Michael Ma
Markham—Unionville, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Despite these injustices, Chinese Canadians have preserved and shared a rich heritage that continues to strengthen Canada's multicultural mosaic.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents to designate February as Canadian Chinese heritage month. The petitioners note that there are over 1.8 million Chinese Canadians, representing one of the largest and most established communities within the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his great speech, particularly around misinformation. As we know today, AI feeds on all sorts of comments, whether they are right or wrong, collectively on social media, and misinformation will obviously lead to a bias in the AI results. I wonder if the hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, as digital capabilities evolve, so do crimes and threats to our national security. For decades, law enforcement agencies across the country have asked for updated tools to combat crimes like extortion, child exploitation, auto theft and organized crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, while I now sit on a different side of the House, my priorities remain the same: standing up for my constituents and making sure their concerns are acted on. Last fall, I held a crime prevention town hall in Markham—Unionville.”
“I wish this were the end of my immigration critique, but there is another unfortunate layer. I do not know whether this is a tragedy or a comedy. We know, for instance, that nearly 50,000 holders of foreign student visas were not studying at any Canadian university or college, but rather working and attempting to settle here.”
The complete record
Every one of 144 lines we hold for Michael Ma, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“Canadians of convenience want to drive at highway speeds in our residential zones and then head immediately back to where they came from, with our official driver’s licence in hand. The speed bumps do not bother someone who intends to live as a resident here in our Canadian community; they are a bother only for tourists who want to zip in and out of Canada, acquiring our status symbols without contributing to the society that gave those symbols status. Conservatives will not support the current Bill C-3 , which the old NDP-Liberal coalition stripped of the amendments so carefully crafted in committee. We Conservatives stand with all proud Canadians and lost Canadians against the mutilated Bill C-3 that the NDP-Liberal coalition cut up to serve Canadians of convenience.”
“This is a high bar only for Liberals who do not want a living record of all Canadians of convenience to whom they granted citizenship. If Canada as a whole were a municipal community, the Conservative and Bloc members would be councillors who merely wish to put speed bumps on our residential roads. Functionally, all our proposed amendments were speed bumps that would have made it harder to drive 80 kilometres per hour in a residential zone. Lost Canadians already know how to drive in Canadian residential zones; they would simply endure a few speed bumps and be on their merry way to regaining their driver’s licence, which is a good metaphor for Canadian citizenship.”
“It is a high bar only for Canadians of convenience who struggle to speak our official languages well and who struggle to understand the values of our nation. These are the people who want to enjoy the privileges of a Canadian passport without the duties of contribution to our society. Third, we proposed adding two reporting requirements for the Minister of Immigration, where the first would be on the number of citizenships granted by the enactment of Bill C-3 , and the second would be on the number of security screening exemptions. Again, that is not a high bar. Certainly, every lost Canadian would like a living record of their ranks' regaining citizenship. Certainly lost Canadians would want the Canadian public to be made aware of exemptions made for people in their ranks with criminal records.”
“First, we proposed amending the three-year presence in Canada, to be achieved within a five-year time frame. This is not a high bar. Certainly any lost Canadian would want to spent 36 months in Canada within a 60-month time frame. That is only a high bar for Canadians of convenience who want Canada to remain open to them as an insurance policy if geopolitical affairs go south in their current country of residence. (1335) Second, we proposed adding requirements around language proficiencies, citizenship knowledge and security checks. That is not a high bar. Certainly, any lost Canadian should already know how to speak one of our official languages, should already know about the duties of citizenship and should already have a clean criminal record.”
“I must ask, then, why have we undone all of these carefully crafted committee amendments? At this juncture with Bill C-3 , I do not even see why there is a Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Why did I spend several afternoons at the committee working with my Conservative and Bloc colleagues to improve this legislation when all of this work done by recognized opposition parties can be undone by a party that the Canadian voters chose to punish with only seven seats? With the remaining time, I want to briefly give an overview of the common-sense amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc members passed in committee. With every amendment, let us examine whether, in any way, they would infringe on a group we know as lost Canadians.”
“Let us work fast at committee, make the improvements necessary, bring it back for third reading and pass it.” In response to the member, all I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree. We worked through the committee process to have our important conversations and to improve the bill. We crafted the proposed amendments with care, yet the New Democrats and Liberals have shown, through their actions, that they do not respect the committee process. Finally, not to belabour these points, please let me end with a question by the hon. member of Parliament for Waterloo : “Does the member agree that the right way to provide suggestions and amendments to the legislation would be at committee?” In response to the hon. member, my reply is yes, amendments are to be made at committee.”
“In response to the deputy government House leader, I want to emphasize that the amendments were crafted by both Bloc members and Conservatives. If by “all parties”, the member is referring to recognized parties, it seems that everyone was accounted for in these amendments. The member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre stated, “That is exactly what the committee process is for. We know that bills go to committee and get amended. If Conservative members feel this does not allow for a substantial connection, then let us have that conversation at committee. That is exactly what we should do.” The member further stated, “Of course, all bills need improvement. Let us get it to committee.”
“Today I stand baffled at the complete disregard for the committee process that was shown yesterday. As such, I want to hold my Liberal colleagues accountable to the promises they made on June 19 about sending Bill C-3 to committee and receiving amendments. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said the following: “I very much look forward to members discussing and debating this and receiving any amendments or constructive advice.” In response to the minister, I would define our amendments as constructive. We built upon what was presented in Bill C-3 and merely added guardrails. The deputy House leader of the government said, “we are happy to bring in amendments that make sense, in committee, and work together with all parties”.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara South . The Liberals drafted flawed legislation in Bill C-3 . It was too loose in the requirements that would confer Canadian citizenship. The Conservatives and the Bloc members therefore worked together to tighten up Bill C-3. Our proposed amendments were guardrails that would prevent second-order abuses. These amendments were voted on and approved at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. However, the NDP members and the Liberals united yesterday to undo the positive changes that we so carefully crafted at committee and that would harmonize the pathways to citizenship across descent and naturalization. As such, Conservatives will not be able to support this legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians through higher prices and food inflation. Monthly visits to food banks have doubled since 2019, with 2.2 million visits per month. Nearly 10% of food bank users are now seniors. This is up 22%. This reliance on food banks has become an ongoing necessity to survive. When will the Liberals realize that their inflationary deficits are driving up the cost of food and driving Canadians to the food bank?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that the value of Canadian citizenship used to be one of pride all over the world. As I said, if we want to wear the jersey, we have to be part of the team. If we continue this process of passing it on from generation to generation, we are going to lose that Canadian value and the connection to Canada. What would the loyalty to Canada be other than being a Canadian passport holder for convenience?”
“Mr. Speaker, for any government party, there is an obligation to report to the House and Canadians on what has been done. The simple ask of the committee, from the Bloc and the Conservatives, was merely for the ministry and the minister to report on the facts so that Canadians and Parliament can understand what has taken place and whether the treatment of Canadians overall is fair.”
“Mr. Speaker, the example is of foreign services. After x number of years, they have to return to Canada for a number of years before they get reassigned. That should address your issue. Any other corporation in the private sector has similar types of arrangements that can be addressed appropriately.”
“When the Liberals, as the acting officers of our corporation, and the consultants on team orange, who are no longer legitimate members of the board, decide that Bill C-3 tranches of shares should be issued without the parity vesting and work we require of sweat equity earners, I have only one question: Are they fulfilling their fiduciary duty to our existing base of shareholders?”
“The shareholders have elected the Liberals to be the operating officers on the assumption they would be prioritizing the values of what it means to be Canadian shareholders. Instead, they have weaponized a promise to reinstate lost shareholders as a Trojan Horse to dilute every existing share by issuing new tranches of passive shareholders of convenience. All the Bloc and the Conservatives are asking is that this new tranche of shares being issued under Bill C-3 meet the same standards as those governing employees who earned sweat equity by contributing to our corporation.”
“Unfortunately, these reporting requirements are too high a bar if the goal is to obfuscate operational metrics while being soft on crime. Taken together, our amendments make the substantial connection test of Bill C-3 functionally substantial in practice and not just in words. Of course, there is nothing more substantial than what citizenship by naturalization requires of those understanding its process. What these amendments achieve is the addition of a certain cost to the process of earning Canadian citizenship, a cost to reflect the value we hold in being Canadian. I would like to wrap up my comments with a topic that has been the central but unspoken theme of Bill C-3 , which is the value of Canadian citizenship. Every Canadian citizen is like a voting shareholder in a corporation.”
“It is not a high bar to demand a security assessment, but it is a high bar for Canadians of convenience who would like to wear team Canada’s jersey without being a team player on our national rink. Finally, the Bloc and the Conservatives added reporting requirements for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The first reporting requirement would be the number of citizenships granted by the enactment of Bill C-3 . The second reporting requirement would be security screening exemptions. Essentially, the first stream of data would be to understand how Bill C-3 is performing, and the second would be to keep an eye on potential security threats. If we have the best interests of Canadians in mind, these reporting requirements are not just logical but absolutely necessary.”
“What we achieved in the amendments would strengthen the substantial connection test, while adding quality control reporting responsibilities for the presiding minister. One, we amended the three-year presence in Canada to be achieved within a five-year timeline. This would allow some flexibility while ensuring some level of intensity. With any more flexibility, we must seriously ask if we are talking about a path to citizenship or mere tourism. (1235) Two, we added requirements about language proficiencies, citizenship knowledge and security checks. It is not a high bar to demand proficiency in one of our official languages. It is not a high bar to demand a prospective Canadian citizen should understand the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship. We expect much more of someone getting their driver’s license.”
“Might I add, these were crafted by recognized opposition parties through a committee, where committees are central to the parliamentary process. Our legitimate parliamentary work is being opposed by team orange, which has been stripped of official party status. I will only entertain this tangent once, but I do question the legitimacy of an unofficial party challenging the parliamentary work of recognized parties in committees. What are the optics of this? Why bother having parliamentary committees if all voted resolutions are ignored? I digress, so I will get back to the amendments. The goal of our amendments was simply to harmonize the requirements of citizenship by descent with those of citizenship by naturalization within Canada. Is it too much to ask for a harmonized system with universal standards?”
“They are passport holders who merely parachute back into Canada when they need assistance. They wear team Canada’s jersey, but they have never played with us. Conservatives are in full support of all measures needed to specifically address the lost Canadians situation. However, lost Canadians must understand that they have been used as a Trojan Horse by the postnationalist Liberals. The first-order effect of the original Bill C-3 would directly help lost Canadians. The second-order effect of Bill C-3 in its original form would have indirectly created over 100,000 Canadians of convenience. This is why the Bloc and the Conservatives united to create common-sense amendments that would lessen the impacts of Bill C-3’s second-order effects. Let us discuss the common-sense amendments that were crafted in committee.”
“Let me remind the House of how this entire situation first began. The phrase “Canadians of convenience” emerged after 2006, when, during the Lebanon war, the Canadian government evacuated 15,000 Lebanese Canadians at the cost of $94 million to Canadian taxpayers. They were evacuated beginning in July 2006, and by September of the same year, 7,000 of those evacuees had returned to Lebanon. This was the central reason the Harper government took action to initiate the first-generation limit several years later. Let us make this definition very clear: Canadians of convenience, as grounded in our 2006 example, are those who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society. They view Canada as an insurance policy when a crisis emerges, but never pay into our system.”
“Mr. Speaker, the common-sense amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc so carefully crafted at committee to improve Bill C-3 are being undone by my postnationalist colleagues across the aisle. The Liberals do not believe in Canada because they do not believe in our borders. They believe in a two-tiered immigration system, where citizenship by naturalization within our borders has harder requirements than citizenship by descent outside of our borders does. They believe in distributing the privileges of Canadian citizenship abroad while offloading the costs and duties of citizenship to those who live coast to coast to coast. They believe that Canadians of convenience should be able to wear the team Canada jersey without ever putting in time on our ice. They are people who want to be in the team photo without being a team player.”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill, as I said earlier, would do only half the job. It should be addressing the fundamentals of fixing up the borders, fixing up the Criminal Code and repealing Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 to really discourage criminal acts. We need to fix all these issues fundamentally, not just do a half-assed job.”
“Mr. Speaker, the root of the problem is at the bill level and the policy level. The execution of bills is dependent on the proper set of policies that the government will have to table in order to fix all our issues. Right now, Bill C-12 is not addressing them.”
“Mr. Speaker, the half-measures in Bill C-12 would not address anything apart from what we already have. It would just be patching up bills that should have been repealed, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , to truly attack the roots of the problems.”
“As it stands, structurally, Bill C-12 does not see the bad actors and does not hear the legitimately vulnerable. Bill C-12 is a bundle of half measures that would not secure our borders.”
“A single action like this would have sweeping effects, and yet the Liberals have chosen the path of half measures. In conclusion, my message today about Bill C-12 can be expressed in two concepts: incentives and disincentives. All we have to do is to stop incentivizing behaviours we no longer wish to see and to start disincentivizing behaviours we want to end. We cannot secure our borders with half measures that dance around the core problem. People are the actors; people do things, so to stop bad actors from doing bad things, we must build systems of incentives and disincentives around the bad actors themselves. This is only impossible to do when we actually love and esteem the bad actors above the hard-working, law-abiding and taxpaying Canadians.”
“My constituency staff have seen the processing times for cases of applications that have been situated in the IRCC pipeline for years jump from 25 months to 48 months after the October 9 threshold. For those who submitted their application this summer, processing times went from 25 months at submission to 10 years after October 9 . In the best of cases, it is a doubling of processing, and in the worst of cases, it is a quintupling of processing. In all cases, there are lives ruined and families put in peril. Hong Kongers are a case study of a people that has integrated into our society. They do not take handouts. They are taxpayers who contribute to the system instead of getting free hotel stays on the backs of hard-working Canadians. The Liberals can secure our borders from their out-of-control asylum system by removing all the benefits.”
“We give hotel rooms to people with bogus asylum claims, while hard-working Canadians struggle with housing, health care and jobs amidst a general cost of living crisis, and while legitimately vulnerable people from Hong Kong and Ukraine have been left in limbo on their path to permanent residence, despite already being in Canada. All that Bill C-12 would accomplish is to shift the burden to the courts, which is another half measure among half measures, as the Liberals choose not to see the bad actors and choose not to hear the vulnerable. Let me bring my Liberal colleagues the voices of the vulnerable. I was shocked to discover that on October 9, the estimated time for processing individuals under the Hong Kong pathways to permanent residence was revised to being upwards of 10 years.”
“The Liberals have been allowing the river of crime to flow unimpeded. We Conservatives plan on setting up some more dams. Having addressed the failure of Bill C-12 to secure our borders on the drug front, let me redirect attention to how Bill C-12 would fail to do so on the asylum front as well. (1225) Canada's asylum system was set up to protect truly vulnerable people, like those from Hong Kong or Ukraine. We cannot resettle every economic migrant claiming asylum to get a free hotel stay. However, this is our current state of affairs. We have made the asylum route a lucrative one and have incentivized it.”
“The first step is clear: Put law-abiding Canadians above the well-being of repeat offenders. When we put hard-working, law-abiding and tax-paying Canadians first, at the top of our hierarchy, the policy suite to serve them unfolds naturally. We must disincentivize the crime that harms our law-abiding society, by locking up the repeat offenders rather than letting them roam free. It is not hard to understand how disincentives work. When a toddler touches a hot stove and burns their hand, they will learn not to touch the stove again. Through this feedback loop, the child will learn not to repeat the mistake. Human behaviour is like a river flowing down a mountain. We can either dig grooves to enhance the flow down one path, or we can build dams to block the flow down another.”
“The Liberals cannot just paper everything over with Bill C-12 while we still live in the madness legislated into being by Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . They are building bridges to nowhere, upheld by pillars of sand. How much longer must the Conservatives bring up the failures of these two bills? Bill C-75 forces judges to apply a principle of restraint that puts repeat offenders back on the streets. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail time for serious offences, like extortion with a firearm or trafficking hard drugs like fentanyl. Thus, not only are we letting criminals with many offences roam free; we are also letting the ones who have performed the most serious offences at the highest frequency roam free. This is the pro-criminal world that the Liberals have legislated into being. How do we stop the Liberal madness?”
“When they choose not to see the bad actors and not to hear the downtrodden, they by all means speak half measures into being. Let us first address how Bill C-12 would fail to secure our borders, from a crime angle. I have a simple question: Do hard drugs like fentanyl just magically appear in our country? No, of course they do not. Some group has to produce them, and some group has to distribute them. The drug dealers should not be the only central target for the legislation. The problem is that lax Liberal laws have altered our Criminal Code to put criminals first. Law-abiding Canadians live in fear, while repeat offenders serially reoffend against Canadian society, knowing there will be no consequences for their crimes.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they want to secure our border, but they have filled Bill C-12 with nothing but half measures that fail to target the core issues. They will be unable to combat transnational organized crime when they value the well-being of repeat offenders over law-abiding citizens. They will be unable to get a handle on our asylum system when they value economic migrants with bogus asylum claims over legitimately vulnerable people. The Liberal half measures in Bill C-12 stem from their continued inability to both set up and enforce disincentives against bad actors. Fundamentally, the Liberals take the maxim of the three wise monkeys to heart: See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. The Liberals do not see the criminals. They do not hear the vulnerable.”
“Mr. Speaker, during his speech, my colleague mentioned the opening of private citizens' mail without a warrant. Perhaps he can explain to fellow Canadians what that would mean to them regarding violations of privacy.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all know the deficit will drive up costs for all Canadians because, as the hon. member mentioned, we have to finance those debts. They do not come cheap or at zero cost. What that means is that a lot of the tax dollars we receive will have to go to service those debts. That takes away from the available budgets for programs like hospitals, education and, most importantly, developing our economy. That is very critical when we are expecting this new budget coming up to be even worse than that of the last Liberal government. This would be an alarm bell for all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the economics of Canada, as we have seen, is that we have been dragged down by a lot of temporary foreign workers, thereby youth unemployment is up and the available jobs for youth and other citizens have gone done. The unemployment rate is high. We need to protect the Canadians who are here. Their lives depend on our economy and the job market we have in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we saw in the Prime Minister 's announcement of projects was that they were all old projects. They were existing projects or ones that are being completed. What progress have we made since this government came into power? Compared to the last 10 years, we have made no progress.”
“Absent our capacity to retain our capital through policy levers at the federal level, we risk becoming a nation of fields to frolic in, beset by poverty in a post-industrial wasteland that the Rust Belt knows only too well. Perhaps we will then come to rely solely on tourism to our green society, and guess where our tourists will come from? They will come from industrialized societies producing wealthy citizens, uninhibited by carbon pricing, ESG reporting requirements and impact assessments. Every dollar that leaves the country means lower wages and lost jobs for workers. We Conservatives call on the Liberals to stop driving investment and jobs down and the cost of living up.”
“From an industrial policy standpoint, this means selling less of our resources raw, investing in more production capacity for the resources that we have in abundance and ensuring that we have end markets for our value-added products, otherwise this export strategy all falls apart. Let us recall that, first, if we do not do this ourselves within our borders, it means that our capital will find itself investing in production facilities within the end market destinations. Second, our roughly 40-million person market across a vast land mass is not enough to serve our total pool of capital. Finally, an export-oriented strategy built upon the foundation of energy, infrastructure and manufacturing projects may be one of the few ways to reserve our flows of capital from a federal policy standpoint under the consideration of a parliamentary cycle.”
“Along with these out-going projects will be the jobs that should have existed for Canadians. There is no other way for us to make meaningful moves within the parliamentary cycle. I have one additional point that relates to manufacturing, and I will relate it through an analogy. All things being equal, do we want to be grape sellers or wine sellers? Speaking broadly, Canada is very used to being a seller of grapes throughout our distinguished history. However, if we want to retain more capital within our borders, we need to do more of the venture-added processing work, which would behoove us to have a stronger domestic production build out.”
“The overarching vision is very simple: Retain more of our domestic capital and attract more foreign capital. Another way to look at this is when we have more water than our bucket can contain. Imagine that our bucket is no longer leaking, but that it is very small. This small bucket could not contain the $437 billion of outflow that exited our bucket over the last 10 years under the Liberal government. Building a bigger, capital-retaining bucket means having cities where we can deposit our capital for an expected return. As I mentioned before, let us focus on energy, infrastructure and manufacturing. If we cannot create a policy environment where it is easy for major projects to be set up in Canada, these major projects will be set up outside of our borders.”
“Since the Prime Minister was sworn in, in March, 86,000 Canadians have lost their job, Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7 and food inflation is double the Bank of Canada's target rate. I came across an interesting definition of the west: western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. When we take away our industrialization, we lose what makes us rich and what enables us to be educated. We often find in cities that universities emerge only after the city has undergone an industrial and commercial build-out. There is no true mass democracy without a mass society fostered through the foundation of industrial wealth. (1750) When too much capital leaves Canada because of anti-growth Liberal policies, will Canada still be a western nation? The Conservatives want to stop these capital leaks.”
“However, the Liberals want to make it hard to build in Canada. Our reputation is ruined for investors with multiple failed projects like northern gateway or energy east. The Liberals want carbon pricing. The Liberals want environmental, social and governance, ESG, reporting requirements on everything. The Liberals want impact assessments over and over again, barriers upon barriers. The Liberals do not want us to build. They do not want us to be industrialized. The Liberals want to drive us back to the Stone Age, where we can frolic in fields, beset by poverty. We only need to look at current stats to see the road to poverty that is being paved for us by Liberal intentions.”
“This means we need more domestic projects with streamlined regulations to retain our leaky capital. Our domestic market is small, with only about 40 million people dispersed across a land mass that is second only to Russia in size. This already means that our firms cannot completely rely on domestic consumption. It already means that the only way we compete internationally is through exports. It already means that the only decision in the mind of our firms is whether they can build in Canada and ship to external markets or whether they set up production internationally to sell internationally. We need incentivizing structures to make it easier to launch massive projects in Canada around energy, infrastructure and manufacturing. These projects would give our economic actors reasons to keep their capital within our borders.”
“Rounding solely to the nearest billion, these are the quick stats for the net outflow each year, all negative: 2015 was $30 billion, 2016 was $44 billion, 2017 was $69 billion, 2018 was $26 billion, 2019 was $36 billion, 2020 was $24 billion, 2021 was $56 billion, 2022 was $50 billion, 2023 was $63 billion and 2024 was $40 billion. From 2015 to 2024, this equates to negative $437 billion. Do we even have a bucket here, or is this a pipeline of our capital being pumped directly to other countries under a decade of Liberal loss? Let us discuss the cause of these leaks. When the outflow FDI from Canada consistently exceeds the inflow, it means that Canadian capital is finding better opportunities abroad than foreign capital is finding in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley . I am honoured to be representing the people of Markham—Unionville. If capital can be considered water, then Canada is a leaky bucket. Our foreign direct investment, FDI, is the directional flow of this water. FDI coming in is the total inflow of capital from the world to Canada, and FDI going out is the total outflow of capital to the world from Canada. If we subtract the inflow from the outflow, we get our net FDI, or the level of water in our bucket. The Canadian bucket has been leaking every year from 2015 to 2024 under the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals broke our immigration system. We have legitimately vulnerable persons from Hong Kong, Ukraine and Sudan who have been left in limbo on their path to permanent residency, despite already being in Canada. I have personally met with over 500 people in the Hong Kong pathways program across Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. They are all positively contributing to Canada. They are paying taxes, and they are integrating into our society. Canada's asylum system was set up to protect truly vulnerable persons, but it is being abused through the chaotic Liberal immigration system. Conservatives call for the Liberal government to fix the broken immigration system to help the many people who are being left behind.”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians in higher Liberal taxes and inflation. A new report shows that one in three seniors is supporting their adult children and grandchildren. What does this mean? It means that 28% of seniors help their adult children with rent or mortgage payments, up from last year. This should be a concern to everyone. When the Prime Minister doubles the deficit, how much more will grandparents have to pay to house their adult children and grandchildren?”
“Mr. Speaker, the question is for the immigration minister . Seniors in the greater Toronto area are having to choose between heating and eating, but now we know that over the past decade, the Liberals spent more on providing benefits to a group that includes bogus asylum claimants than on their platform promise to spend on upgrading long-term care facilities. Canadian seniors are suffering, so why did the Liberals allow Canada's once-compassionate asylum system to become an abused system that fails everyone?”