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 4 of 11.
“Madam Chair, there are 700 senior officials of the Iranian regime in Canada, yet the Liberals have only managed to deport one, and they are hiding the identity of some of these persons, one in particular, in their deportation hearings. Would my colleague agree that it is not in the public interest to hide the identity of Iranian officials whom the CBSA has deemed it necessary to deport from the country when no other person gets these rights?”
“Madam Chair, my colleagues from the Bloc have been talking about the lack of consultation on Israel's response to the Iranian regime. I would just like to note that Israel was not consulted before Iranian terror proxy Hamas killed 1,200 innocent Jews and other persons, including 46 Americans, on October 7. Also, Canada was not consulted when the Iranian regime shot down 45 Canadians and 30 permanent residents. Can my colleague explain how Israel's defending itself by degrading the Iranian regime's capacity to create nuclear weapons and arm its proxies is not justified?”
“Madam Chair, Iran did not observe international law when it built up the capacity for nuclear weapons or when it committed mass terror acts on many people around the world, different groups, including Israel. I would like my colleague to explain how the Israeli government's degrading the Iranian regime's capacity to build nuclear weapons, stockpile additional weapons for its proxies and continue the reign of terror on the Jewish people would not constitute defending itself.”
“Madam Chair, on October 7, 2023, Hamas, which is a proxy terror organization funded by the Iranian regime, conducted one of the worst mass murders of Jewish people since the Holocaust. The government of the regime in Iran has presented an existential threat to Israel since, frankly, time immemorial. Does my colleague agree that the Israeli people have the right to defend themselves?”
“Mr. Speaker, here is a problem. Mahdi Nasiri was a propaganda distributor, political deputy of the Iranian regime of the Friday imams' policy-making council and a deputy at the Supreme Leader's Office of the U.A.E., yet he is still in Canada. It does not seem like the CBSA or the minister is doing a very good job. Why have they deported only one of these thugs?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister just claimed that they have deported Iranian officials, yet news reports say they have deported one out of 700. Worse, today the head of the IRB said that she could not answer why they agreed to keep a deportation hearing of an Iranian regime official secret. I do not understand this. When will the Liberals start deporting Iranian regime officials?”
“Mr. Speaker, today the CBC reported what we all see every day: that the immigration minister's own Liberal colleagues cringe awkwardly as she fumbles her way through serious issues. I have had the misfortune of sitting across from her at immigration committee, where she cannot answer basic questions about bills that she has presented to Parliament. While her infamous salad quote was admittedly crazy, the immigration portfolio is no laughing matter. Under a Conservative government, Canada's immigration system functioned well. It was fair and orderly, but it is not with the current minister. Why does she still have her job?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister's record sure does speak for itself. In fact, 10 Liberal members of Parliament had comments on her record today. They were quoted in a CBC article saying what millions of Canadians already know: that the Prime Minister 's immigration minister is not getting her job done. She will not take basic meetings, processing times have not been fixed and the asylum backlog has ballooned to 300,000 people under her watch. I have said it before, and I will say it again: She is a bad minister. If the Liberal caucus does not even think she should have her job, why is the Prime Minister still defending her?”
“Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister has been in her job for a year now, and since she was appointed, we have been hearing disgusting stories every other week about non-citizens convicted of serious crimes getting leniency in order to avoid deportation. The minister could have been lobbying her cabinet colleagues to make sure that laws are changed and that victims get the justice that they deserve, but she has done nothing. If the Prime Minister wants to move at a scale and speed not seen in generations, why does he not just fire his failed minister now?”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister said, “We have the immigration system under control”, and his immigration minister said that her job is easy. At the end of this year, there will be nearly three million people in Canada on expired or expiring visas. Last year, the Liberals managed to remove only 22,000 of them, and the Liberals are still issuing hundreds of thousands of new temporary work permits this year. If the minister's job is so easy, what is her plan to get nearly three million people to leave?”
“I stand here today to warn my colleagues in this place that these are issues we cannot afford to ignore, and I pray that we will find a path for my granddaughter's generation that brings them peace, prosperity and justice. May they forgive us if we do not.”
“Mr. Speaker, Ellianna Makanalani, my granddaughter, will be born in a few short months into a world where human thought has become mechanized. Every day now, I wonder about the unique challenges she will experience because of it, what the societal impact will be and whether the value of the data she produces will come to outweigh the value of her labour. I wonder about the insecurity of knowing that thinking machines could bring automated war, the impact of the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of the few who own them, and the blurring of what it means to be a human if humanity comes to rely on machines to reason for us.”
“Mr. Speaker, the justice minister made light of the crisis that Canada's immigration system is facing in Canada. I have to ask the immigration minister this: How does she feel about having to clean up the mess of a man who made the mess and failed upwards in the government?”
“Mr. Speaker, the justice minister just dismissed the fact that the Liberals are rubber-stamping and approving asylum claims from Iran without an in-person interview. This is the type of sloppy, far-left Liberal garbage that has undermined Canada's consensus for immigration and made it harder for millions of people— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to something that the government House leader and the justice minister said. Since 2020, 86% of failed asylum claimants are still in Canada, and 100% of those people are receiving taxpayer-funded benefits that are better than most Canadians receive, like vision care and physiotherapy. How is it punching down to ask that we restore fairness by limiting the benefits of failed asylum claimants to emergency, life-saving care?”
“Madam Speaker, first, we have seen that the government's efforts to “expedite” asylum claimants means rubber-stamping applicants from hostile nations like North Korea and Afghanistan without an in-person interview. That is not acceptable. Second, the province of Quebec has seen an inordinate explosion of asylum claimants, many of them false, because the government has still not put in place more tightened restrictions to prevent illegal border crossings. Third, this measure today will also reduce the incentives for people to continue to abuse the system. If people know that their asylum claim will be rejected and they will not receive premium health benefits, fewer people will be inclined to continue to abuse the system. That is why this measure is needed, particularly for the province of Quebec.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals brought too many people in too fast for health care to keep up. When we look at the delta between federal government spending on health care and the number of people that came in, it does not match. That was validated by the fact that the immigration minister said that she did not consult provinces on the cost of health care. Our proposal today is step number one: Failed asylum claimants should not get premium health care compared to what Canadians get. They should have access to life-saving care only. Then, as the law says, they should leave Canada. There should not be any costly bureaucracies set up. We have to get back to focusing on Canadians and those who pay into Canada's health care system.”
“This is really about the need for the Liberal government to adopt proposals like ours, which are constructive and designed to restore order and fairness to Canada's immigration system.”
“Madam Speaker, the member opposite who asked that question supported Liberal policies that put an undue burden on provincial governments. When the Liberals brought in too many people too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up, what happened was that the provinces ended up shouldering the burden for a lot of the social costs of that program. In fact, my colleague who sits on the health committee, who is about to speak, actually asked the immigration minister if she had even bothered to consult the provinces on the cost of health care related to their mass immigration numbers, and the answer was no. Of course, because the Liberal government has not enacted common-sense proposals like this one, the provinces are going to start coming up with solutions on their own.”
“The motion today is a common-sense constructive proposal to get back on track. If the Liberals are serious about restoring order and fairness, they are going to have to support it. I encourage all parties in the House today to support this proposal.”
“In the last three months alone, we have seen stories that included a man convicted of possession of child pornography, who knew it was a crime when he watched it, given leniency as the judge gave him six months less a day and explicitly stated that it was to avoid immigration consequences. This practice is perpetuating a two-tier justice system in Canada where non-citizens are treated differently than Canadian citizens. That is wrong. It is a violation of the spirit of the law that has upheld Canada's immigration consensus for years. Having a two-tier justice system for non-citizens convicted of a serious crime and a two-tiered health care system for failed asylum claimants is unfair and needs to stop. We need to get back to order and fairness in Canada's immigration system, as well as in our health care system.”
“Moreover, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned any notion of a section 12 violation in the 2012 case. The trial court also dismissed section 7 arguments, confirming the charter imposes no positive obligation to fund comprehensive health care for non-citizens. The Liberals have also claimed that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes do not get more lenient sentences in order to help them avoid deportation. That too is a lie. Almost every week, another high-profile incident comes to light of a non-citizen convicted of serious crimes getting a lenient sentence and avoiding deportation.”
“Our proposal to restrict failed asylum claimants' health benefits to emergency life-saving care aligns with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution. Given the rapidly ballooning costs of the interim federal health program, it responds to pressing and substantive policy concerns. The 2012 changes to the interim federal health program were struck down primarily because they created tiers based on country of origin. Our motion today would apply to all failed asylum claimants. The 2012 Federal Court of Appeal ruling explicitly rejected the argument that immigration status alone triggers protected equality rights, affirming that distinctions between citizens and non-citizens are often permissible. Our policy aligns with that ruling by applying equally to all failed applicants.”
“Unfortunately, rather than ending the practice of giving failed asylum claimants better health care benefits than Canadians, the Liberals are now proposing to set up a costly bureaucracy that would still force Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill for 70% of the premium health care costs that failed asylum claimants incur. In fact, they have gotten things so backwards that they are, as a report stated this morning, cutting integration support for legitimate refugees who want to contribute and be a part of our country while giving premium health care benefits to failed asylum claimants. That is bananas. Instead, the Liberals should support our motion, restore fairness and restrict the health benefits that failed asylum claimants can receive to emergency life-saving care only.”
“During the time they are awaiting removal, as we know it takes a long time under the Liberal government, their health benefits should be restricted to emergency life-saving care only. Failed asylum claimants would still have access to life-saving emergency care under the measures in our motion, but gone would be their access to receive benefits that Canadians are not eligible to receive. This would also serve to reduce the demand from non-citizens, who are essentially incentivized to abuse the system, and ensure that Canadians who pay into the system are prioritized.”
“(1015) The government lacks both the operational capacity and the political will to accelerate deportations of non-citizens with no legal right to remain, so instead of removing them from Canada, as the law requires it to do, it is providing better access to health care to failed asylum claimants than to Canadians. That is not right. It is unfair to everyone. At a time when six million Canadians cannot find a family doctor, wait times to see a specialist have hit nearly 30 weeks and nearly 24,000 Canadians died on wait-lists in 2024-25, not a single person without a legal reason to be in Canada should receive better health care than Canadian citizens do. Rejected asylum claimants should be removed from Canada instead.”
“To give members a sense of the scope of the problem of the government giving health benefits to failed asylum claimants, the data in this Order Paper question showed that by adding up the refugee protection division and refugee appeal division's decisions, 86% of rejected claimants remain in Canada, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90,000 people. That aligns with recent government data showing that of at least 500,000 undocumented individuals in Canada, plus around two million people on expired or soon-to-expire work and other temporary permits, and thousands of failed asylum claimants, the Liberals only removed about 22,000 people last year. Millions of people minus 22,000 is still millions.”
“Right now, Liberals on the health committee are currently filibustering a motion that would ensure that the government provides the PBO with this data. That is because, contrary to Liberal claims, Canada's asylum backlog has gotten much worse and is still getting worse. The backlog hit a record 300,000 cases in December 2025 and massive numbers of people in that backlog will be found to have made bogus claims. This is no accident. It results directly from Liberal failures like lifting visa requirements on countries like Mexico with no safeguards to prevent bogus claims, and refusing to tighten border laws to stop illegal crossings and fraudulent asylum applications. Further, Conservative Order Paper Question No. 556 asked how many failed asylum claimants have remained in Canada since 2020 alone.”
“For starters, under the Liberals, the interim federal health program, the program that provides benefits to asylum claimants, has morphed well beyond its initial intent, which was to provide care to a small number of legitimate refugees who were fleeing to Canada from war zones. Today, it is a massive boondoggle that provides care to many bogus asylum claimants. The cost of this program has ballooned too. Conservatives uncovered that under the Liberals, the overall cost of the interim federal health program has skyrocketed by over 1,000%, from $66 million to nearly $900 million a year, and it is projected to reach $1.5 billion a year in very short order. In fact, the Liberals have mismanaged the program so badly that they did not give the data to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on costs broken down by category.”
“To restore order and fairness, the government must end both of these practices. That is why today, Conservatives are delivering constructive policy options and calling upon the government to do the following: ensure that when foreign nationals are convicted of serious crimes in Canada, our policies and practices ensure that they leave, and restrict federal benefits received by rejected asylum claimants to emergency life-saving health care only. These are common-sense measures that are needed to restore order and fairness to Canada's immigration and health care systems and to keep Canada working for everyone. In my speech today, I want to debunk some of the spin that the Liberals are using to defend some of these failures. I want to start with health care benefits for failed asylum claimants.”
“For example, the law is clear that Canada must deport non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. However, the Liberals have allowed judges to sidestep the intent of that law, handing down lighter sentences precisely to help non-citizen criminals avoid deportation. This makes our streets less safe for everyone. Failed asylum claimants, people who have made refugee claims but who have had their claims invalidated through Canadian due process, are now given access to better health care, such as vision care and physiotherapy, than Canadians. All anyone has to do is go into one of our ERs to see first-hand that Canada's health care system is crumbling. More than 100,000 Canadians have died waiting for care since 2018, which directly corresponds to the explosion of the cost of the interim federal health program.”
“She said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the wonderful, hard-working member for Riding Mountain . Under the Liberal government, we have seen a dramatic drop in public support for immigration in Canada. Before the Liberal government, Canada's immigration system welcomed people who came to Canada to work hard and to contribute. It protected the world's most vulnerable people, but the Liberals' decision to bring too many people into Canada too fast changed all of that. Canada's crumbling immigration consensus can be attributed to another Liberal failure. To keep the system fair for everyone, we must end two-tiered Liberal policies that reward non-citizens with no legal reason to be in Canada at the expense of Canadian citizens and legitimate refugees.”
“moved: Motion That, given that, (i) the cost of the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) has more than quadrupled in the last four years, from $211 million to $896 million, (ii) the cost of the IFHP is projected to rise to $1.5 billion by 2029-2030, (iii) the IFHP provides non-citizens with failed asylum claims access to benefits that Canadian citizens do not have free access to, including vision care, (iv) Canadians that have paid into the healthcare system their whole lives are unable to get the healthcare they deserve in part because resources are going to false asylum claimants, the House call on the government to: (a) review federal benefits provided to asylum claimants in order to find savings for taxpayers; (b) restrict federal benefits received by rejected asylum claimants to emergency lifesaving healthcare only; (c) provide transparency on federal spending on the IFHP by providing an annual report to Parliament, particularly regarding supplementary benefits which Canadian citizens do not have access to; and (d) pass policies to immediately expel foreign nationals convicted of serious crime in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have not been able to get hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of pandemic scam fraud returned to them, so I highly doubt they will be able to get fake refugees on deportation orders to pay back their health care. This is something that needs to end. I will ask the minister again. This is a common-sense motion. Literally everybody agrees with it. Will the minister support our constructive motion to ensure that Canadians who pay for our health system are given better access than fake refugees?”
“Mr. Speaker, over the last decade, the Liberals have enabled hundreds of thousands of bogus refugee claims. Liberals' failures on immigration like this one mean billions of tax dollars have been spent on hotels and social welfare for false refugee claimants, all while Canadians struggle to access health care and while legitimate refugees languish. This has to stop. Will the Liberals support our constructive motion to restore fairness and prioritize Canadians who pay for the health care system over fake refugees?”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that rents have doubled in Calgary, and it is not just the dream of owning a home that is fading for young Canadians. Data shows that the prospects of getting a good-paying, entry-level job for Canadian youth have never been dimmer. Canada's economy is slow, and now artificial intelligence is changing entry-level jobs in almost every field, including law and accounting. Given all of this, why are the Liberals bringing in hundreds of thousands more temporary foreign workers, with no plans to get millions with expired visas to leave, instead of incentivizing businesses to hire and give hope to Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation just said that by 2028, new housing starts will fall by as much as 18.1%. Meanwhile, the Liberals continue to bring in hundreds of thousands more temporary foreign workers and have no plans to get millions with expired visas to leave. Housing starts are not keeping up with immigration, and the Canadian dream of home ownership is fading for young people. When will the government adopt our positive plan to incentivize homebuilding by removing the GST on all new homes and restore the dream of home ownership for young Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, contrary to their claims today, everything is not fine, and the Liberals' status quo is putting lives in danger. The Liberals, if what they are saying today is true, should have no problem supporting our motion that would stop non-citizen extortionists who shoot up homes in Surrey and in Brampton from filing bogus refugee claims or getting lenient sentences to dodge removal. Why are the Liberals so determined to keep allowing non-citizen extortionists to break the law and stay here?”
“Mr. Speaker, today, if a non-citizen enters Canada, there is nothing to stop them from committing a serious violent crime and then going on to make a bogus asylum claim. This is why Conservatives put forward an amendment to Bill C-12 to close this loophole. Could the Leader of the Opposition speculate as to why the Liberals are trying to pass off the one-year, get-out-of-jail-free card, bogus refugee policy that is in Bill C-12 right now as a good thing, as opposed to actually fixing the problem?”
“Madam Speaker, my question would be why, as a member of the government caucus, the member supported a bill that protected the rights of LGBTQ Canadians, which I fully support, but also made their lives more difficult by catch-and-releasing criminals who terrorize them. The government often makes these false dichotomies, where we have to sacrifice common-sense civil liberties or protections that protect victims in order to protect one group of people. I do not buy that, and the member opposite should not either.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising those bills. The reality, as I mentioned in my speech, is that there are many bills in front of the House of Commons that Conservatives have proposed that I think the Liberals have just rejected on blind partisanship. The Liberals need to stop listening to far-left special interest groups, powerful lobby groups of lawyers who profit off this system, and start listening to the victims of crime. Premiers like Premier David Eby are saying we need more measures to support these things. There needs to be a reset in thinking that focuses on victims, upholds the sanctity of the law and Canada's—”
“He is hearing what lawyers and powerful lobby groups that profit off of these systems are saying, and he is not hearing the practical reality of—”
“Madam Speaker, I welcome the question because it is a good one, and they are not. It is not redundant. In practice, as well as in the law, we need to have an amendment to clarify, to ensure that people who have committed violent crimes cannot claim asylum and to not give lenient sentences. There are many instances now where the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act needs modernization. The definition of “serious crime” needs to be updated so that judges cannot use loopholes to give people leniency and avoid deportation. The Criminal Code needs to be updated as well, which is why I have a private member's bill in front of the House. The Liberals and the House could pass those things today, expedite them and end these processes. I am very happy to work with my colleague through these bills, but he is wrong.”
“Madam Speaker, how does a minister of the Crown not even know the bill that is in front of the House of Commons? There are two things. Number one, it was Conservatives who went to Liberals to separate out the parts. The parts she talked about are in Bill C-12 , not Bill C-2 . That is wrong number one. Wrong number two is that Bill C-12 would not stop somebody from coming into Canada right now, committing a violent crime and then making an asylum claim. The other thing is that there are 300,000 people in the refugee claim system right now, which means it takes years for those claims to be processed. In those years, those violent criminals can avoid deportation, claim social benefits and do all sorts of other things that make a mockery of Canada's immigration system and our justice system and harden attitudes toward immigration.”
“Eliminating these deterrents signalled to criminals that repercussions are minimal, and it contributed to massive spikes across the country in violent crime, firearms offences and sexual assaults. I thought we would get serious about sexual assault in this place, but no, that bill still stands. There is no deterrent for it, and the Liberals will not move. Every time I hear somebody talk about sexual assault, there is no action. Somewhere today, I bet right now, in Surrey, in Brampton, in Edmonton, in Calgary, somebody is receiving an extortion threat. Somebody has been defrauded of their life savings. Still, somebody is going to receive catch-and-release bail or might be able to make a refugee claim—”
“It is the why. It is the silent thing that nobody wants to talk about, but it is true. It is destroying our pluralism and making the lives of everybody harder, Canadians and newcomers alike, and it has to stop. That is why we have this motion in front of the House of Commons today. These things have to change. They are real. They are destroying communities. My colleagues later today will talk about the impacts of the fact that the Liberals have not repealed Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . These are bills that have enabled the catch-and-release justice system, that lowered sentences for serious crimes and provide every incentive possible for people to commit serious crimes in Canada and get away with it.”
“He implied, and Liberals have implied, that these scenarios are far-fetched. The very next day I rose in the House, and I could have given multiple examples but gave one in Barrie, where a non-citizen pleaded guilty of raping a 13-year-old girl and impregnating her twice but was given an adjournment specifically to evaluate how his guilty plea and sentence would affect his immigration status. That is absolutely disgusting. That is an abrogation of our democratic system, upholding the rule of law and our immigration laws. It is disgusting. There has been silence from the Liberals over and over again. Premier Eby is right that it has to change. Not only have the Liberals made this situation worse, and empowered it, but they are silent today on this and are not doing anything. This is why immigration attitudes have hardened in Canada.”
“There is also the massive problem of judges routinely giving lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in order to avoid deportation, which is already set out as a consequence in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have a simple one-line bill to amend the Criminal Code that the Liberals could pass today and that would stop this practice, and yet when I brought forward my bill in the House, the Liberals were so tone-deaf that during the debate, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made the false claim that judges do not grant special lenience in cases of, for example, sexual assault and questioned whether anyone seriously believed a rapist would receive preferential treatment because of potential deportation risks.”
“This includes non-citizens who have active legal proceedings for committing serious crimes, and Bill C-12 , which is currently in the other place, would only, in theory, prevent non-citizens who have been in Canada for over a year from making asylum claims. It would do nothing to stop a non-citizen from entering Canada, committing a serious crime within a year and then making a refugee claim, especially a non-citizen with ties to transnational gangs, and we know there are major problems with screening right now. This is why Conservatives proposed the amendment that we did, and it is why the Liberals should have accepted that amendment, but they did not. That is, arguably, insane. That is what is fuelling this crisis.”
“I would also note that Conservatives have already attempted to get the Liberals to ban non-citizens convicted of serious crime from making asylum claims in an amendment to Bill C-12 , which is currently before the other place, but the Liberals in this place rejected the amendment, and that is crazy. I know the Liberals today will likely rise to debate and say everything is fine and that laws already cover these issues, but they do not. Here are the facts. A massive backlog of asylum claims, nearly 300,000, or about the entire population of Burnaby, which has been amassed under the Liberal government, means that non-citizens can make asylum claims that take years to process.”