Ziad Aboultaif
Edmonton Manning, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is promising 500,000 homes every year. According to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 homes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though houses will be built, the new Liberal agency Build Canada Homes will add only 5,000 homes per year.”
“We know that such things should not be allowed to happen again, but there is nothing in our laws to ensure that. Bill S-228 would fix that. It proposes to clarify one section of the Criminal Code to bring an end to a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionately, but not exclusively, affects indigenous…”
“In the early part of the 20th century, a movement arose that had a flawed concept of human dignity and what it meant to be authentically human. The idea was that we should strive to create perfect people, which meant those who were considered to be imperfect should not be allowed to have children.”
“It is a simple change, but an important one if we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings.”
“Additionally, section 45 of the Criminal Code of Canada protects individuals from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation if it “is performed with reasonable care and skill” and is reasonable based on the person's state of health and other circumstances.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize from the outset. This is not a speech that will soar to oratorical heights, castigating the government for its many failures and its apparent inability to understand the needs of the country. There is a time for that, but it is not now because this is not a partisan issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 285 lines we hold for Ziad Aboultaif, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“The former prime minister orchestrated a cover-up to hide the fact that his top aide and his defence minister had direct knowledge of a sexual misconduct allegation against the then chief of the defence staff. When sexual misconduct was studied at the national defence committee in 2021, the Liberals filibustered for weeks and then called an election before the committee was able to produce a report. This is an example of Liberal lack of transparency on this issue, something not fixed by a change in the justice system. The Liberal government has had 10 years to tackle sexual misconduct in the military. In 2015, Justice Marie Deschamps issued her external review of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. The former Liberal minister of national defence had that report on his desk when he was sworn in.”
“The whistle-blower is dumped from the military, while the alleged criminal continues on as if nothing happened. The issue is not which court and jurisdiction will deal with sexual assault charges involving those serving with the military, which is the scope of this bill. The issue is that those in charge of military justice and their superiors apparently do not see anything wrong with the status quo. If no charges are being laid, what does it matter which court has jurisdiction? This is part of a disturbing Liberal trend on this issue. Covering up wrongdoing and avoiding transparency seem to be the norm. For example, in 2021, the then prime minister and his defence minister continually covered up information on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, going to great lengths to block investigations and hide the truth from Canadians.”
“These reforms will help ensure that every member serves in a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment, one that upholds the highest standards of integrity, reinforces operational effectiveness, and honours the commitment of those who wear the uniform in service to Canada. With bold words like these, it was, to put it mildly, disappointing to read in the Ottawa Citizen that Patrick White, the naval officer who brought to light an alleged serial sex offender in the Canadian navy whose crimes were being ignored by military leadership, is being released from the naval reserve against his will. Supposedly, there is no place for him, while, at the same time, the alleged perpetrator continues to serve. What message does that send to members of our armed forces and to the Canadian public?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is new to the job. He inherited a mess from his predecessors and is now trying to fix a decade of Liberal mismanagement and neglect. I hear him saying the right things about Bill C-11 . I am sure he believed it when he stated: Canada’s military justice system must reflect the values of fairness, accountability, and respect that Canadians expect. With this legislation, we are delivering on recommendations made by former Supreme Court of Canada Justices Arbour and Fish and taking decisive steps to strengthen trust in the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I gather from the member's speech, as far as the seriousness of the government or the military commitment or leadership, is that the rights of those serving in the institution were neglected completely and ignored in terms of what happened in the last 10 years. What in the bill would assure us that we are going to change the conduct of the past to give people the rights they deserve?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, we thought he meant Canada. He obviously did not. Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy, the second-highest unemployment, the worst household debt and the most expensive housing in the G7. It is just another broken Liberal promise. The Prime Minister said to judge him by the prices at the grocery store. Food prices are rising faster today than before he came to office. It is just another broken Liberal promise. He promised to spend less, but record government spending is up an additional 8%. It is just another broken Liberal promise. He promised to build, but he cannot get shovels in the ground. He promised new homes, but cannot get them built. Everything the Prime Minister says is another broken Liberal promise.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously the government likes more control over Canadians through Bill C-8 . Can the hon. member, through his wonderful and detailed speech, explain to us where the government wants overreach and more control over Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is highlighting an important issue. We hear a lot of concerns from Canadians about Bill C-8 . She included some of them in her speech. If she could shed light again on those concerns, it would be great.”
“Madam Speaker, the member and I disagree on this point quite a bit, because I think the government is trying to show that it is serious about the issue, but the Liberals have been dragging their feet for 10 years in dealing seriously with crimes taking place in Canada. That is the addressing that we need to look at. The government has always been virtue signalling and has been very symbolic on everything, but when it comes to action, its rate is zero.”
“Madam Speaker, let us remind one another that the government weakened the Criminal Code a lot when it introduced Bill C-75 in 2016-17. The government did that so badly that we see crime rates and hate rates on the rise in Canada. We seem to be out of control on how to fight crime and make sure we protect Canadians. That is why the bill before us is empty except for a definition, and a definition does not solve problems.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill is a matter of changing a definition, and nothing but. There is nothing concrete in the bill that would ensure Canadians the protection that the member is suggesting. We are standing on where Canadians can be protected, regardless of their race, religion, colour, sexual orientation or anything else, but the bill would not do what the hon. member thinks it would do.”
“Bill C-9 is intended to show society's displeasure with the actions of those who wilfully promote hatred in Canada. I am not convinced this legislation is going to be as effective as the government hopes.”
“They are intended to cause fear and intimidation. When we allow one group to be targeted, when we fail to act, we become complicit in the crime. I am sure none of us in the House wants that to happen. Does the combatting hate act solve the problem of hatred in Canadian society? It does not. It cannot, because legislation does not change hearts and attitudes. That is something best done one on one, and a task that falls on each one of us as we are confronted with hatred. In the House, we can show our desire for a better Canada, one where people are completely accepted for who they are, regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.”
“We, therefore, need to ensure that all Canadians are not being subjected to hate merely because of who they are or what they believe. No Canadians should be expected to live in fear for their lives or livelihood because of race or gender. No Canadian should be prevented from accessing medical treatment or attending a religious service because the building is being blocked by those spewing hateful words and symbols. Yes, we need to preserve free speech, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows those freedoms “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” There is no constitutional right to promote hatred. Hate crimes are not victimless. They can cause deep psychological harm. Sometimes they can cause physical harm.”
“Societies the world over are seeing increased polarization. Minority groups are being demonized for political gain. Violence is increasing. Social media is being used to fuel the fires of hatred. The ombudsman called for the federal government to step forward to provide a legal definition of a hate crime and to enact legislation. This bill is in response to that. Definitions and laws are, in many ways, just words on paper. They do not convey the human element, the understanding of what hatred does to those who are targets of hate crimes. It is those people and their experiences that bring us to our discussion today. The combatting hate act is not going to change anyone's mind. It is not going to miraculously convince all Canadians that they should love their neighbours.”
“It is not something government can eliminate, though we have certainly tried. We have had government reports on supporting victims of hate crimes. We have had statistics telling us who has been targeted by hate in Canada. We have Canada's action plan on combatting hate. We have Canada's anti-racism strategy. The RCMP has the national hate crimes task force. However, hate is still with us. In 2024, the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime released a special report entitled “Strengthening Access to Justice for Victims of Hate Crime in Canada”. It noted many of the problems we face in combatting hatred in our country. In 2023, there was a 32% increase in the number of hate crimes reported to police over the previous years. Those numbers are on the rise. This is not a uniquely Canadian problem.”
“Murderous thoughts about the driver who cuts someone off on their morning commute would not land someone in jail. Murder will. It is actions that are the subject of Bill C-9 , not a person's private thoughts. There is a fine line to be drawn between the right to protest and interference with others. I expect we will hear a lot of debate about the idea of intimidation that is brought forth in this legislation. In theory, protecting those lawfully using a school, a place of worship or any other location is a good thing. Sometimes, however, those places could be considered legitimate targets for protest. If this bill passes, it will be challenging for police and the courts to balance the rights of all involved. (1715) Hate remains an ongoing problem in Canadian society.”
“That, it seems to me, is also the problem with defining hate and one of the problems with this bill. Who decides what is “detestation or vilification?” Bill C-9 does set out who is protected by this legislation. Hatred would be prohibited when based on the following: race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity Human nature cannot be changed by legislation. Irrational hatred, because of its irrationality, would not be eliminated by passing legislation against hate crimes. Making something an offence would not change the feelings of those fuelled by hatred. However, what we can do as parliamentarians is show society's displeasure when hateful thoughts are put into action.”
“It is our responsibility to find a balance between free speech and individual rights. We need to ask ourselves if this bill would do that. For years, the question of what constitutes hatred has been a matter of personal interpretation. The line between what is acceptable and unacceptable has not been codified in law, which perhaps has made any enforcement of hate legislation difficult. Hate has always been a matter of interpretation. At least we have a definition now: hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike; I am not sure how helpful that will be when it comes to practical application. Members have probably heard people say, “I am not an expert, but I know good art when I see it.” That is not a definition of art; it is a subjective statement.”
“I think every member of this House will want to speak to this bill, and some to share personal stories of their experiences with hatred in our society. There is probably not a member of an ethnic, religious, racial or sexual minority who has not at some point had to deal with irrational prejudices that threaten to expand into hatred or violence. The question we need to ask ourselves in this House is how we can best respond to hatred. Legislation such as Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, may provide a Criminal Code framework for punishment, but is punishing people for their ideas and beliefs going to change those beliefs? At the same time, we have a responsibility to protect Canadians, especially vulnerable Canadians, from being harassed by those whose motivation is hate.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South . Our society has changed in recent years. Change can be a good thing. None of us wants to return to a past before we had things like refrigeration and modern medicine, although I suppose there are many who wish we could return to a past without social media. I can certainly sympathize with that. It seems that as a nation, as a people, as humans, we have become much more fractured than in the past, and many of our divisions are fuelled by what we read and hear online. I do not know if Canadians today are more hateful than in the past, but it does seem that more anger and hatred are being expressed against specific groups in our society. This is a serious issue that merits serious consideration.”
“Madam Speaker, the private sector in general is ready to protect itself, especially on the cybersecurity front, otherwise it cannot really do business in this world. The government, on the other side, is not ready. It has been dragging its feet since the last Parliament by killing Bill C-26 . Will the hon. member be honest and tell Canadians why the government killed Bill C-26 ?”
“Madam Speaker, the government is very creative in bringing more taxes on Canadians. Here is why: Beef is up 33%, canned tuna is up 19%, potatoes are up 16%, pork is up 14%, vegetables are up 13%, oranges are up 12%, and chicken is up 11%. How many food banks need to come to Edmonton Manning before the Prime Minister cuts taxes on food for Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, I have four food banks in my riding, and that tells the Liberals something: There is a food crisis. Canadians cannot afford to buy groceries or enough of them anymore. They are choosing less nutritious food and eating less quantity and quality. Since the Liberals took power, groceries have soared by 40%. The Prime Minister can do something. He can stop taxing food so Canadians can eat. Will he do it?”
“Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be done in a minute. We recognize citizens for bravery, selfless acts and compassion toward their fellow citizens. This should be no different for living donors. The medal would be a way to raise awareness and discussion surrounding living donation. It would save more lives. If we do this, Canada would be only the second country in the world to add living donors to its national honours system—”
“They have freely given what they can to save the life of another. It is a priceless gift. However, as a transplant recipient once said to me, “I just don't feel a thank you card is enough. I wish we could do a proper job of recognizing them.” That is why I am proposing through my private member's bill the creation of a living donor recognition medal. Living donors volunteer to give a part of their body to another person to save their life, and this selfless and altruistic gesture is worthy of significant recognition. We recognize citizens for bravery—”
“Mr. Speaker, the bad news is that today there are 4,700 Canadians awaiting a life-saving organ transplant. The good news is that most of those on the waiting list could be saved by a living donor. A living donor is someone who donates all or part of an organ to save the life of a fellow Canadian. I am a living donor. On December 8, 2003, I donated part of my liver to save the life of my son Tyler, but I am not alone. Across Canada, there are hundreds of people alive today because someone bravely, generously and selflessly gave a part of their body to another person to save their life. These donors stepped forward, took on risks and gave the gift of life. To me and to the people they saved, they are true heroes. Living donors are not paid and are not allowed to be compensated for their donations, and this is a good thing.”
“Mr. Speaker, an Ipsos poll says that two-thirds of Canadians disagree with the disastrous Liberal plan for the ban of the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The EV mandate would eliminate 38,000 jobs and cost $138.7 billion. U.S. tariffs could mean 1,000 more jobs lost. Prices will go up by $20,000 per vehicle. Canadian jobs will vanish. When will the Liberals repeal their EV mandate?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the government wants to build special projects, specifically the pipelines that Alberta has been asking for for a long time, but the same government has put up barriers so that these projects cannot go through, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 , which are still in place. I am not sure how the Liberals can explain to Canadians how they are going to build projects while the barriers they have put in place are going to prevent those projects from happening.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his government are refusing to table a budget. It is as if they are telling the world, "We have no idea what we are doing. We have no plan, and we are just going to hope that we can stumble along and figure things out as we go, not making too much of a mess as we do it." This is exactly why they have not presented a budget. They had better have an answer for Canadians for why they are not tabling a budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, the grocery bill for Canadian families is $16,834, which is an $800 increase since last year, about 5%. The government is claiming that inflation is at 1.7%. Economically speaking, can the hon. member explain that if inflation is at 1.7% and groceries are going up by 5%, how that can happen?”
“Mr. Speaker, the average Canadian family will pay $16,834 for food this year, which is about an $800 increase from last year. That is $15 more weekly than last year, bringing a grocery tab to $324 each week. How will the government's policy, in trying to help Canadians, make an impact when its proposed tax cut will probably only be worth two weeks of groceries for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, TD Bank says the Prime Minister 's housing policy promises are not enough for the federal government to reach its goal of 500,000 new units annually over the next decade. In fact, housing starts are expected to decline next year. The Prime Minister's proposed new bureaucracy will not build any homes. There is too much red tape. Canadians deserve better. When will the government table a budget so that Canadians will learn whether the government has any plan to put a roof over their head?”
“Mr. Speaker, congratulations; you look good there. I also congratulate the new member from P.E.I. The member mentioned the operating budget. For the sake of our audience, can he define what an operating budget is and what it represents of the general budget, in dollars and in percentage?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan for Canada to become the world's leading energy superpower is just an empty promise. Where is the investment in infrastructure? Where is the commitment to repeal the job-killing Liberal anti-energy laws from the last Parliament? Albertans want to know if the government understands how important our clean, ethical fossil fuels are to the Canadian economy and to the world. Is the throne speech just rhetoric or are the Liberals finally willing to face reality? The demand for Alberta products is there, but the delivery method is lacking. The previous prime minister told those who were looking to buy Canadian oil and gas that they really did not want to buy it. Will the new Prime Minister commit to a west-east pipeline to move Alberta oil and gas to Canadian and European markets? Albertans want to know.”