Michelle Rempel

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, imagine a founder walking into a VC office and saying, “Hey, I don't really know what my product is and don't really have any sort of framework to govern this, but would you give me $25 billion? You can just put it on your credit card.” That is what we are being asked to do here. The member asks if I believe in this like it is the tooth fairy or something. I am sorry, I think the tooth fairy is broke in Canada right now. We cannot rely on hope and dreams and all of these sorts of things without tangible plans. This is—

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals dropped two big pieces of news. One was a budget that, from what I can see, would not deliver any actual, tangible results for Canadians, with a massive deficit. This, of course, impacts Canadians who are presently struggling to pay their bills. At the same time, the Prime Minister announced $25 billion of debt for a new “fund”.

To be fair to the Prime Minister, the political spin that his team has put on this expenditure is really something. By billing this debt fund as the Canada Strong fund, which is kind of patriotism-coded; a sovereign wealth fund, which is kind of freedom-coded; and a national savings and investment account, which is sort of stability-coded, the Prime Minister's launch announcement had a level of overhype that would have made any starving founder pitching to a VC blush.

At this point, I cannot really blame the Prime Minister for this level of shamelessness. He is staring down the barrel of a Liberal-induced faltering national economy, he has a debt-ridden government, and the man is counting on the Canadian establishment's current enamourment with him to give in to the feels of the moment and not look too closely under the hood of this new debt fund. However, no good investment manager would do that, and Canadians should not either.

Canadians should have a full picture of the risk the Prime Minister is asking them to undertake not only with their tax dollars but also, as he implored them in his announcement, with additional post-tax contributions. He is actually asking Canadians to invest in this debt fund not just with a very high amount of tax dollars but also with personal post-tax contributions.

If the devil is in the details of the Prime Minister's pitch, there sure is not a lot for Canadians to go on. For starters, the Prime Minister's fund model is, as colleagues have mentioned, built on debt. Therefore, it is misleading for him or anyone else to pitch it to investors as a true sovereign wealth fund in the same vein as Norway's, which is built on the actual wealth and surplus created by resource revenues. By contrast, the Prime Minister's $25-billion expenditure would be entirely debt financed at a time of widening structural Liberal deficits, which is sort of the same as an individual investor who is already in serious debt borrowing more money to go out and buy stocks.

Further, outside of the announcement that a Crown corporation would manage it, every other detail remains vague, including who would run it. I am assuming it would be Liberal appointees. The criteria that would be used to fund it are similarly opaque.

The lack of announced guardrails to stop the $25 billion from being funnelled into politically directed projects should also raise red flags for Canadians. Allocation decisions made by the debt fund, according to the Prime Minister's remarks, would follow government priorities rather than pure market returns. The Liberals have a dismal track record of picking winners: for example, the billions of dollars they funnelled into EV battery plants that left the country with no return; the superclusters, for which there is a word we use now, but it is not parliamentary; the green slush fund; and the arrive scam app. The government's track record is literally funnelling taxpayers' money.

Now they are saying to add additional post-tax dollar contributions into a fund, and they do not really have a track record of delivering. On top of that, the government's inherent ability to place such a bet successfully in any circumstance should make Canadians take the claims of big-time benefits that the Prime Minister has been touting with a grain of salt.

There are other problems to consider related to the viability and benefit of the Prime Minister's debt fund, too, especially in the context of Canada's stalled economy. First, the Prime Minister's debt fund could create something called a crowding-out effect. By pumping $25 billion of subsidized capital into Ottawa's preferred projects, the debt fund could massively distort private markets.

That matters because of pension funds, for anybody who has invested in a pension fund or is drawing on a pension fund right now. Banks and institutional investors already deploy billions of dollars into Canadian infrastructure and resources. They would now have to compete against a government player that is armed with massive taxpayer backing and a direct link to politics. That is a huge market distortion that could affect the stability of somebody's retirement savings, for example. The result could be higher costs for genuine private projects or capital simply fleeing for greener or more level pastures.

In that same vein, far from a guaranteed hedge against economic risk, what the Prime Minister is proposing with this debt fund has the potential to exert further inflationary pressure on Canada's economy.

Second, the Prime Minister's early signals of international investing with the debt fund should raise eyebrows big time on its supposed Canada strong angle. Even more Canadian tax dollars could flow abroad while pressing domestic needs wait unfulfilled. Conversely, if the debt fund's expenditures stay strictly domestic, it could become a captive buyer for Liberal-favoured ventures. Either way, this has the makings of a giant boondoggle and a mess.

I want to say that we have seen this movie before with the Prime Minister. It was something called GFANZ, this big fund he tried to put together. What ended up happening was that members balked at the requirements to phase out financing without clear backstops or substitute goods. At the end of the day, what ended up happening was that the thing fell apart.

Members may colour me a little skeptical, but I am not sure which investment manager would capitalize $25 billion right now under this lack of detail. I sure would not, and I will not be voting to support it, because that would be a bad decision on behalf of my constituents.

This conundrum further underscores why this expenditure should not be referred to as a sovereign wealth fund, because decisions made with government debt have different opportunity costs to evaluate than those made with true wealth funds.

The debt fund also has massive potential for mission creep. If the debt fund's scope stays vague, as it is right now, it will likely expand quietly once initial public scrutiny fades. For that reason, scrutiny should be paid to the fact that this expenditure will also likely duplicate existing bureaucracy, and it will duplicate and increase overhead and, conveniently, Liberal board appointees. It would be duplicating things like the Canada Growth Fund and the Infrastructure Bank.

There are other flags that Canadians should be concerned about too. The Prime Minister mentioned that the debt fund would grow through mechanisms like “asset recycling”, which in Ottawa is often code for selling public assets on the cheap to insiders. The debt fund also has the potential to impinge on provincial jurisdiction, particularly if the debt fund capitalizes from resource export taxes or remittances of any kind.

Resources are definitively the jurisdiction of provinces, and a move to reset constitutional order would not only be a major concern but create great instability at a time when the Prime Minister should be trying to do more to create national unity across the federation. Right now, though, it is like a little poke in the eye there. Is he going to say to companies, “Oh, hey, you have to pay a tax to get a Bill C-5 exemption or to get around Bill C-69,” instead of just doing away with the regulatory tape that is making it difficult and risky for investors to capitalize big projects in Canada?

Aside from all these issues, there is another big problem with Canadians writing the Prime Minister a blank cheque for this project, and it is opportunity costs. With $25 billion, we could cut taxes, pay down debt or deliver direct affordability relief for struggling Canadians. Interest on the federal debt already consumes tens of billions of dollars and is more than health transfers to the provinces. Canadians will be faced with even more of the same to pay for this new expenditure at a time when inflation is already straining affordability in every aspect of Canadian life.

If building a bigger pool of capital for major projects is what the Prime Minister is trying to solve for, arguably the structural problem Canada faces is not the lack of a debt fund but the lack of investment certainty in its regulatory and tax environment. The government should be scrapping bills like Bill C-69 to attract the capital into the country naturally and more sustainably to see big infrastructure projects built out.

Without reform in those areas, the Prime Minister's new debt fund is throwing money at a problem that money cannot solve. He also has not begun to answer why families should lend their potential retirement savings to this fund instead of traditional instruments like RRSPs or, frankly, proven pension fund managers. Nor has he explained whether, if the debt fund loses money, taxpayers will backstop it at the expense of more pressing needs. Investing in a scheme that has the potential to pay earlier investors using money from new investors rather than having any actual profit has a name, and the Prime Minister would be well served to remember that.

At the end of the day, I do not think the Prime Minister, a supposed investment guru back in the day, would actually invest in this fund, which was put forward by him, the Prime Minister, and Canadians should not either.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, April 22nd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, there are women who have been sexually assaulted in Canada by non-citizens, and then the non-citizens have been given leniency in order to stay here and avoid deportation.

The minister talks about what I did. I tabled a bill to stop this practice, and every single person on that side, including him, who would have given the recommendation on my bill voted against it. That is disgusting.

Why?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, April 22nd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here a hot minute, and the minister should try telling that to the victim of a non-citizen who broke into their house in Canada, stole from them and then violently assaulted them. What did the judge do? They gave the criminal house arrest so he would not be deported.

Here is the reality. The former immigration minister broke the immigration system. He brought too many people in too fast. Our ERs are overflowing, and we have a housing and jobs crisis. Now he is breaking the justice system.

Why did the former immigration minister vote against my bill to stop this disgusting practice?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, April 21st, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I would love for the minister to say that to a woman whose non-citizen ex-boyfriend choked her and assaulted her so badly that she is terrified to leave her house, even for grocery shopping. Her attacker argued that he should get a light sentence so that he would not be deported, and last week we found out that the judge agreed with the criminal. It is disgusting.

This is not a system that is under control. It is not a system that provides justice for victims. The Liberals, in fact, are supporting a two-tier justice system that undermines the safety of everybody and the credibility of our immigration system.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, April 21st, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, last week a Quebec judge called out the rampant practice of prosecutors and judges arranging lenient sentences for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada in order to shield them from deportation.

The reality is that many victims are suffering because non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada are getting sweetheart deals so they do not have to face the consequences already set out in Canadian immigration law, yet the Liberals voted against my bill that would have ended this practice. Why?

[Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act, March 26th, 2026]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in support of Bill C-236. I want to take a moment to commend my colleague from Parkland not only for his excellent work on this bill, but also for the way that he approached its development. I know that he went out of his way to talk to victims, victims' rights groups and law enforcement to really make this an evidence-based, common-sense approach to a real problem that is happening in Canada. That approach shows the best of what we can be in this place. For that reason, among many others, I am proud to say that I will be supporting this bill, and I know that many others will be as well.

The bill would make a common-sense, long-overdue change to ensure, when a person is convicted of a crime, such as murder or manslaughter, and the offender refuses to provide information about the location of the victim's body or remains, that would be an aggravating factor at sentencing that could lead to a longer or harsher sentence, a reason to delay parole eligibility and a factor considered in decisions about conditional release, temporary absences or other corrections decisions.

My other colleagues in this place have made very good technical arguments about why this law is in alignment with the charter, but I want to make some arguments about why I think it is necessary.

In this place, we all have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable people in our community, and we have a responsibility to ensure that our laws rectify deficiencies when we see that people are not being protected. There have been several high-profile cases that have been highlighted in colleagues' speeches speaking to this bill. My colleague from Parkland, after speaking to many victims, has also highlighted some of their cases in which a family has endured an unimaginable situation where their loved ones' lives were taken by somebody else and the perpetrator has been convicted of that crime, but the family does not have closure because the remains of their loved one have not been found. We know, through a lot of psychological research and reports, as well as just common sense, that to not have that closure, that ability to say goodbye and put somebody to rest, which is a very important part of a lot of spiritual practices and faiths, is a situation that continues to revictimize the family. We think about the victimization of people when crimes are perpetrated. In this instance, without the location of the remains or of the body of the victim of a murder, their loved ones, their friends and their family, become ongoing victims of crime.

My colleague from Parkland has also highlighted the fact that there are often trigger points for the family throughout the sentence of an offender in these cases. For example, if the offender comes up for parole and there is a parole eligibility issue, all of a sudden the fact that those remains have never been found is once again thrust into the forefront of the family's lives or their friends' lives. To me, that is an ongoing crime. It is an ongoing problem that we in this place should seek to rectify.

There is also something that did not come up in debate that I want to touch on a bit too. There is the dignity that we afford to somebody when they have passed. There is a dignity that somebody who has passed away is afforded, through many faith traditions and many secular traditions as well. To me, to allow an offender who has been convicted of murder to, for example, be eligible for parole when that dignity has not been afforded to their victim is not just.

What this bill would do is give the judiciary and law enforcement officials more tools to ensure that dignity is provided to the victim, but also that the ongoing victimization of their friends and family does not occur, so there can be a sense of closure and peace. Beyond the technicalities of what my colleague presented in this bill, he is also proposing to colleagues in this place that we look at justice a bit differently. To me, he has really thought about what justice means. I really support this bill for that, and because of the compassion, care and kindness he has inserted into its heart and into how he has modelled it.

I also want to address some colleagues, as I have heard them in debate make some reference to this being an American law. This legislation actually has its roots in the Commonwealth tradition. There are similar terms to the “no body, no parole” laws in Australia, as well as in the U.K. In the U.K., the legislation that went through our peer parliament was called Helen's Law. When our peers in those places were arguing about it, they debated the need to have judges, parole boards and correctional authorities. They needed more tools to address the injustice of withheld information.

Again, we must go back to the concept of giving additional justice and looking at the holistic situation of the impacts of crime. When speaking about murder, we should have no disagreement in this place that we should be looking for ways to correct and give as much justice in those situations as possible. The concept of the injustice of withheld information means that perpetrators should not be rewarded by being granted parole, for example, when we know that justice is still to be served.

Some debate came up about how this affects only a small number of cases in Canada. To me, there are a lot of logical fallacies involved in that argument. Justice should apply to all. A small number of cases should not be just waved away. There is still a requirement for justice there. If justice is not served in those cases, then it actually normalizes not having justice in those situations, which we can often see leading to recidivism, escalation of crime, or more instances happening. We in this place should be doing our job and holding the government to account to know when there are clear instances of justice not being served, so that we close the loopholes in our laws that should be common sense, in order to make sure that the principle that underlies the foundation of the Canadian national identity, the identity of our country, which is respect for the rule of law and justice when justice is required to be served, is actually embedded.

I hope this law quickly passes for all the reasons I have laid out, the compassionate reasons and the reasons for justice, but also because this precedent exists in Commonwealth peer countries as well. I want to extend a great degree of compassion and empathy to those victims who have worked with my colleague, the member for Parkland, and shared their stories. I hope they get closure by our quickly passing this bill as well.

I would just close by saying there are a lot of deficiencies in Canada's ability to deliver justice. We have seen the government over the last decade err on the side of protecting offenders and criminals, as opposed to providing justice for victims and preventing crime by ensuring that commensurate punishment is levelled to people who break the societal norms that are established in our criminal law. I think that needs to end.

There are a lot of people in the country who are looking beyond the chaos they are seeing in a lot of our streets and are starting to question whether or not we here in this place, as well as the government, understand the concept of justice. That is why Conservatives have put forward many justice bills recently, which, unfortunately, the government has voted against. However, this is a common-sense one.

I really hope that the amount of care, effort and research that my colleague from Parkland has put into the bill is supported by other members of the House, that the bill passes quickly and that we can rest assured that we have done our job in the House to stand for the principle of justice and be empathetic and compassionate to the victims of these crimes.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 26th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the role of a member of Parliament is to hold the government to account. The member for London Centre had the responsibility to go to his cabinet colleagues and tell them that too many people were coming in too fast, rents in his city were increasing too fast, people could not get health care, student food banks were being overrun and people could not get mental health supports, but he did not. He is standing here today and defending the people in cabinet who made these decisions for which there has been no accountability.

Can the member just say that the government was wrong? Can he just say that he should never defend the people who created a dumpster fire?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 26th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, let us bring it a bit closer to home for the member. In London, Ontario, an immigration expert called the Liberals' immigration levels “explosive and reckless.” Someone else said, “They don't care what will happen with this many students coming in, how they will find a home, how they can find health care. But it's just about numbers, right?”

What happened? We saw health care in London strained and rents increased by over 20%.

My question for my colleague is this: How can he defend the people who are in cabinet, who caused this problem in his hometown, while he is not?

[Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act, March 26th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I think we could agree to start with enforcing the current provisions of the Constitution, such as section 91(25), which gives Parliament supremacy and the right to set immigration laws. It is not the court's job to do that. We have to start pushing back on an activist judiciary and big immigration, the largest and most destructive lobby in the country. We need to restore order and fairness to Canada's immigration system. We need to uphold the rule of law and democratic principles, such as just abiding by the law for non-citizens and citizens alike, addressing catch-and-release bail, and I could go on and on. We have to restore the adherence to and use of the principles that are already in there to show that the people we represent, the people with the true power, are in control, and that the system is not out of control as it is under this Liberal dumpster fire.