Gurbax Malhi

[The Economy, February 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, plant closures and layoffs have been happening almost daily and Canadians are losing their jobs. A recent survey showed that half of all Canadians are worried about losing their jobs.

In my riding, Formulated Coatings Ltd. laid off 60 workers two weeks ago when it announced bankruptcy. Also, the Chrysler assembly plant just announced a second temporary shutdown in two weeks.

Every day more and more businesses are declaring bankruptcy. More than 129,000 jobs were lost in January alone. We are sure there are more to come. We have heard nothing from the Prime Minister, who seems to me missing in action during the worst recession in decades.

Why is the Prime Minister and the government silent on the issue when they should be providing Canadians with immediate action to put an end to Canadian job losses?

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, last year, with regard to citizenship and immigration, the Conservatives cut staff from the riding, staff that would have delivered, especially in the Mississauga and Toronto area.

In the same way, I notice the government is delivering money only to Conservative ridings. The government should consider other ridings, too. It should be after the partisans and it should consider other people as well. Whether they voted for the Conservatives, the government should give equal opportunities to all ridings in the country.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yes, in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton, there are many new developments and definitely the infrastructure program is very important, especially with new immigrants coming from so many places, for my riding. As I mentioned earlier, our first priority, as well as the infrastructure program, are the jobs. That is why I have talked about the jobs. If we have an infrastructure program, then we have more jobs for new immigrants and people who have been laid off and have no jobs, which they need. That is the first priority.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. There are problems for newcomers, especially with respect to the recognition of their foreign credentials. I do not think the Conservatives mentioned much in the budget about the immigration backlog.

Our top priority is to find a way to protect the jobs of Canadians and their pensions at this time of crisis.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address some key points that were outlined in the budget presented by the government.

The Minister of Finance introduced a variety of initiatives that the government feels would benefit Canadians while stimulating our economy, and creating and maintaining jobs. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have been telling Canadians and Parliament conflicting stories about the record of the finances of this country. Little of it was actually true.

In September the Prime Minister told Canadians it was a good time to buy stocks and he was wrong. The Prime Minister said Canada should not run a deficit and said that if we were going to have a recession, it would have happened by now. He was wrong again. The Minister of Finance further confused the matter by saying a deficit was the only way to get through these challenging times.

Then came the economic update delivered last December. In a statement by the Prime Minister, after convincing the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, he said that over the coming weeks the government would begin consultations and focus on the budget. I am very concerned about what was being done leading up to the financial update.

Since then, Canada has lost 213,000 jobs and we are into the most severe recession since the 1930s. In January alone, another 129,000 jobs have been lost and more than 71,000 of those jobs in the last year in Ontario. Canadians reluctantly gave the Conservatives another minority government. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were busy denying the obvious fact that the country was headed into a recession and failed to plan for imminent job losses.

It was not until the threat of losing power that the government started to take any action on the economic crisis that was right in front of their eyes. Only after pressure from the opposition and proroguing Parliament did the government actually get to work on preparing a budget and stimulus plan.

Three weeks ago the Minister of Finance delivered Canada's economic action plan designed to provide just the right amount of economic stimulus, while attempting to spark more spending by banks and Canadians. The Liberal opposition felt there was still more that could be done and, as a result, we have placed the government on probation to ensure that the necessary spending by the government will actually happen this time and not be just another series of empty promises. We will demand that the government shows us exactly what it has done in three separate intervals in March, June and again in December.

While much of the budget could be considered acceptable, the need to protect jobs was overlooked. The Liberal caucus has repeatedly stated that we need to protect the jobs of today while creating jobs for the future.

Every day we are getting more reports of job losses in every part of Canada in almost every industry. More Canadian companies are expected to lay off workers with the recession worsening. We know that reports of dismal earnings often go hand in hand with job cuts and economists are telling us that it will only get worse before it gets better.

After careful review of the budget labelled as Canada's economic action plan, we have discovered some critical omissions in the action portion of the plan. For example, the Minister of Finance is telling us that the government will invest millions of dollars in more opportunities for workers.

We were told the government will increase funding for training delivered through employment insurance and invest in strategic training. When we read the fine print, we discovered that the funding would only make its way through the system and into the hands of Canadians over two or three years and, in some cases, as long as five years.

In my riding, Formulated Coatings Ltd. laid off 60 workers two weeks ago when the company announced it was bankrupt. The employees did not get any severance or financial packages and were asked to leave with only 10 minutes notice.

In most cases, there is little to no notice given, other than a meeting in the employee lunch room and being told that they no longer have a job.

The Chrysler plant in my riding also announced it would suspend production and temporarily shut down for about a month to save money.

For these men and women, losing their jobs could not come at a worse time. It is difficult enough dealing with the loss of employment and the stress of trying to find work in a crumbling job market, but the budget did little to address the minimum six weeks before these workers would see any money from EI.

Based on the way the looming economic challenges were dealt with, is it fair to think that the government will take the same foot-dragging approach in delivering the EI funding and training as well as the education and retraining so desperately needed by Canadians?

Statistics Canada suggests that our unemployment rate is at 7.2%, and even if all the measures in the budget were implemented in the next few months, it will not see a return to a 6% or lower unemployment level until sometime in 2013 or 2014, 2014 being a long time to wait for workers who have mortgages and payments and families. Five years is a long time to wait for assistance from the government.

The Conservative budget proposes to create 190,000 jobs over two years when Canada has lost 213,000 jobs in the last three months alone.

This is why the Liberal Party has put the government on probation and will carefully monitor the actions of the government. The country depends on a strong plan and a government that can deliver on its promises, and we will ensure the government keeps its promises to Canadians.

Canadians need our support and assistance to weather this financial storm. They want all parliamentarians to put aside partisanship and make a principled decision on the budget.

This is the Conservatives' budget, but it is our responsibility to ensure that the job of government gets done and that Canadians are well-served.

The mismanagement of the economic crisis and failure to act has rightfully given Parliament and Canadians a reason to question the credibility of the Conservative government on economic matters.

[Sri Lanka, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week the members of Toronto's 200,000 Sri Lankan community held a week-long hunger strike to draw attention to the atrocities currently taking place in Sri Lanka. Hundreds of people across the greater Toronto area expressed their demand for immediate action by fasting.

Today I would like to draw the attention of the government and all members to the fact that another 300 lives were lost this week alone regardless of “safe zones”. For more than 20 years the Sri Lankan people have been victims of a civil war that has claimed more than 70,000 lives since 1983.

Canada is home to the largest Sri Lankan community outside of Asia. I strongly call on all members of the House to join me in pressing for an immediate and peaceful resolution.

[Violence against Women, November 25th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, November 25 is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the start of 16 days of activism against gender violence.

We must act. Studies have shown that the economic costs of violence against women range in the billions of dollars. It can also have generational impacts. Almost 40% of women assaulted by spouses said that their children witnessed the violence against them.

Internationally, violence against women is a barrier to women's equality.

Our country's success in combatting violence against women has stalled. Progress could be further undermined if the government does not get serious about women's equality.

I urge all members in the House to work to ensure all women can live their lives free of violence and free from the threat of violence.

[May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, no one can dispute that Canada's immigration system must be fixed. What the opposition, immigration experts and Canadians do not agree with is the way in which these amendments have been proposed and the unnecessary powers that they would give to the minister.

Major changes to Canada's immigration system, such as those contained in Bill C-50, must be debated openly, honestly and in a non-partisan fashion. The government has failed to meet these three requirements and has failed to earn the trust of Canadians.

I urge the government to listen to Canadians, remove the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act from Bill C-50 and allow them to be debated and voted upon on their own merits.

[May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on April 3, I asked several questions of the government about the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained in Bill C-50.

Instead of answering my questions, the minister started a taxpayer funded advertising campaign in ethnic media across the country to convince immigrant communities that, despite all evidence, they can trust the government with the future of Canada's immigration policy.

In addition, the Globe and Mail reported yesterday that the minister secretly used Toronto city hall meeting rooms to promote the Conservative Party's views on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Bill C-50 to ethnic media outlets.

This is despite the minister's rejection of Toronto Mayor David Miller's requests for a consultation on the proposed changes.

Mayor Miller is not the only one who is not being fully consulted. The speed at which these amendments have been pushed through the House and its committees shows the government's lack of respect for the opposition and parliamentary procedure. Given the potential impact of the bill on the future of Canada, the government owes it to Canadians to remove the immigration provisions from Bill C-50 and propose them as separate legislation. Changes of this scale should not be just an afterthought in a budget bill.

The minister has also refused to tell Canadians who she would fast-track and who she would leave behind under the new regulations.

This is not a surprise. It would be nearly impossible to sell Bill C-50 if the minister admitted that she plans to put a cap on family class applications, which she has refused to rule out.

One idea that has the support of many in the immigrant community is my proposal of a visa bond system. Under a bond system, immigration officers could give applicants or sponsors the chance to provide a financial guarantee in borderline visitor visa cases. This would help many applicants wanting to come to Canada for weddings and funerals to avoid the rejection and emotional distress they face under the current system.

Canada's visitor visa process is unfair and discriminatory, especially for applicants from developing countries.

The amendments in Bill C-50 would do nothing to improve the situation for visitor visa applicants and, as such, would not truly fix Canada's immigration system.

The government has attached its immigration proposals to a budget bill and tried to force them through the committee and the House without making amendments and used tax dollars to sell its plan to immigrant communities. These are the actions of a government that knows its views on immigration are at odds with those of the majority of Canadians.

I again ask the government why it is sneaking these reforms in through a budget bill, instead of allowing the House to have an independent debate on this critical issue.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 26th, 2008]

With respect to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: (a) what has been the total departmental spending on citizenship courts, divided by line item, for each of the last ten fiscal years (i) nationally, (ii) in each province and territory, (iii) in each of the following cities: Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto, Ontario, Montréal, Quebec, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta and Vancouver, British Columbia; (b) how many citizenship ceremonies were performed in each of the last ten fiscal years (i) nationally, (ii) in each province and territory, (iii) in each of the following cities: Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto, Ontario, Montréal, Quebec, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta and Vancouver, British Columbia; and (c) how many people became Canadian citizens in each of the last ten fiscal years, (i) nationally, (ii) in each province and territory, (iii) in each of the following cities: Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto, Ontario, Montréal, Quebec, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta and Vancouver, British-Columbia?