Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be as passionate an intervenor as my dear colleague from Winnipeg North, but nonetheless I have a few very important things to say about the opposition day motion today.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today. As the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and as someone who has heard testimony from legal experts, law enforcement and settlement organizations over recent months, I rise to speak to the motion with a perspective grounded in both evidence and our government's principled approach to public safety.
As members may know, I am the daughter of immigrant parents who fled their respective countries due to poverty, war and discrimination. They came to Canada to find a safe place to raise their children, so I very much understand on a personal level what our immigration system means to families, but I also understand that public safety must always be paramount.
Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: Claiming asylum cannot and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Conservatives would have Canadians believe that our asylum system provides a safe haven for criminals. This is simply not true. Our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already establishes that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board if the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or by reason of a conviction in Canada for an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their case goes through the criminal justice system. If they are found guilty, their asylum claim is terminated. Their authorized period of stay in Canada ends, and they will face removal. In cases of serious inadmissibility, removed foreign nationals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. Making a refugee claim does not exempt lawbreakers from the consequences of their actions.
I want to address the calls in the motion to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The Conservatives claim Bill C-5 allowed house arrest for serious crimes like extortion. This is simply incorrect. Conditional sentence orders are never available where the sentence is two years or more, which is typically the case in serious extortion offences. They are also unavailable where an offender poses a threat to public safety. Furthermore, we maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving restricted or illegal firearms or extortion connected to criminal organizations, precisely the types of extortion cases Canadians are most concerned about today. The Conservatives should do their homework before repeating slogans.
On Bill C-75, the Conservatives' central criticism is that it codified the principle of restraint and bail, but what they refuse to acknowledge is that Bill C-75 actually strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence. It formally defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners. It created a reverse onus for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, making it harder for them to obtain bail, and it now requires judges to consider prior intimate partner violence convictions and imposes stronger penalties for repeat offenders.
The president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Canada has stated clearly that the claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety is a false narrative. Canadians deserve a debate grounded in facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a law that made it harder for repeat intimate partner violence offenders to get bail, then they should say so directly.
Just last week at the immigration committee I chair, we heard from Professor Audrey Macklin, chair of human rights law at the University of Toronto. She confirmed that under Canadian law as it currently exists, individuals convicted of serious crimes are ineligible to seek refugee protection. When asked about individuals who claim asylum after being charged with crimes, she was clear that if they are convicted of that offence, they will be ineligible because the eligibility requirements make them ineligible.
She also noted that those who receive custodial sentences tend to be removed, because they are in custody. Also, CBSA has historically prioritized people serving criminal sentences because they are, frankly, easy to find.
We further heard from representatives of the Refugee Centre, who told us that, in the first nine months of 2025, the acceptance rates for refugee claims reached 78%, of which less than 1% were fraudulent claims. This tells us that the initial decision-making is generally sound and that our system is working. Yes, it is overloaded, but it is working.
Everyone deserves to be and feel safe in their communities, and that is why Canada's government is taking real action to keep Canadians safe, not through slogans and divisive rhetoric but through comprehensive, evidence-based reforms. We have introduced several major bills: Bill C-2, the strong borders act; Bill C-12, the immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which has introduced over 80 targeted criminal code reforms, many directly addressing extortion.
Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for individuals charged with violent extortion, making bail significantly harder to obtain. It would require sentences for extortion to be served consecutively to sentences for related offences like arson. It would prohibit weapons at bail for those accused of extortion and organized crime offences. It would strengthen bail conditions for organized crime-related extortion, including geographic restrictions.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has endorsed Bill C-14, stating that it reflects their own recommendations. Police leaders called for broader reverse onus provisions and tougher penalties for organized crime, and Bill C-14 answers all of those calls. We have also made the largest single investment in Canadian border security, $1.3 billion. We are hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel. On top of all that, we have created a financial crimes agency to combat money laundering and organized crime.
What deeply concerns me about the motion before us is its intent. The Conservatives are not genuinely seeking to strengthen public safety; they are seeking to create division within Canadian society by suggesting that the federal Liberal government is making it easy for criminals to stay in Canada. This is absolutely false.
The member for Calgary Nose Hill proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that she claims would have prevented non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making asylum claims. However, in reality, our law already does this. Her amendment would have created more operational and administrative procedures and likely resulted in significant litigation, not greater safety.
While Conservatives rely on slogans and ideological proposals, many of which are imported from outside of Canada, our government is delivering thoughtful, targeted reforms that strengthen public safety, protect victims and ensure that our justice system responds to the realities Canadians face today. While Conservatives are holding important public safety bills hostage in committee, we are working across party lines to ensure that we are delivering for Canadians.
Instead of looking backwards with motions designed to divide Canadians, our government is looking ahead. The criminal justice reform agenda being implemented by the government is principled, responsible and will meaningfully address the public safety challenges that communities across Canada are facing today. The reforms contained in Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 have been informed by significant engagement with stakeholders right across this country. The federal government is doing its part. We need the provinces to do their part and the cities to do their part.
In conclusion, I encourage all members to work collaboratively to improve our criminal justice system. Canadians expect no less. They expect us to be serious about public safety, not to play political games with their security.
The government opposes the motion before us because it is based on misinformation, would undermine Canada's sentencing principles, remove long-standing judicial discretion and offer no real solutions to the challenges we face. Instead, I urge all parties to support the passage of Bill C-12 and Bill C-14, legislation that is right before us. In doing so, we will make all Canadians safer.
