Ziad Aboultaif

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberals say that they would not take any lessons from anyone. It is unwise not to take lessons, especially from such a fiscally responsible side of the House, like the Conservatives.

If a government wants to borrow money and has no plan to pay it back, what is that called economically and fiscally?

[Committees of the House, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government is dragging its feet with respect to the consultation process. There is no respect for timelines, too much lip service, and more talk than walk.

Does the hon. member believe that the process is taking too long and that the government is dragging its feet and is not about to make any decisions soon?

[Committees of the House, June 7th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have supply management support in their DNA. What are you actually and practically doing to serve and help the farmers who protested last week on the Hill? They are waiting for the government to do something about it.

[Citizenship Act, June 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to the member opposite. I am glad he mentioned that he is among the 41 members of Parliament who are immigrants and I am one of them too. One thing I like to highlight is that we succeed in this place and in Canada and are able to come to the Canadian Parliament and become parliamentarians because we consider Canada our home. Just because of that we have succeeded.

Someone who is considering Canada a target of terrorism does not deserve Canadian citizenship, does not deserve to be Canadian. Our Canadian citizenship has the highest value of integrity and of honour. If someone wants to use it to go across the world to have access to all the other places in the world just because he is a Canadian citizen, he does not deserve to be a Canadian citizen. If someone does not want to commit to live in Canada, he does not deserve to be a Canadian.

I would like to remind the hon. member of the 1947 immigration act, which at that time was presented, implemented, and adopted by a Liberal government. Bill C-24 is a similar act to the 1947 act that was introduced.

Whether it is three to five years, or four to six years, members opposite agree that Canadian citizenship deserves to be worthwhile for those who decide to take it or not.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it appears there is a lot of interest among the different parties in having a new electoral system. For the proportional system, there are about six to eight models out there. I would like to hear from the member which system the NDP would prefer to have, at least on the ground base, to know where we can start from here.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member urged us at the end of his speech to vote for Bill C-14. I would like to ask him if he could outline three good reasons why we should.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the question I have heard twice today from the opposite side is this. Is it better to have a law today than not having a law? Are we telling people we are going to pass the bill for assisted dying today because it is cheaper than assisted dying tomorrow? Why can we not ask for extra time and make sure that we get the best bill possible? I would like to see if my hon. colleague would be able to comment on this.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Victoria for his usual thoughtful speeches and analysis and his approach to many topics here in the House.

What happened yesterday with the voting against some of the thoughtful amendments presented was that the government has voted them down. I would like to hear the member's opinion on why this has happened. I can only see it as for political reasons, and nothing more.

Could the member give us his views on that?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his thoughtful speech.

We have heard the response by the minister with respect to the June 6 deadline. I would like to hear other or better answers with respect to that time frame. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member what he thinks will happen if we do not have a law in place by June 6.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Chair, unfortunately, they can only hide so much behind their campaign promises. They promised $10 billion, and they are scoring $29.4 billion for this coming year. It will be over $100 billion for the next four years, without any plans for how they will pay the money back. I would really like to have a conversation on this with the minister at some time.

Speaking of Canada child benefits, they are only giving Canadian families $1 billion extra. Divided by a population of 36 million, it equals $27.77 per capita. They are calling that pulling Canadian families out of poverty. That must stop.

The question is, do any of the minister's fiscal forecasts account for an increase to the Canadian health transfer above current planned levels?