Debates of Feb. 10th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

I want to inform the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill that there is still 15 minutes before his speech.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord may continue his speech.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that it is entirely valid and honourable to want to combat extortion. It has caused many problems in our society and, unfortunately, I suspect that we have not seen the end of it. However, we need to be clear-headed and make certain distinctions in order to be effective in our fight against extortion.

The fight against crime is currently the subject of much debate at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We studied Bill C-14 in a panic. We rushed it through in three meetings, which I thought was a shame because it gave us little time to seriously consider the different provisions. We did manage, I think, to come up with something that will be useful and I commend my Conservative colleagues and my Liberal colleagues on their collaboration on this bill.

Tomorrow, the committee will likely finish its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9. That is another good thing, fighting hatred. Immediately afterwards, we will begin studying Bill C-16. All of these bills will be useful in fighting crime, and I thank my colleagues from all parties for their work.

In this motion, however, the Conservatives are raising the issue of extortion and seem to be attributing it to refugee claimants or immigrants. This is where I disagree. That is going a bit too far. I am not saying that refugees or newcomers are angels or that none of them have ever done anything wrong. That would be a bit naive. There are people of good faith and bad faith among both newcomers and people who have lived in Quebec and Canada for generations. We have to keep things in perspective.

Among other things, a reference was made to the case law and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pham. However, that decision did not say that the consequences of a court decision on a newcomer's status or application for status should not be considered. It said that the entire situation, all the consequences, must be taken into consideration, and that is how it should be. We cannot, as MPs, mandate how decisions should be taken in the future and what criteria to apply.

What our Conservative colleagues are proposing seems sort of like when someone gets AI to do their work. They can go on a computer, enter some conditions, criteria and reasons, and get AI to spit out the decision that will apply to so-and-so's case. That is one way to do things. I think it is unfortunate, but perhaps that is the way things are going. Personally, I much prefer human justice.

I would rather have a judge, or a few judges, getting to hear all the evidence in each case and make decisions that are humane, that meet the legal criteria and follow the rules we have set for ourselves as a society, but that also show a modicum of human mercy when it comes to tailoring humane decisions to each case. That is more or less what the Supreme Court said in the Pham decision in 2013. It said that, to determine if a sentence is fair, the court must consider all the consequences it would have on the individual, in terms of their employment, their immigration status, their family and so on.

Today's motion says that, going forward, no consideration will be given to all the circumstances of people who apply for refugee status and who have a criminal record or have been charged or convicted in their country of origin. With all due respect, I would say that is a bit lazy. I believe that the court needs to hear the entire case and take all the circumstances into account.

Earlier on, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean very aptly mentioned the case of Raif Badawi, who was recognized here in Parliament not so long ago. I do not recall the exact wording of that particular motion, but it recognized that he had a certain degree of credibility and was eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship. Raif Badawi was charged and convicted in his country of origin and was sentenced to lashes. He was sentenced to all kinds of punishments that he never would have received here in Canada.

Does this mean that, in the case of someone like Raif Badawi, too bad, so sad, the government does not care and would never let them in? Alternatively, is the government willing to consider each case on its merits and make informed decisions? I believe that is how the system works now, and I prefer this humanized system with all its strengths and weaknesses.

As a society, we decided that we would rather let a criminal go free than put an innocent person in prison. Yes, it would be easy to fill our prisons with suspects and say that is the way to reduce crime. That probably would reduce crime, but it would be a major step backward in terms of quality of life and respecting everyone's rights and freedoms. Let us steer clear of that trap, be sensible, trust our courts and avoid being too prescriptive.

In a similar vein, this reminds me of the mandatory minimum sentence issue. We have been talking about Bill C‑5. Our colleagues feel that Parliament should not have passed Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75. I remember voting in favour of Bill C‑5, but that bill had two components. First, it repealed mandatory minimum sentences. Second, it established diversion measures for simple drug possession.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. We believe that a young man or woman caught with a small amount of drugs in their pocket should face consequences. However, mandatory minimum sentences are a bit too much. I think such cases should be left to the courts to decide. Often, a diverted sentence better serves the interests of justice, the victim and society than sending someone to prison for the time prescribed by law. Diversion opens the door to measures other than a trial and conviction, which is a good thing. We supported that.

We had asked the minister to divide Bill C-5 in two, with diversion in one bill and the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences in another, since they are two separate matters. The minister at the time refused to split up Bill C-5. We had to work on the bill as a whole, and we ultimately passed it. I think the bill's benefits outnumbered and outweighed its drawbacks.

We had a problem with the mandatory minimums. We wanted to make some changes to those provisions, but unfortunately, we were unable to do so. I remember making some suggestions in committee, but they were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. That said, that is how democracy works, and that is what happened. Members will recall that we had no choice but to do away with many of the mandatory minimums because the Supreme Court found them to be unconstitutional. We had to sort of clean up the Criminal Code. The courts will never apply anything that is unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court said, so these sentences had to be removed from the Criminal Code.

I proposed a change at the time. I proposed adopting mandatory minimums for certain crimes, such as those committed with a firearm, but allowing judges to make exceptions to them in extenuating circumstances. That would have required judges to explain in their decisions what made the case in question unique and why the mandatory minimum should not be applied. However, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives agreed with my proposal, so unfortunately, we ended up with Bill C-5 as it now stands.

The new bills, and more specifically Bill C‑16, include a provision similar to the one I proposed. I look forward to its consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope we can improve the situation.

Once again, the Conservatives' proposal is rather unfortunate. Fighting organized crime, extortion and fraud is laudable. It is a good thing. However, the proposed approach, which is to lump everyone together and refuse to take into account each newcomer's circumstances, is not acceptable in the fair and democratic society we have created for ourselves.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc's speech, and I appreciate the fact that he talked about the human aspect of it and his concern about things being human.

I can assure him that that is exactly why this opposition day motion was presented. It was because of the human factor. A lot of my concern today is about legitimate refugee claimants who are possibly at risk or whose claims are delayed. Their housing and health care also suffer because we have criminals making false refugee claims.

I sit on the public safety committee with one of my Bloc colleagues, and she and I talk a lot about the human reasons for needing to crack down on this. I know she supported some of the Conservatives' recommendations on Bill C-12 for the same reason the Liberals voted against it.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on some of that.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think anyone who says that the motion takes the human factor into account clearly did not read it.

With all due respect to my colleague, I understand her point of view, but the motion calls for the government to bar people “convicted of serious crimes” and people “with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims” and to “end the practice of leniency” and “repeal bills C‑5 and C‑75”. That is a step backwards. We have moved forward since 2015.

I know that, before 2015, we had a Conservative government whose bills were probably more in line with our Conservative colleagues' values, but we have done some work over the last decade. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some good work has been done, and refusing to consider refugee claims from people who have been charged or convicted of crimes means taking away the courts' power to consider the human factor in specific cases.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Bill C-16 and that he is looking forward to it ultimately going to committee. I too want to see it go to committee, but if we look at what we have witnessed in the past, and I reference Bill C-9, which deals with hate crimes, the Bloc have come up with an amendment, and as a direct result we have seen a great deal of filibustering on that piece of legislation coming from the Conservative Party.

Does the member believe the Conservatives would, in fact, if we get to it at some point, allow it to go to committee and continue to do a bit of filibustering on it, given that the members of the Bloc have some ideas they would like to share in terms of amendments? There just seems to be a lot of filibustering.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, I would say that perhaps he should ask our Conservative colleagues that question.

He is right about the fact that there has been some filibustering on Bill C-9. I find that unfortunate, as I always do. Such tactics can be really harmful and prevent democracy from taking its course. I understand that we want to debate and make submissions and that we may spend one, two or three meetings hearing from witnesses and presenting arguments against a bill. That is fine. However, I find it unfortunate when members engage in filibustering, because it does not get us anywhere.

I hope that we will not have to deal with such tactics when it comes to Bill C-16. Until I have proof to the contrary, I will trust in the good faith of our Conservative and Liberal colleagues, and I invite everyone to work hard on these bills.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his excellent speech, which was very eloquent, as usual.

There was a bill on citizenship by descent. In committee, we adopted an amendment that would have required such citizenship applications to be subject to the same criteria as all citizenship applications, including a criminal record check. The Liberals and the NDP voted down that part of the bill.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's remarks are always relevant. I know that newcomers to his riding encounter significant problems.

Unfortunately, that is not my area of expertise, but criminal records should definitely be taken into account. An individual whose application for citizenship is being examined has a certain number of characteristics, and one of those is whether they have a criminal record. This should be taken into account, but it should not be the only criterion.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that would be a great speech if it were not for the fact that Bill C-12, which was already passed by the House, deals with just about everything that is in the opposition motion.

I heard the member stand up and talk about everything that the Liberals are not doing right. What about the fact that the Conservatives have held up Bill C-2, on lawful access, and prevented components of that bill from going forward? What about Bill C-9, a bill on hate speech, Bill C-14, on bail reform, or Bill C-16, which reinstates mandatory minimums? The Conservatives have routinely held up these bills. They obstruct Parliament from being able to pass very important pieces of legislation, and then they come in here and try to profess that they have the solutions in opposition motions like this, which serve as nothing more than to act as dog-whistle politics on immigrants.

I think it is absolutely shameful that the member and Conservatives would operate in this manner. If he does not know, he should educate himself. Everything they are looking for in the motion has already been passed by the House in this Parliament.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

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.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it does not seem the Liberals want Parliament to work. They keep saying things like Conservatives are obstructing. It seems to me they are obstructing many of their own bills from going forward. We have been helping them or trying to help them speed up good government legislation that helps Canadians.

I wonder if the member would comment on that and the fact that we would like to move things through quickly. We call on the government to collaborate and to work with us and stop obstructing its own agenda by playing politics.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

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.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we have already said, the Bloc Québécois is going to vote against this motion, mainly because we think that refugee claimants or permanent residents with an actual criminal record are already barred under existing legislation. Enforcing the law is all it takes.

However, I have a question for my colleague. The processing times for refugee claims are already very long. This could be a risk factor, allowing people with criminal records to fall through the cracks. Will the Conservatives commit to reducing processing times for refugee claims?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member makes a valid point. There are definitely long lineups of people waiting. The lists just keep growing and growing. It is fact. A CBSA official who was a witness at the citizenship and immigration committee told us in his testimony that there are over 30,000 asylum seekers in Canada right now who should not be here and who they cannot find to deport from the country.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about a very serious issue that is spreading fear in our communities and that the government has failed to stop. That issue is extortion.

For 10 years now under the Liberal government, crime has gone up. Violent crime is up. Gun crimes are up. Extortion has exploded across Canada. Since the Liberals took power, extortion is up 330% nationwide. In British Columbia, it is up over 480%. In Vancouver alone, extortion cases have risen by more than 330%. These are not just numbers; they are real people, families and small business owners who live in fear every single day.

Extortion is not a victimless crime. It is not just a phone call or a threat. It is a crime that terrorizes families, shatters lives and forces people to choose between their safety and their savings. Across Canada, small businesses owners are getting threats. They are told to pay money or face violence. They are told their stores will be burned. They are told their homes will be shot at. They are told their children will be harmed. This is happening in Brampton, Surrey, Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg. It is happening throughout Canada. In Surrey alone, there have already been over 100 reported cases this year, and police tell us that many more go unreported.

People are too scared to come forward. When people are afraid to call the police, when families are afraid to open their doors and when business owners are afraid to go to work, it is a crisis, yet the government continues to do nothing. Instead of taking action, the Liberals have chosen a soft-on-crime approach and catch-and-release laws. They have chosen to side with criminals over communities.

Their bills, including Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, weakened the justice system. They removed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, made it easier for violent offenders to get bail and forced judges to release repeat offenders back onto our streets. The result was more crime, more violence and more fear. Extortionists know that the system is weak, risk is low and punishment is light, so they keep offending again and again.

The government talks a lot about being tough, but talk does not stop extortion. Action does. Conservatives have brought forward real solutions, clear common-sense solutions. We have proposed restoring mandatory jail time for extortion to three years for a conviction, four years if a gun is involved and five years if it is linked with organized crime. We believe arson should count as an aggravating factor. Burning down a business is not a small crime; it is an act of terror. These measures send a simple message that if someone extorts Canadians, they will go to jail for a long time.

Instead, Liberal policies allowed for a recent sentencing decision that undermined public confidence in the justice system. In a troubling case of extortion in Calgary, the offenders received an 18-month conditional sentence of which six months was to be served under house arrest. It was a very light outcome, given the gravity of the crime. The Canadian victim was pressured to repay more than $200,000 tied to third party illegal gambling and was shown images of chopped-up body parts in an attempt to intimidate them. This is what the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies allow.

The Liberals had a chance to protect Canadians, but what did they do? They went against us again and again. They killed Conservative bill after Conservative bill. They blocked the protection against extortion act. They made excuses, delayed and did nothing. They even opposed stronger self-defence laws, like the “castle law”, as our leader mentioned weeks ago. They opposed fixing bail. Last week the Liberals opposed deporting non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like extortion. At every step, they have chosen criminals over communities.

The Liberals say they support police, but the facts are the other way around. The Minister of Public Safety has not hired a single new RCMP officer. He even said it is not his job. Police forces across the country are stretched thin. They are overworked, they are under-resourced and the government has left them to deal with a crime wave of its own making.

The government has also failed at the borders. Under Liberal policies, 18,000 known criminals were allowed into Canada with no proper background checks and no serious screenings, reckless decisions that put Canadians at risk. Now we see the results: organized crime networks growing stronger, extortion rings spreading fear, and gangs operating with confidence.

After building pressure from the Conservatives, the government recently labelled the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity. That was the right step, but it is only one step. We have to see what is behind it. Our own agencies, like CSIS and the RCMP, are saying that it is foreign interference. Why are the Liberals ignoring this? Labelling a gang means nothing if criminals are still being released on bail. It means nothing if sentences are weak. It means nothing if police lack resources. Canadians do not want words; they want safety, and they want action.

When the Prime Minister visited the Lower Mainland, he had a chance to listen, a chance to meet victims, a chance to meet business owners and a chance to meet police officers. Instead he took a walk on a pier. He did not show up. He did not listen. He did not lead. That is not leadership; that is abandonment.

Communities are crying for help. Parents are worried about their children. Families are scared to speak up. Business owners are wondering if tomorrow will be the day their store is attacked. This is not the Canada we know. This is not the Canada we want.

Conservatives believe in safe streets. We believe in strong laws. We believe in real consequences for serious crimes. Our plan is clear: Stop extortion with real jail time, end catch-and-release bail, keep violent offenders behind bars, support police with real resources, and protect families, workers and small business owners. We are ready to work with anyone who wants to fix this crisis. We will not stay silent while Canadians live in fear.

After 10 years of failures, Canadians have had enough: enough excuses, enough delays and enough crime. It is time to stop the extortion crisis. It is time to change the law. It is time to put communities first.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned foreign interference. In fact I am very familiar with the issue because I brought in a motion in the previous Parliament to deal with foreign interference. In fact our government brought in Bill C-70 to deal with those situations as well.

I would like the hon. member to tell the House what kind of foreign interference he is hearing about on the ground, and what his leader is doing to curb that situation.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same: We need a foreign registry. The Liberals have been talking about this for a very long time. I think it was passed in 2024. We need all foreign agencies to register here; that is the only way we can tackle them. I know trade deals are important, but Canadian lives also matter. That is what I would let the Liberals know. Just get some action done.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the motion is devoid of nuance. For example, the Conservatives are saying that they want to bar refugee claimants with criminal records, something that is already provided for in the law. Without further nuance, this means that refugee claimants who are political prisoners or prisoners of conscience would automatically be barred.

Would my colleague not agree that this motion should have included a role for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada?

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not blocking the asylum system; we are just saying that we have to keep the criminals away. In the extortions in B.C., all the criminals who were caught by police claimed asylum, and that is what we have to change. We know that once criminals apply for asylum, they will have a few years and will keep doing crimes, making our streets unsafe. We want safe streets for Canadians, and that is what our approach is.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I hear from police officers and victims is that the victims are afraid to come forward to testify because the person who has committed the crime against them will be released on bail, if not within minutes then maybe within hours of having been detained by the police.

Does the member agree that there should be tougher punishment for criminals for extortion?

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have come across so many police officers. They are doing their job, but in this judicial system, while the police are still filing their complaints, the criminals are getting out on bail. This is where we have to work to change the laws. The member for Oxford brought forward Bill C-242 on jail not bail for criminals, and that is where we have to work together to tackle these criminals.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, would the member not agree that the motion is just an illusion of acting, that it is actually just window dressing?

We have already addressed the issue in Bill C-12. These criminals would not be allowed to apply for asylum, and even for those who have, their cases would be cancelled.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week there was an amendment in committee that the Liberal Party opposed. It took them almost 10 years to come up with something, which is so weak.

We fully disagree with the member opposite. We have to come up with stronger laws that will protect Canadians.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

Let me begin clearly: Extortion is a serious crime. It terrorizes families, threatens small business owners and undermines confidence in public safety. In Surrey and across British Columbia, I have met with constituents who are living in fear. They deserve real solutions, not political theatre.

The Conservative motion claims to be about fighting extortion, but it relies on misinformation and proposals that would weaken, not strengthen, our justice system.

In British Columbia, the federal government has provided significant resources to combat extortion. We have committed $4 million to strengthen the B.C. extortion task force through the regional integrated drug enforcement team. In addition, the federal government and the Province of B.C. have jointly provided $1 million to support victims of extortion. The federal RCMP will deploy up to an additional 20 RCMP officers, along with helicopter resources, to support on-the-ground enforcement efforts in Surrey. Further funding is being delivered through the federal gun and gang violence action fund to disrupt gun and gang violence linked to extortion networks.

We have also taken decisive action by listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization. The RCMP and the CBSA are actively supporting investigations, laying charges and, where appropriate, also pursuing removal orders against foreign nationals who are inadmissible due to criminality or to non-compliance with Canadian law.

Once passed, Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, would modernize immigration enforcement and crack down on transnational organized crime, including extortion networks, making it harder for violent offenders to exploit procedural delays.

Now let us address the Conservative proposals directly. They are claiming that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes can make refugee claims to avoid consequences. That is simply false. Claiming asylum does not and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their criminal case proceeds. If they are found inadmissible, their asylum claim is terminated, their lawful status ends, and they face removal.

Foreign nationals already subject to a removal order cannot make a refugee claim. In cases of serious inadmissibility, those individuals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada.

CBSA is aggressively pursuing the removal of criminals attempting to misuse the asylum system. Where credibility issues arise, CBSA prioritizes those files, presents evidence to the Immigration and Refugee Board and seeks dismissal or admissibility hearings leading to deportation.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a claim is already ineligible if the person is inadmissible for serious criminality or has been convicted in or outside Canada of an offence punishable by at least 10 years. Adopting the Conservative proposal would not close a loophole; it would create new administrative layers and invite litigation.

Paragraph (b) of the motion would bar asylum claims for those with active criminal proceedings. That, too, has already been addressed. CBSA officers may suspend eligibility reviews when a claimant is charged with a serious offence. Once the criminal case is resolved, the officer resumes the assessment and may deem the person ineligible. Canada's system already prevents asylum claims from advancing when serious charges are pending.

In paragraph (c), the Conservatives call for an end to so-called leniency to avoid deportation. What they are really proposing is to prohibit judges from considering immigration consequences at sentencing. Judges may consider immigration consequences to ensure that a sentence remains fit and proportionate, but never to reduce a sentence below what is appropriate. There is no evidence that the courts are improperly lowering sentences to avoid deportation. Any rare adjustments are reviewable on appeal and often reflect the joint positions of the Crown and defence. Eliminating judicial discretion would weaken, not strengthen, the justice system.

The Conservatives are also demanding the repeal of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Canadians elected this government with a mandate to strengthen public safety and modernize the justice system, and we are delivering. We have tabled more than six major public safety and criminal justice bills designed to crack down on violent and repeat offenders. Conservatives have delayed them, while premiers, police chiefs and municipalities have called for their urgent passage.

Bill C-75 did not weaken bail. It strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence by defining “intimate partner” to include former partners, creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders and requiring courts to consider prior convictions. Bill C-14 would go even further by clarifying that restraint does not mean automatic release, yet the Conservatives have blocked it. I have seen that in the House. The other day, speaker after speaker from the Conservatives did nothing but block Bill C-14, which would strengthen the bail act.

Bill C-5 did not allow house arrest for serious extortion. Conditional sentences are unavailable when sentences exceed two years or offenders pose a public safety threat. Mandatory jail time remains for extortion involving firearms or criminal organizations, which are exactly the cases that Canadians are most concerned about.

Our current legislation agenda targets extortion directly and effectively. Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for violent extortion, require consecutive sentences for related crimes like arson, prohibit weapons at bail and strengthen geographic restrictions. Together with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, these reforms would strengthen border enforcement, cybersecurity, hate crime laws and immigration integrity. These are evidence-based measures supported by law enforcement and municipalities across Canada.

Extortion is not a street-level crime; it is driven by organized networks and money laundering. That is why the response must be comprehensive. Fighting extortion requires evidence-based policy and firm endorsement, not false promises, and it requires a justice system that is tough on crime while still upholding the rule of law.

The Conservative approach is to blame immigration and repeal laws. Our approach is to dismantle criminal networks, strengthen enforcement, protect victims and uphold the rule of law. Victims of extortion want results, not slogans. This motion would divide communities, undermine due process and distract from real solutions.

For those reasons, I will oppose this motion and support the serious, targeted reforms needed to keep Canadians safe.