Michelle Rempel Garner
Calgary Nose Hill, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, non-citizens' committing serious crimes in Canada and then getting sweetheart sentences in order to avoid deportation, which the Liberals are letting happen right now, is undermining Canadians' desire for immigration.”
“Mr. Speaker, after a year, how can she put that falsehood forward in the House? People are getting sweetheart sentences in order to avoid deportation. There is a story every week.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives proposed a law that would ensure that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada do not get sweetheart sentences so they can avoid deportation, but the Minister of Immigration voted against it. It is her job to maintain order in Canada's immigration system, but the system is clearly out of control.”
“Mr. Speaker, last year, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said this, referring to Alberta: “I am not certain that oil and gas qualifies” to define a culture. A leftist Canadian podcaster recently claimed, “Alberta has ZERO culture. None.”
“The people who try hard to beat the culture of self-determinism out of my province do so to their own detriment and to the detriment of the entire country. A stronger Alberta in a united Canada means acknowledging and giving thanks for Alberta's culture, and praying hard that Alberta will be lucky enough to get more of it.”
“Of all of the human virtues, these qualities are hardest to master, and there is no harder place to learn them than in front of the screens of millions of Canadians while sitting in the pressure cooker that is the Ottawa bubble as an elected leader. I see my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 546 lines we hold for Michelle Rempel Garner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, non-citizens' committing serious crimes in Canada and then getting sweetheart sentences in order to avoid deportation, which the Liberals are letting happen right now, is undermining Canadians' desire for immigration. It is what is breaking the consensus on immigration in Canada, yet the Liberals stand up and say nothing is wrong. This is the immigration minister's fault. I am going to give the minister one more time to answer, possibly the last time before a shuffle. Will her legacy in this role be closing this loophole, bringing these non-citizens to justice and deporting them?”
“Mr. Speaker, after a year, how can she put that falsehood forward in the House? People are getting sweetheart sentences in order to avoid deportation. There is a story every week. Section 34 of a law that she maintains, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, requires them to be deported, yet she voted against a law that would close a loophole that prevents people who have been convicted of serious crimes from being deported. Why will she not stand up for people? Why will she not maintain an orderly system? She should be closing this loophole now.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives proposed a law that would ensure that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada do not get sweetheart sentences so they can avoid deportation, but the Minister of Immigration voted against it. It is her job to maintain order in Canada's immigration system, but the system is clearly out of control. Can the Minister of Immigration tell the victim of an assault why the non-citizen who assaulted them and then broke their no-contact order was given a lenient sentence so they would not be deported?”
“Mr. Speaker, how many citizenships have been issued to non-citizens with bogus documents since the Liberals passed the chain migration bill, Bill C-3 , and how many more does the government project may be issued over the next five years?”
“The people who try hard to beat the culture of self-determinism out of my province do so to their own detriment and to the detriment of the entire country. A stronger Alberta in a united Canada means acknowledging and giving thanks for Alberta's culture, and praying hard that Alberta will be lucky enough to get more of it. I say, “giddy-up”.”
“Mr. Speaker, last year, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said this, referring to Alberta: “I am not certain that oil and gas qualifies” to define a culture. A leftist Canadian podcaster recently claimed, “Alberta has ZERO culture. None. Unless you count oil patch hillbillies getting blackout wasted ‘culture’.” Here is a wake-up call for anyone who shares that paternalistic view. Alberta's culture is what drives Canada. Alberta's culture of risk-taking that drove the development of the Leduc No. 1 has fuelled the entire Canadian economy. The same culture of resiliency and self-sufficiency that pushes our farmers and ranchers to feed the world builds hospitals for Ontario and Quebec. Our culture of perseverance, swagger and love of wild beauty is in our art, our music and our festivals.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, there are regions in Canada with ultralow unemployment. However, in major urban centres across the country, unemployment is out of control. There are over 400,000 young Canadians who are out of work. Instead of flooding the labour market with more temporary foreign workers, the government should be trying to match available Canadians with those jobs. This is where the policy discussion should be, not with the interests of lobbyists. Why will the government not abolish the TFW program and match available Canadians with available jobs?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like that minister to tell Ethan Miranda, a young unemployed tech worker who poured his heart out to the immigration committee because he put out 500 résumés, is highly educated, yet did not get a single call back, that we need more temporary foreign workers. Conservatives would abolish the temporary foreign worker program and replace it with a targeted program for genuinely hard-to-fill agricultural jobs, and match unemployed Canadians to regions with severe labour shortages. Why will the Liberals not follow suit?”
“Of all of the human virtues, these qualities are hardest to master, and there is no harder place to learn them than in front of the screens of millions of Canadians while sitting in the pressure cooker that is the Ottawa bubble as an elected leader. I see my colleague. I know that my colleague has always had his heart with the people who elected him, and as he leaves the House, colleague to colleague, I wish him this blessing: continuing the journey to find balance with those lessons, which admittedly is something I have to remind myself to fixate on every day. I also want to thank him for taking risks, pushing himself and earning the right to say that he has walked that path, which frankly few people in this place actually do. In his future endeavours, may he be known as a consensus-building maverick.”
“In that, Parliament needs much more envelope pushing and much less quiet complacency. My hope, as our colleague takes his leave of the House, is that the spirit he demonstrated over his decade of service here takes root, with a caveat. Here is one other lesson I have learned in Parliament. In order to get anything done for our constituents, we have to build consensus. Oftentimes in Parliament, lesson number one and lesson number two are in direct conflict with each other. How do we advance a policy on behalf of our constituency if our party does not want to embrace it, and how do we convince colleagues that our solution or our leadership is in their best interest? The answer to all these questions is humility, patience, persistence and self-discipline.”
“Mr. Speaker, in tribute to my colleague, I will share with folks a couple of lessons I have learned in my time. The first is that the power and responsibility granted to a member of Parliament from the centre of a political party are never greater than the power and responsibility granted by our constituents, and the first and foremost role of an MP is to hold the government to account. On that point, I have watched our colleague do that even while sitting in the governing party's caucus, and that takes a spine. Our colleague has introduced bold private member's legislation that started national conversations and that pushed his party in Parliament to take clear positions on critical issues. Parliament works only when each of us remembers who sent us here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody in Canada is buying that. Everyone sees what happened here. The Liberals had mass immigration and open border policies coupled with a woke judiciary and catch-and-release bail policies for a decade. Now, people across the country, law-abiding Canadians and newcomers alike, are paying the price. The Liberals rejected our common-sense Conservative bill that would have ensured that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes are sentenced based on their crimes, not on their passports. Why would they do that? Why are they continuing this craziness and allowing non-citizen criminal rings to continue to harass—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Durham police are busy because the Liberals lack screening policies, lack a criminal justice system and let these people into the country to begin with, which is a problem. It is the same light-touch process that recently granted a visitor permit to an IRGC terrorist. What is the best way to stop non-citizen criminals from committing crimes in Canada? It is preventing them from entering the country in the first place. Can the Liberals tell the victims of these violent, non-citizen criminals how they got into Canada to begin with?”
“Mr. Speaker, Durham police just exposed a major criminal tourism ring, laying 1,500 charges against dozens of non-citizen criminals, primarily from Romania and India. Today, there are even more reports about the Bishnoi Gang, a violent extortion racket that has been recruiting Indian foreign nationals whom the Liberals let into Canada on foreign student visas. The Liberals' lax border policies and catch-and-release bail policies have turned Canada into a playground for international criminals. Which minister will finally be fired for this disgusting failure?”
“Mr. Chair, we have to realize that the Liberals are sitting here, mocking this. That is why Canadians have lost faith in immigration. It is because of things like this. All we have to do is pass a one-line change to the Criminal Code. A non-citizen trucker in Ontario killed another truck driver and severely injured a passenger. There were real victims to this crime, and that person should have been deported. Why were they not?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister has no respect for the victims, no compassion or empathy for them and, frankly, no respect for the rule of law. Otherwise, she would have voted for this bill to stop this process. I will ask her to have empathy for these victims. A non-citizen caused a crash in British Columbia that killed two people. Instead of being deported for this horrible crime, he received a lenient sentence in order to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victims' families why this person is still in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, I brought in a law that would have amended the Criminal Code by one line, to say that judges cannot issue lenient sentences in order to help non-citizens avoid deportation. I will ask the minister again. Colleagues should keep in mind that I am asking her to speak to victims. It is drivel that she is putting forward. Members should think about that and think about what these victims are hearing. A non-citizen arranged to have sex with an underage girl and then received a lenient sentence in order to avoid deportation. Does the minister think this person deserves to stay in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, it is inconceivable that they voted against a bill to close this loophole and amend the Criminal Code to deport non-citizens convicted of serious crime and uphold the law. Here is another example. A non-citizen caused a deadly crash on Highway 401, then received a lenient sentence in order to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victim's family why this person is still in Canada?”
“However, Mr. Chair, they are not being treated seriously. They are not being deported. Here is another example. A non-citizen who committed a string of crimes in Calgary pleaded to a lesser crime of assault in order to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victim why this person is still in Canada?”
“Exactly, Mr. Chair, we need a new law, but the minister voted against the law that would have prevented this. People who are sitting at home and who are listening to example after example of the lived experiences of non-citizens getting sweetheart deals and being able to stay in this country after serious crimes are listening to her drivel and wondering how Canada got this way. A non-citizen sexually assaulted an 18-year-old girl in a nightclub in Calgary and then was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister try again? What is she going to tell the victim of this criminal? Why is he still in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, as a lawyer, she should know that what the court ruling actually said was that there was nothing in the charter that gave people these rights, and my bill was constitutional, so shame on her. She voted against it. A non-citizen spied on his roommates while they used the bathroom. The minister is sitting here arguing that it is okay for this person to be in Canada, yet he was given a lenient sentence so that he would avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victims of this disgusting rapist why he is still in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, there is nothing to prevent it, either, and that is why the Conservatives brought in a bill to close this loophole. The minister could have told the justice minister to support it, but in fact she voted against it. This is her fault. A non-citizen was convicted of major theft, a crime that carries a punishment of 10 years. Instead of being deported, she received house arrest to avoid deportation. Why should she be allowed to stay in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, this non-citizen did not face serious consequences. He was caught trafficking cocaine and was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell Canadians, in spite of all her claims, why he is still in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister claims that, yet it is still happening over and over again. A non-citizen was found guilty of assault then broke his no-contact order, yet he was still given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell his victim why he is still in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, they do not. A non-citizen trucker received a lenient sentence specifically so they could dodge deportation after they caused a fatal crash in Ontario. Can the minister tell the family of the victim why this person is still in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, a non-citizen in Kitchener battered his girlfriend, then a judge gave him a lenient sentence so he would not be deported. Can the minister tell the victim why this person is still in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, the law requires that non-citizens convicted of a serious crime be deported, yet the minister refuses to close a loophole that keeps them here. A temporary foreign worker assaulted a woman then robbed her, yet he was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victim why this person is still in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister talked about another justice bill. Bill C-16 renders all mandatory minimum penalties meaningless, which means that this problem of giving sweetheart sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes would only get worse. Will the minister go to the justice minister and recommend an amendment to Bill C-16 that would not juice this problem of judges giving lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, like the strangler my colleague just talked about, to ensure that they do not have the privilege of staying in our country and are deported like they should be?”
“Mr. Chair, that translates to blah, blah, blah, another rapist stays in Canada, blah, blah, blah, another thief stays in Canada, blah, blah, blah, another extortionist stays in Canada. This is integral to Canadian national identity. They have to respect the rule of law. What the Liberals are saying is that if they commit a serious crime, as guests in our country, they can stay here because the Liberals refuse to close this loophole that is being exploited by a woke judiciary. Will they do the right thing and finally close it?”
“Mr. Chair, that is just not the case. Every day there is a new headline. For example, this one: “Judge gives lenient sentence so trucker can dodge deportation after fatal Ontario crash”. That is not a consequence. They get to stay in our country. Guests in our country have to abide by the rule of law. The rule of law is part of our national identity. Can she just say that she will go to the justice minister and say that they are getting roasted on this, and rightly so, and that they need to close this loophole?”
“Mr. Chair, does the minister realize how inane and uncompassionate she sounds? She says, “Oh, there is nothing in the law that says this.” It says it in the law. My bill would have closed this loophole, and she could have gone to the justice minister and told him to close this loophole. She sat back and said that it was fine. No, the result is what my colleague just said: people being strangled and their abusers staying in Canada. Why will she not advocate to deport them?”
“Mr. Chair, inaction speaks louder than words. What my colleague just talked about is a constituent who was strangled by her non-citizen partner and yet he remains in Canada. I believe he is trying to apply for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and she is living in a women's shelter. It is because the government has done nothing to enforce the law. Will the minister commit to talking to the justice minister and telling him to close the loophole that allows judges to give sweetheart sentences to allow disgusting, non-citizen criminals like the person my colleague referenced to be deported from Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, the provinces' social services are being strained by the minister's policy. She is issuing 215,000 new foreign worker permits this year. The asylum system is still out of control. If a province asks clearly for more control over immigration, would the minister commit to advocating for that?”
“Mr. Chair, the question, specifically, was this: If a province wants more autonomy over immigration, would the minister be open to granting it? I will ask the minister this: Does she support the principle that the federal government should grant equal autonomy over immigration powers to all provinces that request it, rather than giving it to one province while denying the same power to others?”
“Mr. Chair, the Liberals' policy of bringing in too many low-skilled non-citizens too fast meant that public services that provinces maintain, such as social welfare, subsidized housing, health care and primary education, have become strained. Does the minister support giving the provinces that want it greater control over immigration for the purpose of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving their own residents first priority for new job opportunities?”
“Mr. Chair, I will take that as her saying she will not cancel the permits and that Tim Hortons will continue to get TFW permits. It also claims that it is committed to hiring locally, but then admitted it could include non-citizens on foreign student visas. The minister is approving 250,000 new TFW and foreign student work permits this year during the middle of a youth jobs crisis. How many of those workers will be employed by Tim Hortons?”
“Mr. Chair, after years of rampant misuse of the temporary foreign worker program, a national headline read, “Tim Hortons says Temporary Foreign Worker program ‘no longer necessary’”. However, it currently has more than 80 TFW positions advertised on the Government of Canada website. Will the minister cancel these permits and not issue any more?”
“Mr. Chair, that was not a clear answer and does not fill me with confidence. Several weeks ago, a plane carrying someone suspected of potentially having been exposed to the Ebola virus was redirected from the U.S. to Montreal. What immigration measures has the minister put in place to prevent future incidents like this from happening?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time. With hundreds of thousands of people from around the world about to enter Canada for FIFA World Cup, is the minister confident that the immigration measures she has enacted will ensure Ebola will not enter and spread in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. There is not anything in the Criminal Code. That is why we put forward a bill to put something in the Criminal Code to stop this. When she had an opportunity to sway the justice minister to support the bill, the man who created the massive Liberal dumpster fire that she is perpetuating, she said, “No, it is fine.” Today, the Liberals are defending this abysmal practice. This is divisive post-nationalism that the Liberals have put forward for years. The respect for the rule of law is a minimum requirement for anybody in our country, and when they erode that, they erode our national identity. Every normal Canadian would agree with this. Why do the Liberals not agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, a non-citizen on a student visa organized major theft from an Alberta store not once, but 14 times. They were convicted of a major crime under Canada's Criminal Code, which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. They should have been deported, as the law requires, but today we found out that they were not. The National Post reported that a judge gave them a sweetheart deal, house arrest, so that they could avoid deportation. By voting against our bill to ensure non-citizen criminals do not get sweetheart sentences, the Liberals sent a message that it is okay for non-citizens to commit major crimes. Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the program is temporary. That is what it was designed to be, but the PBO said today that failed asylum claimants, people who are supposed to be removed from the country, are getting benefits like vision care and physiotherapy for years. That is why the cost is mushrooming year after year. A billion dollars could build a hospital. Instead, it is going to failed asylum claimants. That is not fair. Why will she not cancel these luxury benefits?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Liberals understand ho w profoundly unfair the system is right now, to everybody. The Liberals brought too many non-citizens into Canada too fast for health care to keep up, and millions of Canadians are waiting for basic medical services. Today, the PBO showed that there are 74,000 failed asylum seekers, people who have bogus asylum claims, who are getting benefits like vision care. This is costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Premium health benefits should be going to Canadians, not to failed asylum claimants who should be removed from Canada. Why are they not?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know about others, but I think it is a little condescending that the Minister of Transport gets up to answer the questions that were directed toward the Minister of Immigration. I will say this: It is absolutely mind-boggling that the person in charge of one of the most critical files in government, who gets paid $300,000 and has a taxpayer-funded driver, cannot even be bothered to show up for work for four hours to be held to account. She has not committed to the full four hours. She needs to look behind her, because all of her caucus openly wonders to the CBC why she still has her job. Will the Minister of Immigration stand up and say, “Yes, I will be there for four hours” to answer our questions?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to take that as a “No, I cannot do my job and will not show up for work for four hours.” I understand why the minister does not want to show up for four hours. In the last two weeks alone, there have been multiple cases of sweetheart deals for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. Terrorists are still in Canada, and money is being poured into refugee hotels. I will ask again, will the Minister of Immigration show up for the full four hours on Thursday night and be held to account for her terrible decisions?”
“Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Minister of Immigration is supposed to show up for four hours to be held to account for her decisions during the committee of the whole, but she has not confirmed that she will attend or that she will answer questions for the full four hours, as her colleague, the finance minister , did. I understand that she is scared to be held to account for the atrocious dumpster fire she has presided over for the last year, but she has a job to do, and if she will not do it, the Prime Minister needs to finally fire her. Will the Minister of Immigration commit to answering questions for the full four hours on Thursday night, or will the Prime Minister finally fire her?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he has taken back control of the immigration system, but that is kind of hard to believe. In the past year, his government has let in hundreds of thousands of new temporary foreign workers while Canadians cannot find jobs. They have no way of tracking whether millions of non-citizens on expired or expiring visas will leave. Now the government is issuing visas to terrorists, and every time the minister speaks, somehow she manages to make things worse. Why has the Prime Minister not fired her?”
“That must mean that she is following his orders. There is no other plausible reason that a minister with this many failures under her belt would still have her job. The reality is that the buck stops with the Prime Minister. He needs to fire her and fix the system, not claim that everything is okay when it is not.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims to have taken back control of the immigration system, but that is really hard to believe. That is because in the past year, the Prime Minister has allowed the government to let in hundreds of thousands of new non-citizen temporary foreign workers while Canadian kids cannot find jobs or a place to rent. The Liberals have allowed massive, scandalous fraud to run rampant in the non-citizen student visa program. They have turned a blind eye to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada, who are getting sweetheart deals to avoid deportation. They have lost track of millions of non-citizens who have no legal reason to be in Canada, and they are issuing visas to terrorists. The immigration minister told us she meets with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis to discuss her file.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we listen to that answer and then listen to the Prime Minister say that the Liberals have taken back control of the immigration system, it kind of sounds a little delulu. The entire system is rife with abuse. There is no way to track if non-citizens actually leave and they are issuing visitor visas to terrorists. If this is the Prime Minister 's definition of what taking control of the immigration system is, then the dumpster fire is his fault, not hers. Does she agree?”