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 9 of 11.
“Amnesty International and a coalition of another 300 organizations suggested that the bill should be challenged for potentially violating section 8 of the charter. For Bill C-2 , which has provisions similar to Bill C-12 , the federal government's charter statement asserts that any engagements are justified under section 1 as proportionate for border security and safety. It also makes a bunch of other assertions and says that everything is fine. Here is the thing. There is a massively vast gulf between legal lobbyists, who do not want any sort of boundaries on the abuse of the asylum system because they are financially motivated to make endless appeals by the big glut of people coming in and abusing the asylum system, and what the Liberals are saying would be charter-compliant.”
“Advocacy groups have claimed that Bill C-12 may precipitate tens of thousands of court cases. The Refugee Law Lab, for example, in its report on provisions inherited from Bill C-2 , highlighted potential infringements on section 7 of the charter due to the one-year bar on refugee claims, as well as section 15 on equality rights. This group has also suggested that it is already planning empirical research for litigation. The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association suggested that the immigration provisions in Bill C-12 could be challenged because the Governor in Council powers for mass revocation of immigration status risk violating section 7 by enabling arbitrary politically motivated actions.”
“Today, thanks to the Liberals, many of the claimants in Canada's system are trying to claim asylum for reasons far beyond what the scope of the Geneva Convention imagined or proposed, and most are likely economic migrants. (1540) Now we find ourselves here with the provisions in Bill C-12 . The provisions outlined herein would undoubtedly face, without question, charter challenges, and given the state of Canada's judiciary, they are likely to be struck down by the courts. Consequently, considering the Liberal government's history of not appealing court rulings on immigration matters, as evidenced by the events that precipitated the current federal bill, Bill C-3 , this would probably result in a further clogging of Canada's already overburdened judicial system and the continued deterioration of the asylum system.”
“Lax enforcement and limited oversight of immigration consultants have massively exacerbated this problem. The determination process of these claims itself is inefficient, with inconsistent decisions that plague an already massively clogged system. Some experts suggest that the higher rates of acceptance in recent years are due to a desire by bureaucrats to rubber-stamp applications in an effort to clear the backlog. What does this type of action do instead? It incentivizes more abuse of the system. Said differently, the Liberals' breaking of the asylum system is a direct affront to the principles behind the 1951 refugee convention, which aimed to protect individuals fleeing true persecution. It was never meant to support economic migration.”
“This is on top of the billions of dollars that have been spent on providing funding to house asylum claimants in hotels and affordable housing, many of whom are bogus, while Canadians struggle to afford rent. A shocking number of claims do, in fact, appear to be bogus, with news reports revealing nearly identical stories in hundreds of applications under one immigration consultant who had coached them unscrupulously. They often originate from low-risk countries with high volumes of issued temporary visas, serving as a back door to extend stays after student or work permits expire. Loopholes abound: easy inland claims, fraudulent labour market impact assessments and consultants peddling fake persecution narratives for fast-tracked permanent residency.”
“At current rates, estimates suggest it could take 25 years to clear the current inventory, while thousands more claims keep pouring in. The prolonged uncertainty and volume created by this backlog strain resources and people with valid claims alike. This backlog is failing the world's most vulnerable, who have real claims of persecution. Nearly $1 billion has been spent by the Liberals on something called the interim federal health program, which provides benefits to asylum claimants that in some cases Canadians do not even have taxpayer-funded access to. Since the Liberal government came to power, the program has increased in cost by 1,200% because of the backlog in the asylum claim system.”
“It is unfortunate, because since that time, over 60,000 asylum claims have been made by Mexican nationals due largely to the visa lift. Most have bogus claims, most are still in the processing queues and many have abused the government's payment of hotel rooms for people. It is insane that we are here having this debate again. Experts have raised concerns that there are likely many more asylum claims on the way from the record three million temporary residents the Liberals allowed into Canada over the past few years whose visas are about to expire. Social media posts have encouraged people to attempt to extend their temporary resident permits by making bogus asylum claims. The result is that Canada's asylum claim system is drowning in over 296,000 claims, with average processing times of 29 months or more.”
“At that time, I remember the Liberals implied I was a racist for saying these things, and here we are with Bill C-12 in front of us because of this failure. Well over 100,000 people have entered Canada illegally from the United States since 2015 and claimed asylum. Most have bogus claims, most are still in the processing queue, most have work permits and access to health care, and many have been put up for years in hotels at the taxpayers' expense. At the same time, the Liberals lifted visa requirements from countries that have had a long history of high levels of bogus asylum claims, like Mexico, without any plan in place to prevent those claims from skyrocketing again. At that time, I raised many concerns about this issue, which fell on deaf ears.”
“Said differently, if somebody had a failed asylum claim in the United States, they never should have been allowed to claim asylum in Canada after illegally crossing the borders, but the Liberals opened the floodgates in 2017, even putting up infrastructure at the illegal border crossing most used, Roxham Road, and instructing RCMP officers to help people with their baggage. In many instances, scammers, unscrupulous consultants and even human traffickers exploited the system at the expense of the integrity and compassion of Canada's asylum system and the safety of all involved. The Liberals encouraged this for years. (1535) I have been standing in this place for years now saying this and here we are.”
“In 2017, the leader of the Liberal government tweeted, “#WelcomeToCanada”, in a tweet that was designed to encourage failed asylum claimants in the United States whose temporary protected status had been revoked by a due process to come to Canada instead, and come they did. After that tweet, well over 100,000 people illegally crossed the border into Canada and claimed asylum, many in spite of the fact that they did not have valid asylum claims in the United States, which is considered to be a safe third country.”
“As such, it is my assessment that the immigration provisions in the bill are likely to fail without substantive amendment and additional measures to both reduce the incentive for economic migrants to abuse the asylum system, to swiftly remove bogus asylum claimants from Canada, and to restructure this asylum system to ensure that the world's most vulnerable persons do not continue to be let down by the Liberal government. I will now demonstrate to colleagues and the IRCC bureaucrats listening in the government lobby why this failure is likely to occur and what changes must be made. To begin, it is important to understand the extent to which Canada's asylum system is broken and how we got to this point because we cannot fix something if we do not understand what the problem is.”
“When the Minister of Immigration claimed that the immigration provisions contained in Bill C-2 , and now in this bill, would do something about this problem, she said it “would improve the flexibility and responsiveness of the asylum system”. However, in reality, the immigration provisions of this bill are structured to do one thing, which is to shift the responsibility for addressing Canada's deeply broken asylum system to the courts and away from the Liberal government that broke it in the first place, potentially past the horizon of the next election.”
“In effect, over the last decade, the Liberal government has allowed Canada's asylum system to veer far away from the original principles of its design and turned it into a backdoor, skip-the-line, economic migration stream, which is not accounted for at all in federal immigration levels planning, including the impact on housing supply, health care access and jobs. The Liberal failure has had many negative impacts, which I will outline today, with the two most noteworthy being the destruction of the fairness and compassion of Canada's asylum system and, in turn, the inability of the system to prioritize the world's most vulnerable persons.”
“While there are many highly persecuted persons around the world who are legitimately seeking refuge in Canada, there are many claims currently in that massive backlog that are bogus. Those claims are taking years, not months or weeks, to process, and worse, even after being found to be a bogus claim, an applicant can appeal their process for years more and then not be deported for years after that, if they are deported at all. During this time, bogus claimants can draw social benefits that Canadians do not have access to, such as vision care.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's asylum system is deeply and fundamentally broken after 10 years of Liberal government. This was not the case 10 years ago, but today, Canada's once compassionate asylum claim system has been absolutely ruined, absolutely abused and absolutely made a mess of by the Liberal government. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-12 . I will direct my comments to parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the bill, which would amend the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act as well as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These parts are similar to the immigration provisions contained in Bill C-2 . A decade ago, Canada's asylum claim backlog sat at less than 10,000 cases. Today, that backlog sits at several hundred thousand cases, with thousands more claims being made every month.”
“What I am worried about with the bill is that the Liberals are just punting the problem to the courts and potentially past the next election date, as opposed to making a serious structural reform that would reduce the incentive for economic migrants to abuse Canada's asylum system. Could my colleague comment on the fact that many groups have said it is unconstitutional when the minister has said it is constitutional, and this is likely an attempt by the Liberal government to punt the asylum claim system problem to the courts?”
“Madam Speaker, many interest groups looked at the immigration provisions in Bill C-2 that are now contained in Bill C-12 . They have raised concerns about the constitutionality of these principles. Several groups have actually done this. The minister suggested she thinks it is constitutional. My concern is that if we have all these groups saying it is unconstitutional when the minister thinks it is constitutional, and there are no other provisions to deal with the massive backlog of asylum claims, then how is the Liberal government going to functionally reduce the asylum claim backlog?”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that for the first time in Canadian history, we have over three million temporary residents in the country, and the Liberals are still issuing record levels of temporary resident permits. If we combine that with the Liberals' broken humanitarian claim system, a protracted appeal system and their reluctance to deport, what is happening is that most temporary residents effectively stay here indefinitely. Fairness must be restored. Will the minister update our outdated laws and require at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident to qualify for automatic citizenship?”
“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal immigration failure, we need to restore order and fairness to the system. Today there are over three million temporary residents in Canada, an unprecedented 7.2% of Canada's population. There is no plan to get them to leave, and this is straining housing, health care and jobs. Now some temporary residents are exploiting Canada's outdated automatic citizenship rules to try to overstay their visas. Will the minister align with most other countries in the world and require at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident to qualify for automatic citizenship?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems the Liberals could not do a simple Google search on an incestuous child sex abuser. Nonetheless, the person who let this person into Canada is now, thanks to the Prime Minister , our justice minister . Instead of deporting Hussain, right now the Liberals are letting him gum up Canada's court system. This is truly disgusting and is antithetical to what it means to be Canadian. The person who allowed this incestuous child sex abuser into Canada should be fired. Why did the Prime Minister promote the then immigration minister, who allowed an incestuous child sex abuser into Canada, to the Minister of Justice ?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2017, Gullfam Hussain, a Pakistani national, was convicted in the United Kingdom for “Adult sexual activity with a female child family member 13 to 17—offender over 18—penetration”. Said differently, Hussain had incestuous sex with his underage niece and was placed on the U.K.'s sex offender registry. However, in 2023, the Liberals granted Hussain a visa to enter Canada. Can the Liberals explain why they allowed a publicly listed incestuous child sex abuser into Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what “on track” means when there are 600 serious criminals who are non-citizens, who should be deported, but are on the streets. We asked these questions in May and in June. The minister had the entire summer to come up with a plan. These are people who have been convicted of crimes like sexual assault. He lost them and he cannot find them. Why will the Prime Minister not fire his public safety minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, over the summer it was revealed that the public safety minister lost track of 600 non-citizens with serious criminal records who were set to be deported. Over 70% of these people have been convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual assault. Right now, these people are still roaming our streets. The minister had one job: to keep Canadians safe. He has failed to do that. Will the Prime Minister fire his public safety minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned her record as immigration minister in a provincial government. During that time, a Nova Scotia auditor found that there were the following issues: There was “No process to determine provincial labour market needs and assess whether these are being addressed” by Nova Scotia's provincial nominee program, and “None of the eight recommendations from a 2020 fraud risk assessment [had] been implemented.” I will ask the same question: Why did the Prime Minister put an incompetent minister into this position?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the minister was appointed, many more people have been abused and defrauded by Canadian immigration consultants who contribute to the chaos in Canada's immigration system while the minister just lets them. Instead of taking advice experts have been giving for years, which is to make immigration consultants report to lawyers, the minister said this summer that this is fine, and she doubled down on a system that is clearly not working. The Prime Minister chose an incompetent minister for one of the most important files in government. Why?”
“Bill C-220. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing) . She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce this urgently needed bill, which seeks to remove the consideration of immigration status in sentencing and would end the two-tier practice of judges issuing more lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crime. Becoming a citizen or staying in Canada is a privilege, not a right, for non-citizens, and this bill seeks to uphold the will of Parliament and the initial spirit of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I would like to thank Sean Phelan, Andrew Evans and my whole team, as well as my colleague who is seconding this bill. I hope that all colleagues in the House will support it.”
“I remember this: He said, “Our lives are short. Make each day count. Spend less time on a plane and more time with your family, Michelle.” It is advice that is hard to internalize in this place. Certainly, I still struggle with it every day, but it underscores that life in public service cannot be walked alone. (1555) My deepest condolences go to Nancy, Andrew, Jamie and Duncan, and to their families, for a loss that I think a lot of people across the country felt. I also extend my gratitude to John's family for their support to John throughout his time in public office. John, may you rest in peace.”
“Sometimes we found compromise and sometimes we did not, but at the end of the day, I trusted John because I knew he was coming at his work from a sense of trying to respect our democratic institutions and from a place of love and support for the people in his community. I have to say that I have sorely missed that dynamic since John left. I was spoiled as an opposition critic. I will always respect him for that. A few years ago, John and I found ourselves accidentally seated beside each other on a plane. It was funny; people were walking down the aisle and saw us seated together, and they were like, “Uh-oh”, but it was one of the best plane rides I have ever had. Many of the members share what we shared, as we are on a plane quite often. He was extremely wistful and imparted some sage words of advice.”
“In my experience with John, I found that he understood that in this place, and in order for democracy to work, he could not ignore his opposition critic. When we disagreed, I found that he still respected the work I had put into the file. When we sparred, he would usually take the time to tell me that he had thought about what he had brought up and would try to explain to me his position and why he felt it was more important. Oftentimes, he did try to consider where I was going, and on more than one occasion we actually managed to find common ground. He would be honest with me. He was very upfront about what he thought he could get through his caucus or where he thought I needed to bend in order to find compromise.”
“Feeling bold, I accepted his apology with a flourish, saying, “Thank you, Emperor Palpatine.” John paused for a moment; he roared with laughter, and he encouraged me to embrace the dark side. In that instant, all was well. That sense of humour is something that served John so well in this place, where the three-sword-length distance between the government and opposition benches can feel rather short on some days. He was always known across the aisle for his good humour, and that is something he will be remembered for. I find myself sometimes chuckling about things he would say to me, especially coming back into this role. The other admirable quality that I will remember about John was that as a minister, he respected the role of the opposition.”
“After John retired, I realized that he had two particularly admirable qualities I think everybody in this place would do well to emulate. The first was his remarkable sense of humour. I have to say, John, if you are listening, that I deeply enjoyed sparring with you. John's wit and cleverness were eclipsed only by his gregariousness and his very good sense of humour. For example, John and I once had a rather famous sparring match in the House, wherein he implied that I should smile more. I raised the issue in a point of order, and he apologized. After the interaction, he came up to me and genuinely apologized, albeit with that signature twinkle in his eye. If anyone knew him, they knew this: There was always this little twinkle in John's eye.”
“There is a line in the Fleetwood Mac song Landslide that of late, given my advancing age, has recently started to punch me in the gut: Time makes you bolder Even children get older And I'm gettin' older, too It is hard to believe that nearly nine years have passed since I last rose in this place to pay tribute to John, who at that point had announced his retirement as a member of Parliament after a long and successful career. At the time, I noted that I was not delivering a eulogy, so finding myself doing so today is a reminder of one of the things John used to say when we routinely chatted: “Time passes quickly here, so make each day count.” That is wisdom from John that we should all take in our roles. At the time, John was the immigration minister and I was the immigration critic. I guess some things never change, John.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John McCallum, a long-serving member of Parliament and cabinet minister. My Liberal colleague just outlined John's long and accomplished career in economics and finance, and he certainly brought that knowledge and skill set to his role in this place. I first met John when I was elected in 2011. I was young and somewhat naive, if members can believe that, but John was always kind to me, and that is something that one remembers in this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are at a time when I think we need to bring some decorum to this place, and what the minister said undermined the seriousness of the debate. It made light of it, and to my Bloc colleague's point, she did not do her job as the minister, so I would like an apology too.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister just claimed that there is no problem, that everything is okay. She is spreading misinformation, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report says that the Liberal's current immigration plan, the one that she just said is working, leaves a massive housing gap, because the minister is still setting levels way too high. If Canada is to be a place where everyone can succeed, we need to ensure that everybody has a place to live and to call home, so why is the minister spreading misinformation while still welcoming unsustainable numbers of people to Canada when Canada is in the middle of a housing crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, the question is for the immigration minister . New housing completions are at record lows, but the Liberals are welcoming unprecedented numbers of people under every immigration stream. On top of this, there are potentially millions of people who have expiring visas, and the Liberals do not even know if they will leave. Why is the immigration minister letting in people faster than the Liberals are building homes to house people who are already here in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the Liberals' immigration plan is working. The Liberals are spending at least $800 million this year because they allowed the asylum backlog to mushroom to nearly 300,000 people, many of whom have bogus claims, and allowed them to stay in the country for years. That is why the Liberals had to increase the program to that level. This strains health care, strains housing and makes a mockery of our once-compassionate asylum system. Is this really what the minister defines as an immigration system that is working?”
“Mr. Speaker, the question is for the immigration minister. There are a staggering 300,000 people in Canada with pending asylum claims. Many of these will be bogus. New data we obtained today shows the profound cost of this failure. Since 2016, the Liberals have increased the cost of the interim federal health program, which includes support for benefits for people who have likely made bogus claims, by nearly 1200%. This includes massive spending on benefits Canadians are not eligible for. Can the minister explain why?”
“Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The Prime Minister promised to grow the economy, but it is shrinking. He promised he would create jobs, but Canadians are losing them. We are in a health care crisis and a housing crisis, but the Liberals still issued record numbers of TFW permits this summer. They continue to allow the asylum system to be abused, and they still have not removed countless non-citizen criminals. Why does the immigration minister still have her job?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to grow the economy, but it is shrinking. Since he took office, tens of thousands of jobs have been lost, but the Liberals are on track this year to bring in the most temporary foreign work permits ever. It is so bad that a former Liberal immigration minister just said that they admitted they let industry become, “addicted to temporary work”, and he is right. Amid the PM's pledge to cut the public service, even the Liberals are using TFWs to fill federal government jobs. We have talked about buying Canadian. Why is the Prime Minister not making people hire them?”
“It is the Liberal government's fault for burdening our already broken health care system with numbers of people that our country cannot support. Does the member agree?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to ask a follow-up question on something my colleague said about the spending of health care dollars and the number of people coming into the country. I am looking at an article from December 12, 2024, that says, “Canadians faced longest ever health-care wait times in 2024, study finds”. We had one colleague get up and say that we are spending all this money on health care, but at the same time, we have a vertical hockey stick increase in the number of people who are coming into the country. The government cannot even say how many people it will allow into the country through this bill. The government is trying to claim it is spending enough money on health care while exponentially juicing the immigration numbers. It is not an immigrant's fault for wanting to come to Canada.”
“Can my colleague talk about how Conservatives have been putting forward common-sense proposals to fix the immigration system the Liberals have broken and restore order and fairness to a once great system that served our country well?”
“Madam Speaker, how is it that the bill provides a system for people to obtain citizenship in a way that the government cannot even estimate how many people would be eligible over a set period of time? That is problem one. Problem two is that the bill does not have any language requirements for people who are obtaining citizenship by descent, whereas we do for citizenship by naturalization. The third problem is that the bill has no criminal record check, and the fourth problem, as my colleagues have already talked about, is that the presence in Canada test is probably not adequate. What is important to understand is that the Liberals, in their debate, are trying to move away from the fact they have broken Canada's immigration system.”
“Of course Parliament should be looking at any bill that the government is proposing with regard to immigration, and so my question to my colleague is this: There are amendments that the bill needs with regard to language proficiency, the length of time somebody has to be in Canada and likely other things, like criminal record checks. Does my colleague think that the Liberals will work collaboratively and pass those amendments?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that what the deputy government House leader suggested is that the first day back in the House of Commons, after Liberal prorogation, a leadership race and an election, is that somehow we should not be debating a bill on immigration, after the Liberals have broken Canada's immigration system. We know that the Liberals have increased immigration levels to an extent while the economy has shrunk. Immigration levels cannot keep up with housing supply, with jobs and with health care. There have been reports and news articles to the contrary. I think it is really important to set the record straight.”
“Madam Speaker, somebody who is seeking citizenship through naturalization must show proficiency in one of Canada's official languages. Citizenship by descent, which is what is being proposed in this bill, does not require a language proficiency test, so this bill would not require somebody seeking citizenship through citizenship by descent to obtain proficiency in one of Canada's official languages. Given that my colleague is a francophone, and I am assuming he supports French-language skills, why is he supporting a bill that would not require people seeking citizenship to have proficiency in one of Canada's official languages?”
“Madam Speaker, it is nice to see my colleague again. On the substance of Bill C-3 , I know that language rights are very important to him. Does he believe that this bill should reflect the fact that anybody obtaining citizenship through the bill should have to reach the same level, at a minimum, of language proficiency as somebody obtaining citizenship through a different path, that those language requirements should be harmonized?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I could answer that with data that showed how many people would come in under this. Would that not be nice? However, the government does not have that information. How can it go to the provinces and say that it is going to cost them x amount of dollars in health care over x period of time, that it is going to cost them x amount in social services benefits or other types of social payments, or that it is going to impact the number of jobs or the future levels? It cannot do that, and that is why it failed in the immigration system. The government has treated the immigration ministry like the armpit of cabinet. It has had—”
“Mr. Speaker, what an embarrassment that comment was. It was actually beneath any person in this place, given the severity of the confidence crisis that people are having in Canada on immigration, which has been perpetuated by the Liberal government. Before the member's question, his colleague asked a salient question about how we can make this place work. I would ask her to ask the question of that member, who has a reputation for making inane, thoughtless, completely irrelevant statements. I wish he would have asked me about an amendment to this bill. I wish he would have asked me about something productive, but instead he debased himself, just as the Liberal government debases itself with this legislation.”