Michelle Rempel

[Criminal Code, March 12th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by responding to the member for Davenport. I wholeheartedly look forward to using every ounce of my media reach to refute her position that there is no evidence showing the need for this bill. Much like the government House leader, who said that there was no evidence that rapers had not used these loopholes to remain in the country, I would say to her that I am so looking forward to using that quote over and over again to show how many instances of evidence there are to show the need for it. In the next week, I will be taking that quote from her and repeatedly showing her how many times she is so very wrong.

If there are immigration officials watching in the lobby, I would ask them to tell the member for Davenport to get ready, because she said there was no evidence showing the need for this and I will be strongly refuting her as many times as possible over the next week before the vote to show how much evidence there is, which colleagues have brought forward during this debate, so she can giddy up on that. Here we go.

The second thing is that the member for Davenport said that non-citizen criminals face the consequences of their actions. We know that is not the case. In fact, just to strongly further refute her comment that there is no evidence of this, I will also be refuting that over the next week. Therefore, if members would like to, they can tune into my Substack or any of my social media feeds, where her quote that there is no evidence will be strongly featured over the next week. They should stand by as it will be very awesome.

I want to comment very substantively on some of the concerns from my Bloc colleagues. They talked about the balance between the judiciary and the legislative branches of government. I am concerned that when it comes to immigration law, we have seen a disproportionate influence, particularly at the federal level of the judiciary, and interference not just at the federal level but also at the provincial level. The Supreme Court ruling that was issued on Friday, as it relates to Quebec's decision to restrict benefits to certain classes of non-citizens, is problematic for not just the province of Quebec but every province across the country.

It is also problematic for federal immigration law. Federal immigration law is predicated on the Constitution Act of 1867, which states that not only does this place have the right to make laws over immigration, but the provinces in some aspects do as well, and that non-citizens are treated differently than citizens in Canada. That is what our entire immigration system is predicated on. The Friday Supreme Court ruling, which overturned a Quebec government benefit decision, which was put in place in order to manage a decade of Liberal mismanagement, completely upended that. Therefore, I would say this: We need to reassert our right in this place over the judiciary to make laws when it comes to the immigration system. Members can expect to hear more from the Conservative Party of Canada on that.

On the specific concerns that some of my Bloc Québécois colleagues raised with regard to the Pham decision, I would note this. The court ruling explicitly ruled that this consideration does not constitute a charter right, a remedy or a charter breach. In fact, the ruling did not even mention the charter once. Furthermore, the ruling also made it clear that the flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences, and that to do so would be circumventing Parliament's will.

If my Bloc colleagues maintain the right for Quebec to assert its jurisdictional rights on certain grounds, then I would ask them to pay specific attention to what I have clarified here, because what has happened is that federal courts have started to overcome provincial jurisdiction in these matters. That is also part of the reason why I put this bill forward. What we are seeing is that the spirit of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has been overturned. This bill will correct that.

I encourage all colleagues in this place to vote in favour of it and to stay tuned to my social media.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 11th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I would say this. What the IRB has done is interpret the provision under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act around senior officials in a way that would exclude, and did exclude, a man named Mahdi Nasiri, who was the supreme leader of Iran, the Iranian regime's key representative at its propaganda newspaper, the political deputy of the policy council of Friday imams and the deputy at the supreme leader's representative outlet at the U.A.E.

Would my colleague agree that it would be incumbent upon the government at this point to at least review the law and come back to Parliament with suggestions on how to strengthen the provision that is within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure that men like this do not continue to be admissible to Canada?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 11th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that some agreement can break out in this place tonight. I would just like to note that colleagues in the House of all political stripes spent a lot of time debating Bill C-12, which includes some measures that I think need to pass quickly in order to begin to restore some order to the immigration system.

However, I have been closely following some of the proceedings in the other place, and I am becoming concerned that colleagues in the other place may be unduly holding up proceedings on the bill, which has been substantively amended by the House. We came to agreement. We sent it over there in December, I believe. It has been several months at this point.

I would like to see some movement from colleagues in the other place. I am just wondering if my colleague on the other side would agree and perhaps would also offer some encouragement to colleagues in the other place to respect the will of the House and to get on with it.

[Public Safety, March 11th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this number was reported by a credible Canadian news outlet. The minister will not answer how many are here. There is a loophole in the law that allows senior propagandists and senior officials of the Iranian regime, like Mahdi Nasiri, to stay in Canada. The Liberals are just letting this happen. They are letting the IRB say that yes, senior propagandists and Iranian officials who subjugate women stay in Canada. The law needs to change.

Will the minister agree to our common-sense Conservative proposal to table, within a week, a plan to review these loopholes and ensure that officials are—

[Public Safety, March 11th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, Mahdi Nasiri ran the Iranian regime's hardline propaganda newspaper and held other very senior positions within the Iranian regime, yet the Liberals let him enter Canada on a visitor visa, and then they let him stay here. Earlier today, the minister claimed that the Global News reporting was false and that there are not 700 Iranian agents in Canada.

I will ask the minister to be clear. How many senior Iranian officials like Mahdi Nasiri are in Canada?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 10th, 2026]

No, no, this is serious.

Mr. Speaker, we have members of the Persian community who are seeing their businesses shot up. People are living in fear in the street, and the Liberal immigration minister has done nothing to change the law, nothing to keep her officials in line.

Why does she still have her job?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 10th, 2026]

Okay, Mr. Speaker, he said he has removed one, and now he says he disputes the 700 number. Is it 1,000? Is it 2,000? What number is it?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 10th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, can I just recap what is in the public safety minister's QP binder? He just said that of the 700 Iranian regime officials and human rights abusers, one has been deported.

Why has he not asked his department officials to at least update the garbage that is in his QP binder?

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Mr. Chair, my colleague is asking me to put my mind into the minds of my Liberal colleagues. That is something I do not feel like doing tonight.

There is a motion in front of the immigration committee. There are already media stories on it. I intend to make this a big issue. I ask all members here to take this back to their colleagues at their caucus meetings on Wednesday morning. This should be supportable, and we should have government action on this to ensure that Iranian regime officials are deported. They should not be allowed to stay in Canada. Their identities should not be protected because their lawyers asked for privacy. They should not be given asylum. It is just bananas. Let us get them out of the country.

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Mr. Chair, the Liberal government needs to be doing more. It is patently crazy that it is saying things such as that it has deported only one because there are no flights to Iran, and that it should protect their identities and let them claim asylum. That is just craziness. Frankly, the minister needs to go to her officials, tell them to read the room, that people are unsafe, that these are human rights abusers and that maybe we should deport them as the law says we should do.

This is why Conservatives have put forward a common-sense motion at the immigration committee. We will be triggering a very publicized debate on this. My colleagues will have Wednesday caucus meetings. I would ask my Liberal colleagues to take this seriously.

I tried to write the motion so that it was politically palatable. Under the auspices of the current law, we are asking for things like a review. There is no reason why we should not be supporting these measures and keeping Canadians safe.