MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Michelle Rempel Garner

Follow by RSS

Garner campaigns for stricter immigration controls, specifically demanding a one-line Criminal Code change so judges cannot give non-citizens lenient sentences to avoid deportation, and pushing to scrap gas and diesel taxes until 2027. She argues by attacking opponents rather than their positions, calling one member “a rabid Justin Trudeau defender.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A
90 / 100 over 69 statements
Signal 80 / 100
Relevance 81 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
Loses points more than most for An insult aimed at a person.10.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×10.9 Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.5.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×5.9 Wording that hides who did something, or who will.4.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×4.1 Loses points less than most for Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 69 of 80 statements graded so far.

Statements 80

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“Private consultants convinced the government to grow Canada's population too fast. Bringing in too many people too quickly has hurt public support for immigration.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report to my colleague that those consultants have now been further embedded in the government. I am thinking specifically about Dominic Barton and Mark Wiseman. They were advocates for allowing 100 million people into Canada in a very short period of time. This was called the Century Initiative. Those policies were embedded within the Trudeau government, which the government’s deputy House leader just defended vigorously. Of course, that is fair to nobody. Too many people too fast is the Liberal legacy, and it eroded Canada’s consensus on immigration.

In response to a question from Rachael Thomas

“Government overspending is causing high costs for Canadians. It is making rent and groceries more expensive, and leaving people with less housing and food. Conservatives will save Canadians money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is such a great point, and I agree with everything my colleague just said. I want to emphasize something. I just ragged on Justin Trudeau. He is actually more fiscally responsible than the current Prime Minister is. Can members believe that? Justin Trudeau developed a more fiscally responsible budget than the current Prime Minister did. How is that possible? I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to be super awesome on the economy, yet, to my colleague’s point, the Prime Minister is raising the deficit to historic banana levels. Anybody who is watching this is not going to say that they see the results of that. They do see the results of that. They see increased costs. They see their rents increasing. They see less housing. They see less groceries and less protein in their baskets at the grocery store. This is because of what my colleague said. When the government puts forward inflationary deficits, which Canada has done and is unique in doing in the G7 right now, costs go up for average Canadians. Conservatives are going to save Canadians money.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The member opposite always defends Justin Trudeau instead of serving his community. He defended opening the Roxham Road border and letting in nearly a million temporary students. He also defended changes to temporary foreign worker rules. My party wants to end that program, except for farm workers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 93 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He is a rabid Justin Trudeau defender”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite vigorously defended Justin Trudeau opening the border at Roxham Road. He vigorously defended bringing in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of temporary students in about three years. I think it was close to a million. The member is one of the most vigorous defenders of Justin Trudeau in Canadian history for his constituents. Their MP defended Justin Trudeau. That is what he did for a living. Instead of being in his community, he defended Justin Trudeau. He also defended the changes Justin Trudeau made under our previous government, which were to lower the number of temporary foreign workers. We are now calling for the elimination of that and a special program for agriculture workers. However, mark my words: The member defends Justin Trudeau. He is a rabid Justin Trudeau defender, and his record in Hansard shows that.

“This bill does not go far enough. I want the government to change it and scrap all taxes on gas and diesel until Canada Day 2027. High fuel taxes make groceries and everyday life cost too much. We also need to cut immigration, deport people here illegally, and remove sales tax on new homes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want to do something about gas and diesel taxes. We want to see all of those taxes scrapped until Canada Day 2027 because Canadians are struggling. That is what I am going to talk about today. I am also splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach who is going to continue the argument. Why do we want to scrap all gas and diesel taxes? They are costing Canadians money that they do not have right now. Anyone who has gone to the grocery store recently can see it is grim. I was looking to buy some chicken thighs and a small pack of chicken thighs at a not-so-fancy grocery chain was $43. When I was looking at it, somebody said, “I think that’s a deal.” That is insane. We want to see the gas tax scrapped until Canada Day next year because when that tax is in place, not only does it affect consumers at the pump who are spending money they do not have, but it also affects the cost of everything. It affects the producers who are harvesting, who need diesel for their combines. That cost is then passed along to the consumer. It takes gas and diesel to transport the goods that consumers need to buy. When those taxes are on top of that fuel, who pays for it? It is the people who are listening to this speech today. That is why the Conservatives’ core focus for the fall is to save Canadians money. This is why we are calling for the government to scrap all gas and diesel taxes until Canada Day 2027. The bill that we are debating today that the Liberals put forward does not do that. They had an opportunity to work collaboratively in the House with the opposition, which is fiscally responsible, and take our recommendations, but they are not doing that. To me, this underscores the fact that the Liberals and the Prime Minister go out and talk to people using a lot of buzzwords and a lot of aggrandizing on the international stage. However, I am not seeing a lot of results when it comes to saving Canadians money. Make no mistake; what I am hearing about in the good riding of Calgary Nose Hill, and I am always pleased to stand up and fight on behalf of my constituents, is that they need to have money saved. They cannot afford to live. They are worried about their jobs, particularly with trade uncertainty. They want to be safe and they want to see immigration fixed. All of these points can come together in some of the policies that Conservatives have been pushing, but we are just not seeing them come forward in this particular bill. I want to show members how imperative the Conservative proposal is to have the gas and diesel tax scrapped well into next year, which is not in this bill. Money Mentors reported that 49% of working Canadians feel less financially secure than they did a year ago. That is half of Canadians. This is not some esoteric guessing game. Half of Canadians are saying they do not feel as secure as they used to feel. This is particularly true for young Canadians. I know there are a lot of Canadians of secondary school age who cannot find jobs, and they are also asking what their future holds. It is imperative that we fight on behalf of those people. People are paying more for goods because of a decade of Liberal inflationary deficits. Those deficits have actually ballooned under the Prime Minister. I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to get our fiscal house in order. In fact, he has done the opposite. People ask me why they should care about deficits. Deficits matter because they add to our debt. When we add to the nation’s debt, we have to pay debt servicing costs. It is like the interest on one’s credit card. When we are paying for that, we cannot invest in other things. I heard that the Government of Canada is now paying more for the interest on its credit card than it is on health care. That is not great. We need to ensure that, if the government is spending money on things, it is spending money on things or making fiscal decisions that are going to save Canadians money. That is why Conservatives are calling for the gas and diesel tax to be scrapped well into next year, which this bill would not do. It does not go far enough. That is a key objective. The other thing is that we have to talk about how we save Canadian jobs. Eliminating the gas and diesel tax well into next year would also provide some investment certainty for certain types of businesses that are trying to figure out their operating costs in an environment where there is a lot of uncertainty, which is what is happening in the country right now. This is why we as Conservatives are so dead set on putting forward measures that would save Canadians money, and their jobs as well. I serve as the Conservative Party’s immigration shadow minister. I also serve as the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The reality is that the Liberals brought too many people in too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up. That is not fair to anyone. It is not fair to the immigrants who came to Canada to build a better life. It is not fair to the Canadians who are here. In fact, that tension of bringing in too many people too fast has eroded Canada’s consensus on immigration. Now we have a lot of people competing for jobs that are rapidly disappearing. That is why Conservatives, including me and our broader team, are arguing for far lower immigration levels. We are arguing for the government to take measures to deal with this. CBC reported that there will be two million people in Canada by the end of this year who are on expired or expiring visas. We know that there are 500,000 undocumented persons and people who do not have a legal reason to be in the country. They need to leave. The government needs to have a plan to deport these people. It is not something that is comfortable for Canadians to talk about, but if people do not have a legal reason to be in the country, particularly because the Liberal government brought too many people in too fast, that problem has to be addressed. We are also going to continue to push those issues. When I hear the Liberals come forward and make all these announcements, they never seem to reach the people in my community. I think about the multitude of announcements they have made, and all I hear in my community is that people are waking up feeling like they can buy less groceries. They are less convinced that they can make their rent payments. Many of the people in my community would love to be making a mortgage payment, but they cannot afford to buy a house. Again, we are talking about saving Canadians money. That is why Conservatives are putting forward proposals like scrapping the GST on new home builds up to $1.3 million. That would save Canadians who are buying homes up to $65,000 on a new house. Those are common-sense measures that we do not see reflected in this bill that would directly impact the Canadians who are struggling to get ahead and pay their bills. This affects all Canadians. It is not just young Canadian, but seniors on fixed incomes. Inflation is in a lot of ways unique to Canada because of the policies and procedures the Liberals have put in place over the last several years. People cannot afford that. What I would like to see, and what I know everybody in the Conservative Party would like to see, is for the government, instead of bringing in this bill or even amending it, to take our suggestion to scrap the tax on gas and diesel well into next year. We propose Canada Day. The bill would not do that. I would like to see from the government not just announcements to spend government money, but announcements that would directly impact affordability, directly drive down grocery costs and directly make the lives of the constituents in my riding more affordable and more stable. This is so important. It is why we are here. We are in an economic crisis. The government put us in a weak position before this happened, but now we have to deal with it. Having bills that are just half measures is not going to cut it for the people in Calgary Nose Hill or across Canada. I implore the government to take the Conservative proposal to change this bill so that the gas tax is cut on diesel and gas up to Canada Day 2027.

Oral Questions ·

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

“Non-citizens who commit serious crimes are getting light sentences so they will not be deported. The Liberals are allowing this, and it is hurting public support for immigration. I want the minister to say if she will close this loophole and deport these criminals.”
Official Hansard

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?

“People convicted of serious crimes are avoiding deportation through light sentences. The minister voted against closing this loophole. I want her to fix this law now so these criminals can be deported.”
Official Hansard

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.

“We wanted a law to stop criminals who are not citizens from getting light sentences just to avoid deportation. The immigration minister voted against it. Why was an attacker given a light sentence to keep them in Canada?”
Official Hansard

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?

Oral Questions ·

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

“How many people got Canadian citizenship with fake papers after the Liberals passed this bill? How many more does the government expect will get it over the next five years?”
Official Hansard

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?

Statements by Members ·

Alberta Culture

“Alberta has a strong culture that helps all of Canada. Our oil workers, farmers, artists, and ranchers help fund services across the country. People should stop insulting Alberta's culture and appreciate it instead.”
Official Hansard

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. 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”.

Oral Questions ·

Employment

“Too many young Canadians do not have jobs, especially in big cities. The government should end the temporary foreign worker program and help unemployed Canadians get those jobs instead.”
Official Hansard

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?

“Canadian tech workers cannot find jobs, so we should not bring in more temporary foreign workers. We want to end the temporary foreign worker program, keep it only for farm jobs that are truly hard to fill, and help unemployed Canadians move to where jobs are. I want the government to do the same.”
  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Signal 40 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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?

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

“I am honouring my colleague as he leaves Parliament. He worked hard for the people who elected him, even when it meant challenging his own party. I thank him for his courage and for working with others to get things done.”
Official Hansard

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. 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. 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. For that matter, for the sake of our nation, I wish that for all of us.

Oral Questions ·

Public Safety

“Liberal immigration, court, and bail policies have caused crime to rise across the country. The Liberals also rejected our bill to give proper sentences to non-citizens who commit serious crimes. I want to know why they are letting these criminals stay and harm people.”
Official Hansard

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—

“The government lets dangerous people into Canada because its border checks are too weak. I want the government to explain to victims how these violent non-citizens were allowed into the country.”
Official Hansard

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?

“Weak border and bail rules let dangerous foreign criminals into Canada. Police have laid hundreds of charges against non-citizens, including foreign students recruited by violent gangs. I want to know which minister will be fired for this failure.”
Official Hansard

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?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Canadians have lost trust in our immigration system because the government will not fix it. A non-citizen trucker killed someone in a crash and was not deported. I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

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?

“A non-citizen caused a crash that killed two people, but got a light sentence so he would not be deported. The minister should support this bill to stop that. I want her to explain to the victims' families why this person is still in Canada.”
Official Hansard

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?

“I want the minister to answer my question. Judges should not give lighter sentences to non-citizens just so they can avoid deportation. Does the minister think a non-citizen who abused an underage girl should get to stay in Canada?”
Official Hansard

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?

“The government voted against a bill to deport non-citizens who commit serious crimes. I want the minister to explain why a non-citizen who caused a fatal car crash is still allowed in Canada.”
Official Hansard

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?

“Where does the Constitution say non-citizens should get lighter sentences than Canadians so they do not get deported?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, where does it say in the Constitution that non-citizens should get more lenient sentences than Canadians, in order to avoid deportation?