Debates of March 12th, 2026

An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the bill, as I said in my speech, with great displeasure. We know that the bill needs further amendments, and we know that there is room for further ratification that needs to be done. I look forward to the Liberal government's making sure that the agreement, when it comes into effect, is balanced for both the U.K. and Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually here when the EU agreement was signed with 27 countries. It was a Liberal government that signed it.

Can the member opposite tell us, does he believe it was a Liberal government that signed the EU agreement, or was it the Conservatives?

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, if we go into the details, it was the Harper government. It was the Conservative government that laid out all the framework for that agreement to be signed.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, legislation that would implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. At its core, the bill would update Canadian legislation so the United Kingdom can formally join the CPTPP trade agreement so Canada can meet its obligations under that accession protocol.

I will begin by acknowledging the broader context in which this legislation is being debated.

Canada's economy is deeply tied to international trade, as members are well aware. Millions of jobs in this country depend on exports and on our ability to access global markets. Over the past several years, we have been reminded about how fragile global supply chains can be and how risky it can be for Canada to rely too heavily on a single trading partner. We acknowledge, as New Democrats, that diversifying our trade relationships matters, that strengthening economic co-operation with democratic allies matters, and that building resilient, rules-based trading systems is in Canada's long-term interest.

The United Kingdom is an important partner in that effort. It is a G7 country, one of the world's largest economies and a nation with which Canada shares deep historical ties, cultural connections and long-standing diplomatic relationships. Expanding trade opportunities between Canada and the United Kingdom has the potential to support Canadian exporters, encourage investment and reinforce the global rules-based trading system at a time when that system is facing increasing pressure. It is for those reasons that there is value in strengthening our economic partnership with the United Kingdom.

However, supporting trade diversification does not mean giving the government a blank cheque. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that trade agreements serve Canadians fairly, protect our public interests and deliver real benefits for workers, farmers and communities across this country. On that front, Bill C-13 raises several important concerns that must be addressed.

The first concern is transparency. Under the Government of Canada's policy on tabling treaties in Parliament, when the government introduces implementing legislation for a new free trade agreement, it is required to table an economic impact assessment outlining the projected costs and benefits of the agreement. This policy exists for a simple reason, which is that members of Parliament cannot make informed decisions about trade agreements without understanding their economic implications.

The requirement was introduced after repeated calls for greater transparency in trade negotiations. In fact, in 2020, the government committed to strengthening parliamentary oversight of trade agreements by ensuring that economic impact assessments would accompany implementing legislation. However, in the case of Bill C-13, no economic impact assessment has been tabled. This undermines accountability and weakens the ability of the House to properly scrutinize the agreement before us.

The second concern we have relates to the ongoing barriers faced by Canadian agricultural producers in accessing the United Kingdom market. For years, and we heard this in the House today repeatedly, Canadian beef and pork producers have raised concerns about the United Kingdom's sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. These rules relate to food safety and to animal and plant health, but in practice, they function as non-tariff barriers that prevent Canadian products from entering the U.K. market.

Despite years of discussions, consultations and negotiations, these barriers remain largely unchanged. This needs to be fixed. The result is a trading relationship that is far from reciprocal. In fact, the numbers tell a very clear story: There were no Canadian beef exports to the United Kingdom in 2024 and none in 2025. At the same time, imports of U.K. beef into Canada have increased significantly. They rose from $16.6 million in 2023 to $42.5 million in 2024, representing an increase of more than 150% in a single year. This is not the outcome Canadian producers were promised when the negotiations began.

Organizations representing Canada's agricultural sector, including the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Meat Council, have all raised serious concerns about the lack of meaningful market access. They need to be consulted.

Canadian farmers and ranchers operate under some of the highest food safety standards in the world. They produce high-quality products that are competitive in markets around the globe, and they deserve fair and reciprocal access to markets, especially when Canada is opening its own market to imports. Without meaningful access to the U.K. market, the benefits of this agreement will remain limited for many Canadian producers.

The third concern relates to investor-state dispute settlement provisions, commonly known as ISDS. These provisions allow foreign investors to challenge government policies through international arbitration if they believe those policies harm their investments. Under NAFTA, Canada faced numerous ISDS claims from foreign investors. More than 60% of the cases filed against Canada under NAFTA were linked to environmental or natural resource measures. That is deeply concerning.

These experiences raise serious questions about the impact of ISDS provisions on the government's ability to regulate in the public interest. That is one of the reasons Canada removed the ISDS from the renegotiated Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA.

In the case of Bill C-13, the government has not secured a side letter with the United Kingdom to exclude ISDS provisions between our two countries. This is particularly puzzling because the United Kingdom has already signed such side letters with Australia and New Zealand in their agreements. Canada could have negotiated the same arrangement, and we hope it will. Instead, these provisions remain in place.

A coalition of civil society organizations, labour unions and academics from both Canada and the United Kingdom has called on the government to remove ISDS protections from this agreement. We are hoping that the government will act. If Canada has already recognized these risks in other agreements, then it is reasonable to expect the government to address them here as well.

We have heard a lot today that there is another issue connected to Canada's relationship with the United Kingdom that deserves attention in this debate. It is a decades-long issue of fairness that affects tens of thousands of seniors living here in Canada. I am referring to the problem of frozen British pensions. At the outset, I want to thank Ian Andexser from Nanaimo, the chair of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners, for his leadership on this issue, as well as all those who are members of that organization.

More than 100,000 British pensioners live in Canada and receive a state pension from the United Kingdom. Those pensions are frozen at the rate the pensioners first received when they retired or when they moved abroad. For over 70 years, unlike British pensioners living in the United States, Israel, Turkey, the Philippines, the European Union or several other countries, British pensioners here in Canada do not receive annual cost of living increases. This is unfair.

Canada itself does not treat pensioners this way when they move overseas. Whether a Canadian retiree lives in Vancouver, in London, or in Sydney, Australia, their CPP benefits continue to increase with inflation. The U.K.'s policy stands in stark contrast to that. The consequences are very real for many seniors. As inflation rises and living costs increase, the purchasing power of frozen pensions declines year after year.

Some seniors are struggling to afford basic necessities such as food, heating and medication. I think about Anne Puckridge, a 100-year-old veteran, who is receiving literally less than half of her pension because she chose to retire in Canada. While pensioners in the U.K. receive 176 pounds a week, the freeze means she is getting only 72 pounds a week. Like Anne, many were unaware of this policy before they moved to Canada. We know that a third of women who are over the age of 65 in this country are living in poverty.

People like Anne who spent decades contributing to the U.K. pension system, believing their retirement income would follow them wherever they chose to live, which it should have, have instead discovered too late that their pension would never increase. Because these pensions remain frozen, many seniors eventually rely on Canadian income support programs, including the guaranteed income supplement. In effect, Canadian taxpayers end up helping to fill the gap created by the U.K. government's policy. Estimates suggest this situation costs Canada hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Successive Canadian governments have raised this issue with the United Kingdom repeatedly, and each time the U.K. has declined. That raises an important question: If Canada is strengthening trade relations with the United Kingdom and deepening our economic partnership through agreements like this one, why is this long-standing injustice not being addressed as part of those negotiations? Trade negotiations are moments of leverage. They provide opportunities to resolve long-standing disputes and secure fair outcomes exactly like this one, yet once again the government appears to have failed to use that leverage.

Bill C-13 represents an important step in Canada's trade relationship with the United Kingdom. Trade diversification matters. Building stronger partnerships with trusted allies matters. Strengthening the global trading system matters, but Parliament must ensure these agreements are fair, transparent and in the public interest.

This means providing the economic analysis needed for informed decision-making. It means ensuring Canadian producers receive meaningful access to international markets. It means protecting democratic policy-making by addressing problematic investor-state dispute resolution settlement provisions, and it means standing up for fairness for the tens of thousands of seniors in Canada affected by the U.K.'s frozen pension policy.

Trade agreements should reflect more than economic opportunity. They should reflect fairness, reciprocity and respect for the people whose lives are shaped by these policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of non-tariff restrictions has come up a great deal throughout the debate. It is important to put it into the perspective that, unfortunately, even within provinces we have non-tariff-related restrictions that hamper freer trade among Canada. The federal government is working on that.

Unfortunately, there are the same sorts of restrictions, whether it is with the EU or the U.K. For example, whether someone is a pork producer or cattle producer here in Canada or the United States, there are restrictions overseas that create those non-trade barriers and cause restrictions. The government will continue to work on that, but we still support the need to have this particular agreement.

Does the member actually support the principle of trade and this specific agreement?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined at the beginning, we of course support trade, and we put conditions on how we support trade. It cannot be a blank cheque from the government. We also believe in reciprocity. We outlined, regarding the pork producers and the beef producers, that it is not reciprocal. These countries are getting access to our market, but we are not getting the same access to their markets. That is unfair. That actually has to be addressed when we negotiate. Of course, there are issues outside of this that we need to have at the table, like the British pension issue that I talked about. These issues all need to be part of the conversation, but we need to make sure it is fair.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we share a lot of the same concerns about Bill C-13.

My question is about investor-state dispute settlement and the tension between our legitimate need to ensure national sovereignty, in other words, that everyone who does business here is working within the same laws, and this kind of parallel mechanism that international trade agreements often tend to put in place.

What are my colleague's thoughts about this mechanism that will allow investors from the United Kingdom to bypass our courts and our common law systems by going directly to an arbitration mechanism?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc raises a really important point. It is something I hopefully addressed, for the most part, in my speech, but he is absolutely right. This exposes Canada when it comes to the environment and when it comes to sovereignty here at home. We were able to get those ISDS, or investor-state dispute settlement, provisions removed from CUSMA. It should be something we could also negotiate in this agreement. I do not understand why the government is not putting that in as part of this agreement. I am glad to see the Bloc and the New Democrats advocating for this, so that this is dealt with and there is a responsible way forward when it comes to Bill C-13.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is about bringing the United Kingdom into the comprehensive trade agreement with the Pacific. The member for Courtenay—Alberni mentioned frozen pensions for U.K. pensioners who decide to retire here in Canada. It seems deeply unfair, particularly since the U.K. does not do that for other countries like the United States. As a matter of fact, it seems to be picking on Commonwealth countries. This agreement seems like the perfect opportunity to resolve that problem, yet the Prime Minister has failed to do that.

I would like to hear the member's comments on what that says about the Prime Minister's ability, or perhaps lack thereof, to negotiate good deals for Canada.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like I said earlier, U.K. pensioners living in the United States, Israel, Turkey, the Philippines and the European Union are actually not penalized like this. Their pensions are not frozen. They are indexed, just like our pensions are for Canadians who are retiring abroad. However, for some reason, Canada has not been able to get an agreement with the U.K. The Prime Minister supposedly has this great relationship with the U.K. He should be able to negotiate this unfairness and this unjust policy by the U.K. government.

Like I said earlier, a third of Canadian women over the age of 65 are living in poverty. This is absolutely a critical step to addressing that and this injustice. I hope that the government will take it seriously. This is an opportune moment, when it comes to a trade agreement, to address irritants like this that are impacting the lives of British citizens who are living here in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready to hear the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it pass on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect that, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 25, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois immigration critic, I want to tell the House our position on the bill introduced by my Conservative colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. We will vote in favour of Bill C-220 so it can be studied in committee. This is to allow for continued democratic discussion on the important issue of sentencing in criminal cases where the accused does not have citizenship status.

However, my colleague should curb her enthusiasm, because we have several reservations about this bill. These are serious reservations, which I will summarize in two points. First, we believe that the current legal situation is well balanced. Second, we believe it is important to preserve judicial discretion, in order to avoid inappropriate decisions that fail to take the circumstances of individual cases into account.

Before I go over our reservations, let us look at the bill and its purpose. Bill C-220 contains a single clause that seeks to amend the sentencing portion of the Criminal Code. The clause reads as follows: “A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender's immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family”. If this bill were to pass, a judge would simply not be able to consider the impact of a criminal conviction on a non-citizen's immigration status. Why does my Conservative colleague want to go in that direction?

We got some answers from an article published in the National Post on December 1, which reported that the Conservative Party was outraged that a court had permitted an adjournment in a criminal case to allow an accused to weigh how his reaction to the charges would affect his immigration status. Adjournments are very common in our courts. In this particular case, the adjournment allowed the accused to gather information and ultimately make an informed decision, which was to plead guilty. It also meant avoiding a trial and allowing a victim of sexual assault to avoid having to testify, as that was what the case was about.

I am struggling a bit with this, but the National Post article states that the Conservative Party has identified several cases where it feels that criminal sentences for non-citizens were determined in such a way as to reduce the sentence in order to avoid deportation. The purpose of this bill is therefore to prevent judges from reducing sentences for non-citizens by considering the effect a conviction would have on the criminal's immigration status.

To help the people watching at home understand what comes next, I want to say a few words about the consequences of a criminal conviction for an immigrant. The impact depends on the person's status, but the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides for adjustments when someone has been convicted of an offence. If the person is a Canadian citizen convicted of certain more serious offences, they will not be able to sponsor family members.

For non-citizens, the penalties are more severe. If a temporary resident, such as a student, worker or visitor, is convicted, they may become inadmissible. If a temporary or permanent resident is convicted of a serious offence, the sentences can range from more than six months in prison or at least 10 years in prison. That person will be inadmissible. It should also be noted that a criminal conviction will generally prevent someone from obtaining Canadian citizenship.

That being said, let us come back to the Bloc Québécois's reservations. First, what is the current state of the law when a judge is sentencing a non-citizen? It is set out in the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in R v. Pham. We can discuss that of course, but in my view, the rule is fairly well balanced. I will summarize it by quoting a few passages from that Supreme Court decision.

It reads, in part:

A sentencing judge may exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account, [judges currently have the right to do so] provided that the sentence ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The significance of collateral immigration consequences will depend on the facts of the case. However, it remains that they are but one of the relevant factors that a sentencing judge may take into account in determining an appropriate sentence. Those consequences must not be allowed to skew the process....

That is the state of the law.

In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found Mr. Pham guilty of producing and possessing marijuana. At trial, he was found guilty but also sentenced to two years in prison. After the trial, his lawyer realized that if he had been sentenced to two years less a day, he would not have lost his right to appeal a removal order against him. That is when an appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal. What the ruling shows is that the Crown prosecutor believed that a sentence of two years less a day was fine. The Crown would have agreed to it if it had been asked. The question was whether the Court of Appeal could intervene in such a case.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the current rule when it comes to sentencing is proportionality. That is a fundamental principle that is very simple to understand. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Another important principle is the principle of parity and the correctional imperative of sentence individualization. Each sentence must fit the individual in order to have a deterrent effect and to reflect the degree of moral blameworthiness of each defendant. In this analysis, the court will be able to look at the collateral consequences of a sentence. It will consider any effect that the sentence will have on the offender themselves. The immigration status of the convicted person will be one of the collateral consequences and will be part of the judge's analysis. The judge has to weigh various objectives in determining the sentence, including the objective of assisting in rehabilitating the offender.

The Supreme Court states that:

...collateral consequences related to immigration may be relevant in tailoring the sentence, but their significance depends on and has to be determined in accordance with the facts of the particular case.

The general rule continues to be that a sentence must be fit having regard to the particular crime and the particular offender.

[However], a sentencing judge may exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account, provided that the sentence that is ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence....

I will close with this passage:

These [immigration] consequences must not be allowed to dominate the exercise or skew the process....

That is how things currently stand. Basically, if someone has been convicted and is in the process of immigrating, the impact their conviction will have on their immigration status will be taken into account, but it cannot be a decisive factor. There are already examples in case law that prove the opposite, where people tried to have their sentences reduced by saying that it would prevent them from being deported, but their argument was rejected. Most notably, those arguments have been rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The case of Guzman v. R in Quebec is another example. The Conservatives need to prove that the current system needs to be changed.

Our other argument is that it is important to preserve judicial discretion, because each judge can look at each case to ensure that a humane and appropriate decision is made. If judges are prevented from taking this factor into account, mistakes could be made. In short, we are willing to look at everything to try to improve the system, but above all, we do not want to make it worse.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

March 12, 2026

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 12th day of March, 2026, at 4:36 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to on Thursday, March 12, was Bill C‑4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to a great private member's bill from my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. This is a good bill. What I like about it is its simplicity. It is very simple and common sense. I want to commend the member for her hard work on this and her understanding of where Canadians are. This bill resides at the intersection of two key areas. One is crime, which people have lots of things to say about, and immigration is the other. When we look at polling and talk to people in, say, my riding, and I know that all of us talk to people in ridings every day, we hear about crime and immigration.

People are very concerned about the system we have today, so this bill really comes at the intersection of that. In crime, we have things like revolving doors and low or no penalties. In the immigration system, we have problems with asylum, temporary foreign workers, international students and wait-lists. The intersection is when judges in the criminal system consider sentencing and take immigration status into account when they sentence individuals. That is what this bill aims to address.

Many bills in the House, I would say, are quite complicated. Members often have to look at them multiple times to understand what they say. Others are very simple, and this bill happens to be a very simple one. I am going to read part of it. It says, “A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family.” Simply put, a judge considering a sentence for somebody found guilty of a crime would not be able to consider the impact it would have on their immigration status. In other words, there would not be a two-tiered system of sentencing in Canada. Today, we have a two-tiered system where judges take into account immigration status, where one criminal gets a lesser sentence than another simply because of immigration status. I am going to give some examples of that and show why that is a problem.

First of all, I want to make it clear that we are talking about non-citizens, people who are not yet Canadians. In our current law, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it is very clear that, when certain thresholds are met for crimes, such as the length of time that has been imposed for a sentence, there are consequences. The one that most people are aware of is, if a person gets a sentence of more than six months, it means that they have to be deported. That is often a major consideration when judges are looking at sentences.

I want to give some examples because I think the help everybody to understand. We would like to think that our system is clean, that everybody is looking at it in a fair, common-sense and logical way, and it just does not work that way. I will give an example of this later, but, unfortunately, some judges are activists who want to impose their own thinking and take advantage of the the laws to do things that are not really fair and that create this two-tiered sentencing system.

In the first example, a non-citizen was facing charges of drug trafficking and possession of a weapon. This person was facing a three-year sentence and deportation because of that. This person wanted to plead guilty and the judge did not want to accept that because the judge was concerned that the accused did not understand the implications to his immigration status. The judge stopped the trial and tried to get the person to understand the implications of pleading guilty. This person somewhat understood, but still wanted to plead guilty, yet, even then, the judge stopped the trial and essentially forced this guy to talk to an immigration lawyer, almost as if to say, wink, wink, he needed to talk to somebody because he could get a better deal if he just waited. The judge was essentially acting as the lawyer for the person he was sentencing. By the way, this same person was facing a manslaughter charge, so this was not a one-off thing. This person was facing some serious time.

A second example is another non-citizen who stabbed a victim with a knife. The victim required 18 stitches and 50 staples to heal their body. This was a serious crime. The Crown asked for four years, and the defence asked for a conditional sentence. Why did it ask for a conditional sentence? It was because it would avoid the deportation angle and also allow the accused the ability to appeal their immigration status, should they need to do so. What did the judge do?

The judge said, “Oh, you are right. We need to be careful about this because of the immigration status, so we are going to go with the conditional sentence”, which is not what would have happened to any other Canadian citizen had they been in this situation. Here, again, we have a case where the judge was lenient to an extreme degree, so much so that the Crown appealed this to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The higher court found that the judge had used the collateral immigration consequences at issue here to reduce the respondent's sentence to the point where it became disproportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Thankfully, in this case, the B.C. Court of Appeal was able to catch this and fix it, but there have been many other cases where it has not been caught.

Another example is a non-citizen who was out on bail for trafficking cocaine. The judge cut his sentence in half, citing the tough life the criminal had, injuries and immigration status. Another example was a man who was trying to procure sex from a 15-year-old girl. The judge said the conviction would not only delay his citizenship by four years but could prevent him from sponsoring his wife and obtaining his engineering licence, and that those immigration and professional consequences were far more severe than jail. Again, here was a judge who was using immigration status to determine a sentence.

All of these cases and many more show why this private member's bill is so important. They show why this bill is critical to closing a loophole that exists in our system and that judges are abusing to give people lesser sentences, thus giving us this two-tiered system.

How did we get here? A big part of this is because of the Liberal justice reforms that happened. I want to focus on Bill C-75, which is a bill that fundamentally shifted the power balance to criminals. We talk about bail, not jail. Everyone has heard that comment many times. We have talked about it a lot. It really comes from Bill C-75, which was passed by the Liberal government.

The principle of restraint was the new thing introduced in this bill, and it essentially means this: It instructs judges to give sentences that are no more restrictive than necessary. They are to release the accused at the earliest opportunity. They are to release them on the least onerous conditions, and imprisonment should only be used when absolutely necessary and for the shortest duration possible.

These were the instructions given by the Liberal government to judges. Go easy on people is essentially what this means. The judge has the ability to go easy on the person. Guess what. Judges took this principle of restraint, married it up with the immigration issues that we have been talking about to this point and started applying this to immigration cases. That is how we ended up with sentences that were disproportionate to the crime, and how we ended up with this two-tiered sentencing system that we have.

This is something that is a big problem and that is why I am happy to stand to speak to this bill today, because this bill that was submitted by my great colleague fixes this in a very simple way. It creates a single system of sentencing for all people in Canada.

There are other problems that we have in our sentencing system. I also wanted to mention, and I talked about it earlier, activist judges. I just want to highlight this one example that really describes the problem. I am reading from an article from the National Post. I just want to read a couple of things from of it. It says:

In 2013, Toronto lawyer Avvy Yao-Yao Go described herself as a “loudmouth activist for politicians to contend with.”

This person was very aggressive in providing leniency to people who were not citizens of Canada. The government, in its wisdom, decided to make her a federal court judge in 2021. She has done incredible things to halt revocation proceedings against people. There have been all kinds of things that she has done to provide leniency through her court. At the very end, it says:

...decisions in the last year alone show a pattern of leniency for rule-breakers, country-shoppers.... Each instance takes state capacity away from cases that truly matter.

There are many examples we can think of. I just want to conclude by saying this bill, Bill C-220, is a good bill. It fixes a major gap that we have in our system. It is a wonderful, simple bill that I support wholeheartedly. I would implore all members to pass this bill when it comes time to vote.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-220, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. My remarks today will focus on the immigration implications of the bill and what I believe is at stake for all of us as Canadians.

Before I turn to the substance of the legislation, I want to say something that I believe deeply and that I know the vast majority of Canadians share. We are a nation of immigrants. From the very earliest days of Confederation, people have come to the country from every corner of the world, bringing with them their talents, their traditions, their determination and their dreams. They have built our cities. They have staffed our hospitals and our schools. They have started businesses that employ our neighbours. They have served in our armed forces. They have enriched our culture, strengthened our economy and made us who we are.

Canada is the envy of the world, and that is not by accident. It is because of the extraordinary diversity of the people who call this country home. Our strength has always come from our differences, from our willingness to welcome those who seek a better life and to stand together across lines of language, faith and heritage.

This is the Canadian story, and it is one we should tell with pride every single day. In my riding of Davenport, I see the story lived out in real time. I represent one of the most diverse communities in this country. Families from Portugal, from Latin America, from the Caribbean, from Southeast Asia and from across Africa and Europe have built a vibrant, thriving neighbourhood. They volunteer in our schools, care for our elderly and show up for each other. They are the backbone of our community, and I am honoured to stand here on their behalf.

When I talk to newcomers in Davenport, I hear the same thing over and over. They chose Canada because of what this country stands for: fairness, opportunity and the rule of law. They came here to contribute, to raise their families in safety and to be part of something bigger than themselves. That is the promise of this country, and it is a promise we must honour. Every generation of newcomers has made Canada stronger, more innovative and more resilient, and the generation arriving today is no different.

Let me be unequivocal. Anyone in the process of becoming a Canadian, whether they are an asylum seeker, a temporary worker, an international student or in any other immigration stream, who commits a serious crime should face the full consequences of the law, including deportation, period, with zero tolerance. Committing serious crimes while enjoying the privilege of being in Canada is unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already provides for exactly that. It defines serious criminality. It provides for inadmissible findings, deportation orders and, in many cases, a permanent ban on returning to Canada. The framework is robust, and it is enforced.

The question before us is not whether criminals should face consequences. They absolutely should, and they do. The question is whether Bill C-220 actually makes Canadians safer or our system fairer. The answer is no.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, when a permanent resident or foreign national is sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment, that constitutes serious criminality. They lose the right to appeal their deportation order. For lesser offences, the immigration appeal division can examine factors such as length of time in Canada and the best interests of children.

The law is clear. Serious offences mean serious consequences. Bill C-220 would prohibit judges from even being aware of these consequences when determining a fit sentence. It would force a one-size-fits-all approach, asking courts to ignore the fact that a sentence of six months and a day carries a life-altering, drastically different penalty from a sentence of six months.

Let me correct the misconception. When a judge considers immigration consequences, the offender can still be found inadmissible for serious criminality. They are still subject to a deportation order. There is no free pass in marginal cases. The individual retains the right to argue their case before the Immigration and Refugee Board, an expert, independent tribunal that weighs public safety against individual consequences.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada, under a Conservative government, unanimously recognized in R v. Pham that immigration consequences are a legitimate factor in crafting a fit sentence. The court was explicit: A sentence must always remain proportionate to the crime and the offender's responsibility. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill was a cabinet minister when that decision was issued. The Conservatives had two full years to legislate on this if they believed there was a problem. They did not. A decade later, the Conservatives brought forward a bill that ignores the jurisprudence, the evidence and the realities of both the courts and the immigration system.

The opposition members argue that this creates a two-tier justice system. I would argue exactly the opposite. The punishment is already two-tiered. A non-citizen can also face a second and far more severe consequence that a citizen does not: deportation, permanent removal from their family and the only country that many of them may have ever known. Allowing judges to consider that reality is not special treatment. It is what ensures that the total consequence is proportionate.

We have heard examples from members opposite. The Crown already has the ability to appeal any sentence it believes is unfit. Appellate courts can and do intervene. There is no evidence of courts systematically reducing sentences inappropriately. Due process is not a loophole. It is what ensures that enforcement decisions are lawful, credible and sustainable. Bill C-220 would create a disconnect between two statutes that Parliament has designed to work together.

Let me close where I began. Canada's greatness lies in the people who have come here and chosen to build a life in this country. We owe it to them and to every Canadian to maintain a system that is fair, principled and effective. We enforce the law firmly against those who break it, but we must also reject legislation that is built on rhetoric rather than evidence, that would undermine judicial independence and that would make our system less fair without making anyone safer.

On this side of the House, we believe in an immigration system that reflects who we are: a generous, law-abiding, diverse nation that holds people accountable and treats them with fairness. Bill C-220 would not advance that vision. The government cannot support this bill.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to speak to Bill C‑220, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding immigration status in sentencing. I think it is a shame that we have to talk about immigration this evening because of a bill. What we should be talking about are the business owners and claimants who are paying the price for the unacceptable delays caused by the mismanagement of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. In Laurentides—Labelle, people are concerned and upset and their trust in democratic institutions is suffering. That is the real problem we should be dealing with.

The Bloc Québécois is cautious about Bill C-220 because this Conservative bill is rife with disinformation, demagoguery and populism. We are getting used to that. This bill is biased because it conflates facts and perceptions. It conflates the law with the conception of an idea and a value rather than what should take precedence in law: the facts. It is actually harmful to democracy, because not relying on facts is harmful to democracy. That is why the Bloc Québécois wants the bill to go to parliamentary committee so that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights can examine the facts, the reality, the case law, and do diligent work.

The judicial system is under attack across the western world. This is a tactic used by the extreme right and alternative movements. Let us not bring this discussion into our province. Quebec is a place that has been spared this rhetoric, and it is our duty as parliamentarians, but also as Quebeckers, to fight against the current trend of having politics interfere with justice. Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have said this many times, and it worries me: weaponizing the justice system and judges is a road to nowhere. All it does is inflate dubious theories. It is the job of parliamentarians to look into the matter. If there is a problem, then it is up to us to fix it, but please, let us not use partisanship to undermine our institutions.

I have a question for the Conservatives. They claim to be in favour of law and order, so why did the Harper government amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the IRPA, to reduce the criterion for serious criminality from two years less a day to six months? I think that is a valid question. Why did the Conservatives amend the IRPA to prohibit a person from appealing a removal order if they are inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality? Generally, those who support law and order also support fairness in the justice system. They support transparency in the justice system. They support a justice system that judges everyone equally. However, that is not the premise of this bill.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle that the effect that a sentence has on the offender's immigration status cannot be the determining factor in sentencing. However, that should not be done with a negative view. The Conservatives mentioned the Pham case, but do they understand it? The 2013 ruling does not state anywhere that the immigration consequences of a sentence must take precedence. The court simply noted that the immigration consequences of a sentence are one consideration among many. In addition, Bill C‑220 also states that a judge would not be able to consider the effect that a sentence might have on a family member. I want to point out that I am deeply uncomfortable with this provision. It could have the effect of undermining the best interests of a child. That is very concerning.

I am also concerned about the Conservatives' attempts to restrict judges' discretion. In order for judges to do their job, they must have the freedom to impose sentences that are individualized and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. They must be able to weigh all the factors. I want to be clear: The Supreme Court does not order judges to impose sentences based solely on a person's immigration status, but rather to consider it as one factor among others so that the sentence and its consequences are proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The Conservatives want a system of revenge. What I want, and what my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois want, is an impartial, transparent justice system that is free of partisanship.

Do we want an American-style system riddled with abuse, or do we want a real justice system? A justice system is what defines a government. I am a sovereignist, as everyone knows. I want Quebec to be a republic, as everyone also knows. In the meantime, I live in Canada and I do not want to live in a society where the justice system is at the mercy of the government in power. That is dangerous.

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

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.