of any government, of any Parliament, is to protect citizens, our citizens. We must end the practice of leniency, in order to avoid deportation, for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. A crime is a crime. It does not matter who commits it. We cannot look at one group of people differently than another group of people when they are, in fact, executing the exact same crime. That is not what a judicial system is. Our judicial system is one based on democracy. It should be one based on fairness. The government has allowed the opposite to happen. The punishment should fit the offence, not the immigration status of the offender. It does not make sense to Canadians, it does not make sense to anybody, that the immigration status of somebody should be considered when making a determination as to whether they should be sentenced as fairly and as equally as everybody else committing the same crime. Ending this practice ensures that our judges focus on justice and public safety. These measures make sense because they protect the integrity of the immigration system that so many of us value. I invite my Liberal colleagues to stand with Conservatives and send a clear message. Canada is a land of opportunity for those who follow the law, but there is no place here for those who seek to destroy our peace. In closing, let us put the safety of Canadians first, restore the rule of law and end this era of Liberal leniency once and for all.

Madam Speaker, it is a little rich for the member opposite to be speaking about who should be shameful. After 10 years of allowing criminals, with the Liberals' catch-and-release policies, to be on our streets and attacking our communities, they have the audacity to stand up and talk about who should be shameful. I will add this for the hon. member's education. He would know and, if not, he ought to know that all of the bills he mentioned go to committee and we make recommendations. I listed a very extensive list of amendments that we made specifically to Bill C-12. Every single one of them was rejected by the Liberals. That is who is obstructing Parliament from working. The obstruction here is happening by the Liberal Party and the Liberal government. They do not want Parliament to work. They put a piece of legislation together that is flawed, and they expect it to pass without respecting the will of other parliamentarians.

Madam Speaker, we are all parliamentarians. We are all elected to represent our communities and to represent Canadians. We are here to make Parliament work. We want to work with all parties, including the Liberal government, the Liberal Party, to make things better, to make legislation better. It is sad that when we try to do that, they put their hands up. They have used the word “obstruction” in the House this week probably about 150 times, if not more. They get very emboldened when the polls change and they start talking about elections. I hear the government whip over there chirping that we need an election. That is not what it is about. We are all sitting in borrowed chairs here. These chairs do not belong to us. They belong to the people who gave us the right to sit in them. We should listen to them, work for them and work together to make Parliament work.

Mr. Speaker, the member references the laws being changed, the consultations and so forth. That is not the motion before us today. If the member opposite in the Liberal Party really believes that an injustice was done in the past, the motion before us today is to simply say sorry and apologize. That means not just the government but all of us parliamentarians here. It is to bring an apology forth that will bring closure to the people of Mirabel, the people of the region and the people of Quebec, indeed of all of Canada. It is not directly related to consultations and discussions and the merits of building the high-speed rail; it is an apology that is required to bring closure.