Ziad Aboultaif

[Citizenship Act, September 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, besides ballooning the size of the immigration department with negative results and making a mess out of the department itself, what would the hon. member propose? How much stress would Bill C-71 put on the department in addition to the stress that it has right now?

[Citizenship Act, September 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, there is a level of desperation in the NDP members and the Liberals that is continuing to take place. Why would the hon. member not tell Canadians about the mess that he and the government have made out of the immigration law in Canada? Why would he not tell Canadians the sad stories about how the mismanagement of immigration has caused Canadians a lot of suffering at all levels, including cost of living, housing and everything else? He should tell Canadians that story.

[Citizenship Act, September 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, desperate NDP members have been supporting the government for the last two years and are making a disaster out of immigration in Canada. How can they sit here and talk about better immigration when they made a mess out of immigration law in Canada? The results are showing for every Canadian.

[Edmonton Oilers, June 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, 82 years ago, the Toronto Maple Leafs rallied from a 3-0 series deficit to win the Stanley Cup final. No team since has managed to do that in a final series.

Our hopes and dreams, as a nation, now rest with the Edmonton Oilers in their quest to bring the cup home where it belongs. It has been 31 years since a Canadian team won the cup. The Oilers were down three to games to one, but Saturday night's 8-1 victory showed us that we are right to believe.

The Oilers, like their fans, never give up. The team is battling back. Game five is tonight. As a nation, let us rally behind Canada's team, the Edmonton Oilers.

The Stanley Cup belongs here. Let us bring it home.

[Electoral Participation Act, June 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

The Liberals call it Bill C-65, the electoral participation act, but maybe it would be more accurately titled as the “Help our friends qualify for a pension act.” Perhaps that was an unwritten part of the deal by which the New Democrats have propped up the incompetent Liberal government for two years, two years that have shown us this was not a good deal for Canadians.

The NDP pharmacare program only covers two types of medication, which is not what Canadians were promised. It is just another broken promise, like so many the NDP have supported.

Now, though, there would be guaranteed pensions for those first elected to the House of Commons in the general election of 2019, pensions they would not qualify for if the 2025 election were held at its scheduled date of October 20, 2025. What a reward for propping up the Liberals.

This bill, rather than encouraging electoral participation, would delay the day when Canadian voters can hold parliamentarians to account in a federal election. In the process, it ensures that taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars in pension payments that might not have been required.

The government tells us that the next election cannot be held as scheduled on October 20, 2025, because it conflicts with Diwali, a festival celebrated by many Canadians. The Liberals want to move it a week later, to October 27. It is merely a coincidence that 80 members of Parliament would qualify for a pension on October 26, 2025, a pension they would not qualify for if they were to be defeated on October 20 or if they choose not to offer themselves to the voters once more.

Of course, just about every day is a holiday or a special occasion for someone. October 20, 2025, is Guatemala's revolution day. It is also Heroes' Day in Kenya, Jamaica and the British Virgin Islands. For Jews, it is Sukkoth. Let us not forget the date is also International Chefs Day and World Osteoporosis Day. Serbia will be celebrating Belgrade Liberation Day on that day. In Vietnam, it is Women's Day. In Ukraine, it is breast cancer awareness day. Those are all dates worthy of celebrating, even if the Liberals do not mention them as important enough to mention as a reason for changing the fixed election date.

There is no perfect date for an election, no date that does not conflict with something else for some people. That is why we already have advance polling in place. Even more, those unable to get to an advance poll can vote anytime at the returning office in their riding.

No one is being forced to vote on Diwali. Who is the government trying to fool? The date change is not about Diwali; it is about securing pensions. If that were not the case, why not move the date earlier in October or even into September?

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation tells us that the change means 80 additional MPs would be eligible to collect a pension. The estimated lifetime pension costs, should all 80 of those members lose their seats or opt to retire rather than face voters, is $120 million.

We already know that $120 million means nothing to the Liberals. Having saddled Canadians with record deficits and the biggest national debt in our history, they apparently do not see that as an amount worth worrying about. What they do not seem to realize is that people care about government spending.

Canadians understand debts must be repaid. Canadians know it is ludicrous to pay more on interest to service the debt than we pay on health care. Canadians realize that such a fiscal irresponsibility needs to stop. It is also too bad that Liberals and their NDP allies seem incapable of grasping the simple math involved.

As custodians of the public purse, the $120 million should make us pause and think before supporting this legislation. However, neither the Liberals nor the NDP have shown any understanding of the value of a dollar. They seem to believe that government can spend and spend, and who cares if it is our grandchildren or great-grandchildren who have to pay the bills. All that matters is that they get their pensions.

I am sure that once I am finished and the floor is open to questions, some brave Liberals or New Democrats will point out to me that there are many Conservatives who would benefit if the bill passes. That is true, but Conservatives are united in their opposition to the legislation, even those who stand to benefit if it passes. This is a matter of principle and honour. Conservatives do not believe in changing the rules to benefit themselves.

I would like to list the names of those who are set to benefit from the legislation. The Canadian people need to know who would make money from the change. I think those names should be in the record of the House; however, the rules prevent me from naming them. The rules and conventions of this place, as it is sometimes the case, allow members to pretend that the truth does not matter. What Canadians do know is that when the former members of Parliament receive the pension cheques, money that came from Canadian taxpayers, they will have the former members' names on them.

They will not be addressed to “the Minister of Environment” or to “President of the Treasury Board”. Nowhere will the cheques read “payable to the parliamentary secretary” or “payable to Minister of Environment and Climate Change”. Whether they are for the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona or the member of Parliament for Don Valley North, the pension cheques will have their names, the names of real people, but under the rules, I cannot mention those names here.

No wonder so many Canadians are fed up with this place and feel that all politicians are hypocrites. I should point out that any member who would be affected by the date change, anyone who was first elected in the general election of 2019, would be in a conflict of interest if they vote in favour of the bill.

The Conflict of Interest Act is quite clear:

...a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.

[Furthermore] no public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall, in his or her capacity as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, debate or vote on a question that would place him or her in a conflict of interest.

[Electoral Participation Act, June 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member delivered a speech about the bill and never mentioned the extension of the voting date by one week to secure the pensions for about 80 MPs, which is about 25% of the House. I wish he had talked about that, because Canadians have been asking about it. We have received so many questions and emails asking about this very important element of the bill.

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, with the bill before us, the Liberals would lower the threshold for a review. Does the member agree that this would increase the risk to an overburdened and understaffed justice system that is under extreme strain right now and facing unacceptable delays, yes or no?

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 6th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I know that my friend on the other side is an expert in the legal system. The government amended the bill to allow convicts to apply for conviction review, without having first exhausted all appeals. This will undoubtedly lead to individuals applying for a conviction review shortly after being sentenced.

Does the hon. member not believe that this will not strengthen the justice system, but instead weaken it?

[Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law), June 6th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, at committee, Conservatives suggested common-sense amendments to restore crucial checks and balances to the process based on the U.K.'s long-standing Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the government voted against that.

Why did the government vote against it? Is this not lowering the threshold needed to make sure that the integrity of the process is in place?

[Business of Supply, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP criticizes the government, but he keeps supporting the same government's policies. Those policies are hurting Canadians every single day. Why would the leader of the NDP not do the right thing and stop supporting the government so that Canadians can choose another government that would do the right job for them?