Bob Saroya

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, April 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' fully costed campaign platform pegged the cost of their Syrian refugee program at $250 million. We know now that it will be several times that. Lack of advanced planning on behalf of the Liberals has resulted in millions of dollars being wasted on unused hotel rooms, staff overtime, and transportation. Do the Liberals have any idea how much the Syrian refugee program will actually cost?

[The Budget, April 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the numbers have just been reworked. The children's tax credit, the children's art tax credit, and the tax credit for post-secondary education and textbooks were serious tax credits, but they are all gone.

[The Budget, April 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I was in business for most of my life. If there is no money, we have to budget the budget. We have to make sure we have fiscal responsibility. We have to make sure that we have the money or that we can afford to pay the money back.

In this case, the Liberals promised a $10 billion deficit during the election campaign, but that amount has now gone up to $30 billion. Our future generations will be on the hook for this debt.

This is a bad budget, and we will not support it.

[The Budget, April 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, these are the facts. The member just has to look at the record. The highest dollars spent in the G7 countries were spent in 2014 by the Conservative government. The most money was spent in the last budget.

I would like to raise something else. The Liberals do not have the money they are spending. This is money that belongs to future generations.

[The Budget, April 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to echo the voices of my constituents of Markham—Unionville on the disgraceful proposed Liberal budget.

I will also be splitting my time with my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge.

The Liberal government has dedicated a lot of space to buzzwords, investments, and spending, but it has yet to provide Canadians with a clear plan for job creation, tax reduction, and economic stability.

My constituents are hard-working Canadians with strong values, which include fiscal responsibility, the safety of our communities, and respect for their hard-earned dollars. These are all things the current Liberal government has overlooked in its budget and omitted.

The Minister of Finance recently stood in the House and talked about what the government's budget would give to Canadians. However, it is now clear that this budget promises far more than it can deliver. More importantly, it would deprive hard-working families of benefits and credits that provide relief for Canadians.

I draw members' attention to the topic of taxes, a subject with which I am sure many of us are concerned.

This Liberal budget would end the children's tax credit, the children's art tax credit, and the tax credit for post-secondary education and text books. These are the benefits that most Canadian families take advantage of sooner or later. However, under the current government, these valuable tax credits would no longer be available to provide relief.

The Conservatives reduced taxes over 150 times, bringing the tax burden for families to its lowest point in the last 50 years. In contrast, the Liberal budget would not only directly take money out of people's pockets, but due to the government's fiscal mismanagement, the proposed budget would also impact businesses negatively.

Over nearly a decade in power, an average family of four was saving almost $7,000 per year under the previous Conservative government.

Contrary to what the Liberal government will try to tell Canadians, low- and middle-income families have benefited the most from these savings. This is not political hot air. It is coming straight from the parliamentary budget officer, who independently investigates the government's spending.

Last week, the PBO came out with a report that showed Liberals were hiding information from Canadians, creating their own economic growth projections, and exaggerating job growth expectations.

Despite saying that budget 2016 would help Canadians, the current government would end the hiring credit for small businesses and completely abandon our manufacturing sector. The Liberals have not committed to funding the automotive innovation fund, the auto suppliers innovation program, or the advanced manufacturing fund, among other programs from which businesses have benefited.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the decision to not reduce the small business corporation tax to 9%, as promised, would cost small businesses almost $1 billion per year as of 2019. Canadians will recall that the reduction to 9% was tabled by the former Conservative government in an effort to aid small businesses, which are the backbone and economic engine of this country.

Where has the Liberals' promise of hope and hard work gone?

The Liberal budget dedicated a lot of space to innovation and investing in innovation, but this budget lacks a clear plan to encourage businesses to invest and create jobs in Canada.

According to the Fraser Institute, under these conditions, businesses and entrepreneurs would either remain on the sidelines or decide to invest in other countries. Simply put, without a predictable business environment, Canadian businesses and workers would be left with a sad view of the future.

Additionally, according to the economists, the Liberals are spending at the rate of 7% more than they can afford. The previous Conservative government left Canadians with a budgetary surplus, and already the Liberal government has placed us all into a dark pit of endless deficits.

Let us not overlook the burden that will be left on the shoulders and in the pockets of our children and grandchildren. Please let us not play political games with the Canadian economy.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation rightly stated that this Prime Minister's first budget is an absolute disaster for future generations and for Canada.

My constituents of Markham—Unionville, alongside Oakville and Vancouver, are some of the highest taxed people in the country. This budget is an embarrassment for them and for hard-working Canadians across this country.

What is the most embarrassing? It is the complete disregard the government has when it comes to the safety of our communities. The world is not getting any safer, as the past few years or even the recent weeks have shown us. Mindless violence happens when we least expect it, whether in the heart of the European Union, in Brussels, Belgium, or at the military recruitment centre in Toronto.

Despite these recent tragedies, the Liberal government has allocated less than $60 million for our country's public safety. The government lacks credibility when addressing our national security. These cuts go to prove how dangerously uninformed this Prime Minister and his advisers are, by putting the safety and security of Canadians at risk.

The Liberals are highlighting buzzword investments at a time when they should be restraining or reallocating funds to serious issues, like national security and public safety, which affect Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Before my colleagues across the aisle start pointing fingers and accusing my caucus colleagues and me of being against investment in infrastructure, I want to clarify that this is not the truth. Conservatives support infrastructure spending that improves our quality of life and ensures that our goods get to both domestic and international markets.

Under the previous Conservative government, more money was invested in infrastructure than under any other government in history. We were second amongst the G7 countries in 2014 in regard to infrastructure spending.

In fact, under the Conservative government, more than one million net new jobs were created, the most per capita in the G7. These were high-quality jobs, with 80% of them being full time, of which 80% were created in the private sector.

Investing in infrastructure should create jobs, and those are investments that I support, but this is not the case with the government and its lacklustre budget. Canadian businesses, which may be able to contribute to local infrastructure projects, would not benefit from this plan, since the Liberals have decided to raise taxes on them.

Worst of all, the government would force provinces to introduce a carbon tax that could cost families over $1,000 every year, and it would impact the ability of businesses to hire hard-working, deserving Canadians.

I cannot support a budget full of money-grabbing measures, meant to make all Canadians pay more now and for years to come. Therefore, I stand united with my caucus colleagues against the government and its senseless budget promises.

I would like to thank my constituents once more for enabling me to stand in this House today to voice their concerns about the measures introduced two weeks ago.

[Vaisakhi, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, waheguru ji ka khalsa. Waheguru ji ki fateh.

I rise today to express my best wishes to everyone in Canada and abroad celebrating Vaisakhi. On one of the most important days for members of the Sikh faith, we honour the creation of the Khalsa by spending quality time with family and friends.

Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike also participate in vibrant parades and celebrations. I am grateful I got to attend Khalsa Day Kirtan on Parliament Hill.

This is also a perfect day to honour the significant contributions that Sikhs have made to our great country. I wish everyone a safe and joyful holiday.

Happy Vaisakhi. Waheguru ji ka khalsa. Waheguru ji ki fateh.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 11th, 2016]

With respect to the government’s commitment to lift the visa requirement for Mexican nationals entering Canada: (a) has the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship conducted a formal visa review, including a technical visit to the country, to provide a holistic, evidence-based assessment of Mexico’s eligibility for a visa exemption under Canada’s objective visa policy framework; (b) if a formal visa review for Mexico has been conducted by technical experts in the public service, (i) over what period of time was the review conducted, (ii) what are the conclusions and recommendations with respect to Mexico’s overall eligibility for a visa exemption under Canada’s visa policy framework; (c) if a formal visa review for Mexico has not been conducted, why has a decision been taken to grant a visa exemption in the absence of evidence for each indicator used to assess risk to Canada and Canadians; (d) under Canada’s existing visa policy framework, what are the indicators that are used to determine a country’s eligibility for a visa exemption, broken down by (i) quantitative indicators, (ii) qualitative indicators; (e) for each quantitative and qualitative indicator identified in (d), (i) which indicators does Mexico currently meet, (ii) which indicators does Mexico currently not meet; (f) for each socio-economic factor that is typically assessed in a formal visa review, (i) what is Canada’s current assessment of the factor in Mexico, (ii) does the evidence demonstrate a “push” factor that could incentivize irregular migration to Canada, if Mexican nationals are exempt from the visa requirement, (iii) does Mexico currently meet Canada’s requirement, under the existing visa policy framework, for each particular indicator, to be eligible for a visa exemption; (g) with respect to migration patterns and trends, for each factor that is typically assessed under Canada’s visa policy framework, (i) what is Canada’s assessment of the current condition in Mexico, (ii) does the evidence demonstrate eligibility for a visa exemption; (h) does Canada’s assessment of Mexico’s travel document integrity indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (i) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found that the Mexican passport is a reliable indicator of identity and nationality; (j) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found that Mexico’s border management practices indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (k) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found third country nationals are using Mexico as a transit point to travel illegally to Canada; (l) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found there are weaknesses in screening and enforcement measures at Mexican Ports of Entry; (m) does Canada’s assessment of security matters in Mexico indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (n) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found there is evidence of corruption or links to organized crime in the ranks of Mexican border officials and law enforcement; (o) have Canadian technical experts found that there is evidence of human smuggling activities and networks operating inside and through Mexico; (p) does Canada’s assessment of human rights matters in Mexico indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (q) with respect to visa refusal rates for Mexican nationals, (i) what is the quantitative threshold, expressed as a numerical percentage, used under Canada’s visa policy framework to indicate an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what is the current visa refusal rate, using the most recent calendar year, (iii) does the current visa refusal rate indicate an acceptable level of risk or an unacceptable level of risk, in the context of granting a visa exemption; (r) with respect to asylum rates for Mexican nationals, (i) what is the threshold used under Canada’s visa policy framework to indicate an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what was the asylum rate for the last calendar year before a visa requirement was imposed, (iii) what was the asylum rate for Mexican nationals for each calendar year, from 2010 to 2015, after the visa requirement was imposed; (s) with respect to asylum claims made in Canada by Mexican nationals in the calendar year prior to the imposition of a visa requirement, (i) how many people were granted refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board, (ii) how many people were refused refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board, (iii) how many asylum claims were withdrawn, (iv) how many asylum claimants were inadmissible, (v) what was the cost of processing the total number of asylum claims made by Mexican nationals in the calendar year prior to the imposition of a visa requirement, broken down by outcome at the Immigration and Refugee Board, (vi) on average, how long did it take to remove failed Mexican asylum claimants from Canada; (t) with respect to the Immigration Violation Rate, (i) what is the threshold used under Canada’s visa policy framework to determine an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what is the current Immigration Violation Rate for Mexican nationals, with the visa requirement in place, expressed as a numerical percentage for the most recent calendar year, (iii) what was the Immigration Violation Rate for Mexican nationals for period of 2007 to 2009, before the visa requirement was imposed; (u) what was the total number of inadmissible Mexican nationals that arrived on Canadian soil in the calendar year prior to the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, broken down by the nature of the inadmissibility; (v) how many inadmissible Mexican nationals have arrived on Canadian soil for each calendar year since the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) the nature of the inadmissibility; and (w) with respect to inadmissible Mexican nationals who arrived at a Canadian Port of Entry in the calendar year prior to the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, what was (i) the estimated cost of processing the inadmissible cases by the Canada Border Services Agency at Canadian Ports of Entry, (ii) the estimated increase in processing times for all travelers at Canadian Ports of Entry as a result of processing inadmissible Mexican nationals, (iii) the estimated total cost of removing those Mexican nationals deemed inadmissible to Canada, (iv) the average length of time it took to remove those Mexican nationals deemed inadmissible from Canada?

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will put it a couple of ways.

First, I probably have more people in my community than anyone else. I help people. Any time and every time that somebody comes my way, I am always helpful. It is unconditional. It does not matter where somebody lives.

With respect to the language issue, in the early days of my life in Canada, I could not speak the language. I was shy and I had a turban on my head. I came in the early days when it was, if I may say, an absolutely white Canada. I looked different. I could not speak the language. I could not buy a sandwich. My uncle, God bless his soul, forced me to learn English.

There were tons of Canadians with Irish backgrounds. I met one whose name was Toby Joyce. He was my next door neighbour. He made sure that I wrote two pages of English every single day. When he would come to see me, he would make me speak loudly, and he made me watch the news seven days a week. He said, “I want to hear five English words every single day from you.” I am proud of Toby Joyce and the many others. God bless his soul.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statement that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. At the same time, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. I would not want to live next door to Zakaria Amara, or anybody convicted for this sort of thing. We absolutely believe in the same system, with the exception of those people.

There is also another exception to the rule. If people commit fraud when filling out their immigration applications for Canada, they can also be removed with this new law.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, during the Conservative government's 10 years in power, it brought in the most immigrants to this country ever—a lot more than the Liberals. The new Canadians became citizens in this country.

When Chrétien was the prime minister, immigration went down to 142,000 a year. Last year alone, in 2015, we brought in 282,000 immigrants to the country. I am proud of this.