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 3 of 3.
“In terms of the other point that the member raised, very rightly, when we talk about the broken immigration system, we have a lot of people who came into the country under the pathways program, especially over—”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly do, per my speech. It used to mean something to be a Canadian, to be carrying that Canadian passport and feeling safe around the world, carrying that passport and knowing that it is respected. By cheapening this passport, it becomes almost like something we could get from online sales. As I said in my speech, what does it mean to be a Canadian, to understand and know our values, to have lived with Canadian colleagues and friends in Canada and to understand our culture and understand our way of life? We would be giving out and granting citizenship for generation after generation of people, some of whom perhaps, as the colleague across the aisle admitted, may not even have the intention of wanting to be Canadian. This legislation would allow them to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is precisely part of the problem. We have been asking the Liberal government, in terms of numbers, how many people would be impacted, and the answer is that the Liberals do not know. We asked how much it would cost us, and they do not know. Again, how is it going to impact each of the provinces, including Quebec? They obviously do not know that answer either. What is the government doing putting a bill forward without having prepared for the consequences and impact of such a bill being implemented?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague responded earlier with the same answer, which is that we will support the bill with the amendments we are proposing to address specific issues and to not broaden the overall Citizenship Act to allow generations and generations abroad. If these people really have intentions of being Canadian, it is easy for them to do so and still apply those rules. To my colleague, I say the Conservatives will support it with the amendments we are proposing.”
“Only common-sense Conservatives will restore order to immigration and citizenship. We will restore integrity to citizenship by tightening requirements, because this is how we preserve the value of what it means to be Canadian.”
“The debate on Bill C-3 boils down to one simple question: What does it mean to be a Canadian? Ultimately, do we truly value what it means to live from coast to coast to coast, or does place have no meaning? I have often heard culture defined as a way of life, and a way of life is something learned by doing, learned beside people who are doing it. In this way, citizenship is like a trade, and it requires apprenticeship. To apprentice as a Canadian, one must live in Canada beside Canadians and learn a way of life over several consecutive years. However, in the current state of Bill C-3 , the Liberals want to serve Canadians of convenience who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society. Bill C-3 serves Canadians of convenience, but does it serve Canadians?”
“This was also the original content of Conservative Senator Yonah Martin's private member's bill, Bill S-245 , which plays a more direct role in addressing concerns about the first-generation rule. What I want to emphasize is how specific the problem was and how tailored the solution could be. What we have instead, with Bill C-3 , is the use of this originally narrow problem of lost Canadians to spearhead broad, sweeping changes to the fundamentals of Canadian citizenship. Conservatives truly, fully support the provisions that relate to lost Canadians, but we cannot allow the pretext of solving the lost Canadians issue to lead to a sweeping change in what it means to be Canadian. With this little historical background out of the way, let us return to considering Bill C-3 as a whole.”
“Historically, citizenship has been revoked due to issues like restrictions on dual citizenship or a child not being registered after being born abroad. Section 8 of the Citizenship Act says all individuals born abroad to Canadian parents after February 14, 1977, had to apply to reinstate their Canadian citizenship before they turned 28 years old. In short, Conservatives wanted to restore citizenship to individuals who had lost it due to non-application for retention or application rejections under the former Citizenship Act, section 8. Some individuals lost citizenship at the age of 28. These generally included people born as the second generation abroad between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, who turned 28.”
“If Bill C-3 passes in its current state, how is it fair to legitimate immigrants who spend years building lives here, from coast to coast to coast, when the Liberal government is ready to give citizenship to people who have never even lived in Canada for a sustained period? The government has cheapened what it means to be Canadian. We will all suffer for it. (1810) With that established, let us quickly address what Bill C-3 could be, if it was precise and focused. The core historical problem we should be addressing is what has been framed as “lost Canadians”. These are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it, or thought they were entitled to Canadian citizenship but never received it. This was the original issue Conservatives gave support for and for which we will continue to give support.”
“That is just three years of non-consecutive time in Canada, and there is no need for a criminal record check. Merely three years of non-consecutive time is absolutely too low a standard to establish anyone as a fellow Canadian. At the absolute minimum, the three years should be consecutive and there should be a criminal record check. Without these absolute minimum standards, there can be no progress on this bill. The goal of the Conservatives is simple: We want to foster generations of Canadians with a national spirit and who feel themselves to be truly Canadian. There is no way to do this unless they live here with us as fellow Canadians for some degree of time. This is why their presence in Canada has to be sustained and consecutive so that they live, learn and work beside their fellow Canadians.”
“Bill C-3 would cheapen what it means to be a Canadian, and it would extend citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. In 2009, we, the Conservatives, enforced a first-generation limit. However, under Bill C-3 , any person born abroad to a Canadian citizen who has also been born abroad would receive Canadian citizenship. In other words, the children of children born outside of Canada would be considered Canadian. Before we critique this, it is important to note that the Liberals have made a conditional requirement of what they call a “substantial connection”. This requirement would allow parents to pass Canadian citizenship onto their children generation after generation as long as one parent spends only 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada prior to the birth of the child.”
“The basic cost that Conservatives want to maintain in the price of Canadian citizenship is for there to be a continued connection to Canada. Unfortunately, my dear colleagues across the aisle do not value their peers who live coast to coast to coast. My most esteemed colleagues across the aisle would rather cheapen the value of our Canadian identity by siding with Canadians of convenience. Let me repeat that concept one more time but more slowly: Canadians of convenience. Are these our brothers and sisters in arms? When push comes to shove in our fracturing global order, can we count on these Canadians of convenience to advance our national interests alongside us, or are they just people who would love to have a Canadian passport?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith . As we debate Bill C-3 today, we go back to the basics of what it means to be Canadian. We are not a postnational state, as my colleagues across the aisle would love us to believe. Canadians exist from coast to coast to coast. There are a great variety of experiences that make up our Canadian identity, but they are bounded within our great landmass. Canadian citizenship means something. It has weight in this world. For it to continue to have weight, there must be a cost. Nothing that is free continues to have any worth, any weight or any merit. The Conservatives want nothing more than to preserve and increase the value of Canadian citizenship. We value and respect what it means to be a Canadian.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we need to look at is the whole border bill, what it entails and, as I mentioned earlier, the expanded definition in the bill. Would it just address certain portions of the border or would it address more? I ask because previously I have questioned the hon. minister, and while it seems the bill is very restrictive, some of the definitions have become very expansive. That is why in my question earlier, I said the bill goes everywhere but addressing its actual needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are examples. I heard during our campaigning this year that there are concerns about transactions. The point being made is that cash is very much part of our society, and there are companies that work on the basis of not wanting to pay credit card fees and so forth. To legislate and force all transactions to go through credit cards and electronic means is just not practical for small and medium enterprises.”
“Mr. Speaker, certainly, the borders bill needs to address both the resources and the legislation. As the member points out, many cases of auto theft go unnoticed. Cars get loaded on trailers and ships, and they exit the country without being noticed. A strong borders bill needs to build in factors that will enable and enhance our police capabilities and our border security to protect against theft outside of the country and protect us from the improper import of guns and drugs, especially fentanyl, into the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the point the member made is not in the bill. The bill would allow the Canada Post Corporation to access mail without going through a standard police warrant process, and that in itself is a problem for Canadians overall.”
“What we have instead is a bill that does not address the core problems on the drug and crime files while completely disrespecting the freedoms that Canadians hold dear. Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill that falls well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching on our civil liberties.”
“However, because it is clearly a bill with an expansive definition of what constitutes a strong border, we Conservatives have some recommendations that require inclusion. We have four points that merit consideration. One, a strong border means toughening penalties for repeat violent offenders. Two, a strong border means ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for fentanyl traffickers and gun gangsters. Three, a strong border means eliminating the multiple murder discount in sentencing. Four, a strong border means tackling drug issues holistically, prioritizing treatment over drug distribution to support those battling addiction. What we need is a strong borders bill that will take public safety seriously while also protecting Canadian freedoms.”
“Do the Liberals wish for a 100% digital economy? A world where the Liberals can encroach upon cash transactions and, further, have the ability to access our private digital information leads to a world where they will eventually have complete oversight over our transactions. Is this necessary for a strong borders bill? Does this make us true north strong and free? No, it never can. The bill would curtail the freedoms of hard-working Canadians while letting repeat criminals walk free on bail. This is madness made legal. If Bill C-2 is going to be a narrowly defined borders bill that has no room to address our drug and gun issues, it is definitely a bill that has no room for warrantless access to our mail and Internet data while limiting our capacity to use cash.”
“We want mandatory minimums, we want an end to bail for these particular offences and we want an end to house arrest. However, we live in a world where the Liberals have legislated an easy time for repeat offenders while launching a crusade against legal gun owners. (1645) I have established what the bill does not have but should. Let me now outline what is has but probably should not. The strong borders bill apparently finds the need to encroach upon norms we hold dear for our civil liberties. We are deeply concerned that the bill would grant people the ability to open our mail without our consent. We are deeply concerned that the bill would compel Internet companies to hand over our private data without our consent. We are further concerned that the bill even attempts to interfere in how Canadians use cash.”
“However, the Liberals want these people to walk free on bail and have a comfortable time under house arrest. They will not punish people on the same level as mass murders, yet they have the audacity to want warrantless access to our Internet information in their borders bill. Are we truly talking about a borders bill? To Conservatives, a strong border means being tough on crime in order to secure the safety of our hard-working communities. From 2015 through 2023, total violent crime was up 50%, total homicides were up 28%, gang-related homicides were up about 78% and total violent firearms offences were up about 116%, which has increased for nine consecutive years. Just as with fentanyl traffickers, we want to see a similar approach for firearms traffickers and the gun-wielding gangsters they serve.”
“An expansive definition of a strong border requires a holistic tackling of the fentanyl supply chain. Unfortunately, even if Bill C-2 passes, Canadians will still be left with the unsafe society that the Liberals legislated into being. We live in a society where fentanyl traffickers have no mandatory minimums and can receive bail and where house arrest is considered a worthy punishment for the monsters who are killing our community. Conservatives will keep repeating this one simple fact until the Liberals hear us: It takes only two milligrams of fentanyl to kill a fellow Canadian. If members understand this simple fact, anyone trafficking over 40 milligrams of fentanyl should be considered no different than a mass murderer who guns down 20 people.”
“A borders bill that has extensive unlawful access provisions is clearly a bill that can include more real community safety elements, so let us touch on that. To Conservatives, strong borders mean being tough on drugs across the entire supply chain. This includes drug production, not just drug trafficking. This includes drug producers, not just drug traffickers. In short, it is not just about the substances, but about the actors who are involved. When we are talking about actors, we need real consequences for the perpetrators of these acts of social destruction. We need mandatory minimum sentences, not bail, when the issue is about fentanyl. How can a borders bill request warrantless access to Internet subscriber information and not also have strong measures against the fentanyl problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here speaking on behalf of the people of Markham—Unionville. Today, we are discussing a bill framed around creating strong borders, yet somehow, it does so much more and so much less than its stated goal. We have a 140-page border bill that somehow also pushes for warrantless access to information about Internet subscribers. If this is the case, the Liberals are pushing for an expansive definition of strong borders. However, in earlier questions about the bill, when we, the official opposition, critiqued elements that could be added to it, our efforts were denied because the Liberals cited a narrow definition of this being merely a borders bill. Which is it?”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion is up 357%. The Trudeau Liberals voted down a common-sense Conservative bill that would enforce a three-year mandatory minimum penalty for extortion and restore a four-year minimum penalty for extortion involving a non-restricted firearm, because it was repealed by the Liberals in Bill C-5 . Will the Prime Minister finally adopt the Conservative plan to crack down on violent extortion?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have professional experience as a chief information officer in managing multi-million dollar projects globally for large corporations and government agencies. This scathing report by the Auditor General illustrates the lack of governance of the Liberal government, from procurement to change management to the validation of deliverables and time sheets. Where was the due diligence by the Liberal government? Where was the minister overseeing this portfolio? A good governance process requires supervision, checks and balances and scrutiny throughout the project. All of these basic governance processes were missing by the Liberal government. We are looking for fellow members to approve this motion and give the money back to Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, Peel Region had the single largest drug bust in its history yesterday, with 1,000 pounds of cocaine worth $47 million. This would be a cause for celebration if six out of the nine who were arrested were not already out on bail. Liberal laws like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 are the root cause of this madness. These Liberal laws put repeat criminals back into our communities. Will the Liberals reverse their soft-on-crime policies to keep criminals behind bars?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge today's scathing Auditor General's report on the current and future use of office space. The report noted that the Liberals promised to reduce office space by 50%, with $1.1 billion over 10 years to do so. However, the Auditor General found that the office space reduction will only be 33%. The results show the absolute failure of the Liberals to get housing built. After years of flashy announcements, all they have are endless broken promises. The report says that it takes six to eight years to dispose of surplus buildings, a completely unacceptable and costly timeline. As millions of Canadians are struggling to find affordable housing, this latest report confirms just how out of touch and unhelpful the same old Liberal government has been.”
“Mr. Chair, Bill C-2 addresses money laundering and terrorist activity financing issues with monetary penalties. Where two milligrams of fentanyl can kill a person and the mass trafficking of fentanyl can be considered mass murder, could Bill C-2 be amended to recognize the trafficking of fentanyl as a terrorist or mass murder activity?”
“Mr. Chair, Canadian communities are not secure when addiction victims constitute a demand structure for the flow of fentanyl and its precursors. Why was the treatment for our addicted community members left out of the Liberal's Bill C-2 ?”
“Mr. Chair, Canadian communities are not secure when repeat offenders can be released on bail within hours of arrest. Why was the repeal of the Liberal Bill C-75 catch-and-release policies not in Bill C-2 ?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time. Bill C-2 only addresses fentanyl production with a focus on a precursor in part 2. Our borders are weaker when there are no consequences for drug dealers. What minimum sentencing will Bill C-2 impose on fentanyl dealers?”
“I cannot in my right mind consider the Liberals to be a party ready to protect the communities of hard-working Canadians, no matter what promises they have provided in their throne speech agenda. We Conservatives are a government in waiting. We are the hope of Canadians for a future that can and will be different from the status quo. Last, I urge the Liberals to provide Canada with a spring budget. Canadians want an open and accountable government with a plan for how to keep our communities safe and our cost of living under control.”
“I want to remind this House once more what the Canadian dream has always been. Canadians want to own a house on a safe street where children can play at ease, where seniors can go for a carefree walk and where cars do not go missing in the night. The Liberals have presented an agenda that speaks about reducing fentanyl flows and increasing the RCMP force. However, their commitment toward Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 is a threat to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. My colleagues across the aisle have voted for a Canada where repeat offenders are to be released on bail within hours. They have legislated into being a world where the producers and traffickers of fentanyl get house arrest instead of jail time.”
“Is it not odd that the Liberal throne speech decreed a desire to block the flow of fentanyl, yet their previous legislation allows fentanyl traffickers to avoid jail term? Bill C-5 allows house arrest for these criminals. This means they can just walk out their own front doors and be on the street immediately, pushing hard drugs in our neighbourhoods. Moreover, the drug issues require not merely that we stop the drug kingpins and their drug trade, but further, that we have a robust program of treatment in place. The throne speech did not go far enough on the drug file, as it made no mention of addiction treatment programs. This is something that we Conservatives are committed to. Will the government repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , which the Liberals put into place?”
“It allows repeat offenders to be released on bail within hours of arrest, and they then often go and promptly reoffend. Only repealing these Liberal commitments can give judges the freedom to allow minimum sentencing. I was discussing this issue with the deputy chief of police of our great York Regional Police. We have discussed that the police force is discouraged because criminals are released before the paperwork is done. Our frontline police force and their families are fearful every day with these repeat dangerous criminals free on the streets. The throne speech commitment to increasing the RCMP force neither goes far enough, nor should be the only focus. The prior Liberal commitment on drugs is expressed in Bill C-5 , which eliminated mandatory jail time for the production and trafficking of hard drugs like fentanyl.”
“(1350) The Liberals are uniquely ill-equipped to truly deliver on the community safety file, not because of ability, but because of contradictions inherent in the coalition that forms their support base. A safe community requires that we solve both the crime and the drug issues while simultaneously dealing with overwhelmed health care, housing, job markets and immigration levels. Crime, drugs and an overwhelmed social infrastructure are all intertwined in fostering unsafe communities. In juggling all these competing priorities, some will fall by the wayside, explicitly because the coalition that forms the Liberal support base will not allow the Liberals to turn 180° on all their prior commitments. The prior Liberal commitment on crime is expressed in Bill C-75 , the catch-and-release bill.”
“When I campaigned to my community in Markham—Unionville, I repeated two core promises: One, we will restore safety on our streets by repealing Liberal laws and locking up repeat offenders. Two, we will bring down the cost of living with a budget that cuts spending, taxes and inflation. I had the pleasure of reading the Prime Minister 's mandate letter before hearing the throne speech last week. If I did not know they were put together by the Liberals, I would have mistaken them for something produced by a centre-right party of the last few decades. Thus, one fact is clear to me for this session of Parliament: We are focused on priorities that have been universally championed by Conservatives for decades upon decades. Safe communities with an affordable quality of life are a singular battle cry for Conservatives everywhere.”
“It is as simple as owning a house on a safe street, where children can play at ease, where seniors can go for a carefree walk and where cars do not go missing in the night. It is shocking to hear about all the car thefts emerging in my community. This is a canary in the coal mine. The Canadian dream is faltering and has been for quite some time. The fabric of our mosaic is coming undone at the seams. As members of the official opposition, it is not merely our duty to hold the government to account for the agenda that it outlined last week. We are not merely here as policy critics, but as a fellow pillar of governance. We provide hope to Canadians that things can and will get better. The Conservative priority for this session of Parliament is a Canada that is affordable, safe, self-reliant and united.”
“Moreover, Markham—Unionville embodies the upwardly mobile middle-class Canadian dream that all immigrant communities aspire toward. It is a riding that has maintained a balance between industry, farmland and urban life. We have industry in the form of both locally grown talent like Novo Plastics and internationally recognized giants like Honda Canada. In the north, Markham—Unionville is filled with serene farmlands, while in the south is a bustling urban environment. Our commercial districts are filled with multi-generational small businesses like Lucullus Bakery and Congee Queen. Altogether, Markham—Unionville is the postcard city for the Canadian dream, with an enviable quality of life. Let me take a quick moment to define what the Canadian dream is.”
“As the voice of Markham—Unionville, let me paint a brief picture of my community based on an event I attended just this past weekend in my riding. I gave the closing speech for the 2025 National AccessAbility Week hosted by the NorthStar Special Needs Society. The initiative was designed both to reduce stigma and to raise awareness about disability within Asian Canadian communities. At its root, the event was about creating new narratives for Asian Canadians in the face of long-standing cultural norms, especially around disability. I was the chair of a mental health foundation, and I know that stigma in all societies in general is still very strong, especially in Asian Canadian communities. What we see in Markham—Unionville is an immigrant community that is forging a new identity in our vibrant Canadian mosaic.”
“Madam Speaker, I am honoured and humbled to be representing the people of Markham—Unionville. They have entrusted me to be their representative and to speak up for issues that are important to them. I have promised to listen, understand, consult and advocate for them in the House of Commons. I sincerely appreciate and respect their support for me to be their representative. I would like to thank my community, my campaign team and especially my family: my wife Anna, my son Aaron and his wife Tiffany, and my daughters Samantha and Andrea. It was their love and support that gave me the energy and strength to succeed in my campaign. My family, together with my campaign team, have worked tirelessly to knock on doors in sunny, rainy, snowy and windy conditions. I deeply appreciate all their dedication and support.”
“Mr. Speaker, since 2016, nearly 50,000 Canadians have died from the opioid crisis. Over 80% of accidental opioid deaths involve fentanyl. It takes just two milligrams of fentanyl to kill someone. Mass fentanyl production is mass murder, but Liberal laws let the monsters who kill our people walk free. Conservatives are proposing to give mandatory life sentences for anyone involved in the trafficking, production and distribution of over 40 milligrams of fentanyl. Will the Prime Minister crack down on fentanyl production and give life sentences for drug kingpins committing mass murder?”