House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was jobs.

Last in Parliament September 2010, as Liberal MP for Vaughan (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2008, with 49% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Citizenship and Immigration March 13th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, by 2011 100% of Canada's net labour force growth will come from immigration.

While Canada is faced with a declining birth rate, an aging population and labour shortages, recent media reports indicate that the Conservative government plans to deal with these challenges by shutting the door on immigrants.

Why does the minister believe that shutting the door on immigration is the answer?

Darfur March 12th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, Mahatma Gandhi once said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world”.

Today I would like to recognize the students and teachers of Maple High School for their campaign and support for the people of Darfur.

I would like to thank the STAND group and, in particular, a determined student leader, Nagina Shahsamand, and an exceptional educator, Michelle Hadida, for their commitment to this just cause that requires immediate international attention.

The men, women and children of Darfur live the painful and harsh reality of brutal murders, destruction of villages, the spread of deadly diseases and the displacement of millions of individuals.

The Maple High School community is giving a voice to the voiceless. Its perseverance and dedication to the Darfur awareness campaign has drawn the support of hundreds of students who want the Canadian government to act in concert with international partners to put an end to this human tragedy. As they stated, “Every minute wasted is another life lost”.

Afghanistan February 25th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, this forum in the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada is an excellent place to share ideas. Today I guess we could call it a debate. I like to think of it more as a dialogue, a conversation among colleagues, as to what the best course is in reference to the issue of Afghanistan.

While I participate in the dialogue, I am very mindful of the great sacrifices made by men and women of the Canadian Forces. Rest assured, as every member of the House of Commons rises to his or her feet, our hearts go out to the families and to the communities that have been affected by this war.

We in the Liberal Party fundamentally believe that a successful future for Afghanistan is in our national interest. We believe our efforts, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier on, have reflected the values and principles in which Canadians believe.

What are those values? Those values and principles are freedom, democracy, equality, security and the respect of fundamental human rights. Our party believes these values are worth pursuing. We believe our efforts in Afghanistan, supported by a clear United Nations mandate, can be successful.

Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

What has this debate, this journey that we have all participated in taught us about arriving at some compromises among members of Parliament representing different political parties and stripes, but whose focus is very much a Canadian focus? It is that our country, which is blessed with a democratic institution, with the rule of law and with values that we all understand and appreciate, can export those values to a country that is in need. This is essentially the issue in Afghanistan.

However, what have we learned perhaps by an earlier mistake made by the government, where time was limited on the issue of debate and it did not take enough time to consult opposition parties or allow for this forum to take place?

The valuable lesson is that if we are reasonable in our approach, if we are reasonable in our expectations, if we have a bit of trust in each other and if we can focus on a common objective and pool all our resources together, we can make headway, we can achieve those well specified objectives that we all share.

I do not mean to say this in very partisan way, and forgive me if it may sound partisan, but we on this side of the House welcomed the start of the parliamentary debate on the government's new motion on Afghanistan. We are pleased the government chose to use the proposed Liberal motion introduced two weeks ago as the basis of its new motion. However, this comes with a sense of openness and realization that perhaps at all times we do not have all the answers to the issues, that perhaps it is important to listen to other voices, to be open to suggestion and understand that debate and dialogue is precisely that.

We do not all think alike, but if we can take the best of what each one of us has to offer in the debate, then collectively, as a House of Commons and as a country, we can in fact move forward. I will give a few examples of what has been achieved. I sit on this side of the House and will bring my perspective to the debate.

The new motion adopts the principles that the mission must change, that it must end and that it must go well beyond an exclusively military focus. These are principles that Liberals advocated over a year ago, principles that make sense. Perhaps the government had to think a bit about it, but it has now arrived at the same conclusion. That is part of the process of how one arrives at mutually acceptable results.

With the motion as well, the government acknowledges that the mission must change and has used the Liberal description of the mission after February 2009, which will change its focus to a mission of training, security and reconstruction. Given what is going on in Afghanistan, it is understandable that this shift occurs. It is common sense and a shift that speaks to the mission of training, security and reconstruction, which is precisely where we should be as a country.

The government also has accepted the fact that the mission must end. This motion, as presented, sets a firm end date to Canada's mission in Kandahar of July 2011. The Conservative government has also accepted that our presence in Afghanistan must be about more than military.

Key commitments on development and diplomacy, which were absent from the government's original motion, have been imported directly from the Liberal motion. I am not saying this to be boastful. It is to demonstrate to members of the House as well as Canadians that in fact a cooperative spirit exists within the chamber that can move our country forward to achieve the results that we all agree are fundamental in Afghanistan.

I also note that the government has kept virtually all the Liberal motion as it pertains to the need for greater transparency and accountability to Parliament. Unfortunately, the earlier motion was silent on this issue. What I think happened was that through some mistakes, and mistakes happen in politics, the government realized that it had to open up to the Canadian people, that it had to give updates as to what was going on in Afghanistan because people wanted to know.

Canadians want to know why we are there. Canadians want to know when we will come back. Canadians want to know whether we are successful. Canadians also understand we are losing lives in Afghanistan and they want to know we are losing lives for a just cause.

Afghanistan February 25th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, as our leader said earlier today, the Liberal Party believes that the successful future of Afghanistan is really in our nation's best interests.

We believe our efforts there really reflect the fundamental values and principles in which Canadians believe: freedom, democracy, equality, security and the respect for fundamental human rights. We fundamentally believe that these values are worth pursuing. We believe that our efforts in Afghanistan, supported with a clear UN mandate, can be successful.

We are also very clear on the principles that we must adhere to as a country, which is that we must have a change in the mission, an end to the mission, with a greater commitment to development and diplomacy and greater transparency and accountability.

It is on that last point that I have a couple of questions. They relate to the government's motion calling for a battle group of 1,000 NATO troops to rotate into Kandahar by February 2009.

The question I have first is, why 1,000 troops? Where did that number come from? I have heard numbers as high as 5,000.

The second question relates to the rotation process. How long is the government prepared to wait before it determines whether or not this condition has been met?

Afghanistan February 25th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer. I paid careful attention to what he said. It is obvious that over the years he has proven to be an expert in the field of defence.

I would like the member to comment on our fundamental principles and our guide as Liberals as it relates to Afghanistan. Should there be a change in mission, an end to the mission, a greater commitment to development and diplomacy and greater transparency and accountability?

Afghanistan February 25th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, it is clear tonight by the speech delivered by my hon. colleague that we on this side of the House welcome the debate on the government's new motion on Afghanistan.

We are pleased to see that the government chose to use the proposed Liberal motion introduced two weeks ago as its basis for this new motion. I say this not in a partisan way but to also illustrate that we need to cooperate on issues such as this one.

The new motion adopts the principles that the mission must change, that it must end, and that it must go well beyond an exclusively military focus, principles for which the Liberal Party has been calling over the past year.

As well, with this motion the government is acknowledging that the mission must change. It has used the Liberal description of the mission after February 2009, which will change in focus to a mission of training, security and reconstruction. It has also accepted today that the mission must end. This motion sets a firm end date of July 2011 to Canada's mission in Kandahar.

The Conservative government has also accepted that our presence in Afghanistan must be about more than military. Key commitments on development and diplomacy that were absent from the government's original motion have been imported directly from the Liberal motion.

I would like to give my hon. colleague an opportunity to expand on some of the answers that we need to get from the government in order to support this new motion.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act December 12th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, as we witnessed today in question period, indeed, immigration is an important issue, an issue that requires vision, and an issue that speaks to the future of our country. When we look at the years 2011 to 2015, approximately 100% of the net labour force growth will come from immigration alone.

We take these private members' bills very seriously. We analyze them. We see how, in a holistic manner, they can address key concerns related to immigration. There is nobody in the House who does not care about reuniting families or helping new Canadians or understanding the economic and social benefits of immigration.

We do this as a modern society that has seen this country transform itself, and this bill is debated at a time when the census report, the 2006 statistics report, was actually released. What do we see? We see that the 2006 census enumerated 6,186,950 foreign born in Canada, representing one in five, that is 19.8% of total foreign born population, the highest proportion in 75 years.

Between 2001 and 2006, the foreign born population increased by 13.6%, four times higher than 3.3% growth of the Canadian born population, 19.8%. It is higher than the U.S. at 12.5%, and lower than Australia at 22.2%.

The census also estimates that 1,000,110 recent immigrants arrived in Canada between January 1, 2001 and May 16, 2006. These newcomers make up 17.9% of the total foreign born population and 3.6% of Canada's population of 31.2 million.

I say this to paint a picture of the new Canada that is emerging and the resources that will be required by this government and future governments to address the key issue of immigration and immigrant settlements. However, as I reviewed Bill C-394 it was déjà vu, because the material in Bill C-394 is not exactly new. Bill C-272 resembled it very much and so does Bill C-436.

This bill would allow Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor once in a lifetime a relative who is not a member of the family class. It defines a relative as a brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, first cousin or child who is 22 years of age or older and is not dependent on sponsors.

It mirrors some of the provisions which already exist in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regulations to process relatives who do not normally fall under the family class.

The bill essentially could create an exponential influx of immigration applications that could result in delays in processing priority members of the family class that are spouses, partners and dependent children. That could happen. It would also further increase processing times for other members of family class, such as parents and grandparents.

Good intentions also have to be followed with proper analysis of numbers and resources that are available. After today's question period, it was pretty clear that the present government does not have enough resources to address the present issues that our immigration system faces. It simply does not make sense at this point in time, unless we are willing to engage in a broader review of the immigration system in Canada with brand new goals and of course greater resources, to look at this particular bill.

We already have a backlog of 800,000 applications. That is stretching the present resources of the government.

I am one of those who has said, as I asked today in question period, that in fact the proper resources need to be made available so that we can reduce the backlog to have an effective and efficient immigration system. A system where we are going to require, as a nation that is an aging society, to really tap for the future not only the obvious social and cultural benefits drawn from immigration. I believe that immigration is an economic imperative as we look at the competition that exists for skilled workers and labour force of the future.

The hon. member will have to answer many questions related to whether or not she has actually crunched the numbers, as we say, in relationship to her bill. My sense is that she actually has not and that in fact this would inflate the demand for applications abroad as well.

This, of course, would result in larger processing inventories for family cases when demand in family class has already exceeded government resources. This would hamper, also, the efforts to process priority family members, such as spouses, common-law partners, conjugal partners and dependent children, as quickly as possible. It would also add pressure to the processing of other family class applicants.

So, these bills cannot be just introduced ad hoc. The immigration system is a bit more complicated than perhaps the hon. member would believe. We need to look at it and balance the various needs.

It is clear, and it has been pointed out already by the parliamentary secretary, that in fact there are provisions that allow people obviously to come to Canada, that is how they get here, and this bill essentially would stress the already stressed resources of the immigration department at home as well as abroad.

Finally, I want to say to the hon. member that I have really not heard anything new from her that was not heard during the debates and presentations of Bill C-272 and Bill C-436. This is kind of déjà vu all over again.

It is a question that, once it has failed, we need to, as members of Parliament presenting private members' bill, present new evidence that in fact things can work better. With a government that is not willing to provide greater resources to immigration, that is going to be difficult.

However, I am one of those individuals who think that, given the challenges that we face as a country, as I said earlier, an aging population, skills shortages and reunification of families, we need to look at immigration in a broader scope. We need to redefine exactly what our targets are and redefine what it is that the government is willing to invest in immigration. Is the present government willing to make it a priority?

Because, quite frankly, what I have seen to date in the short time that I have been immigration critic is a government that has not made immigration a priority, although every indicator, social, cultural and economic, points to the fact that the future of our country largely depends on our ability to attract immigrants.

Whether we are talking about the 800,000 application backlog or whether we are talking about the $100 million shortfall with the Province of Ontario to help it deal with immigration issues, as well as the failure of the accreditation of foreign credentials, there is a lot of work to do in this portfolio.

I hope that the Prime Minister, as well as cabinet, begins to really realize that immigration in this country should not be an afterthought. Immigration is a key issue. It speaks to the future of our country and it should be taken more seriously by the Conservative government.

Citizenship and Immigration December 12th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, by 2011, 100% of Canada's net labour force growth will come from immigration. The minister in committee said that she requires more funding to fix the system. As a result, the government has broken its election promises on foreign credentials, allowed the application backlog to exceed 800,000, and short-changed Ontario $100 million in immigration funding.

In an era of surpluses, why does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have to make excuses for the government's unwillingness to make immigration a priority?

Manufacturing Industry November 28th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the disadvantage that workers and businesses in the manufacturing sectors have obtained as a result of the Conservative government. All over the country people are losing their jobs and it is not right to keep repeating that employment rates are high when, in the manufacturing sector, they are falling. It is not right to declare that the government is achieving positive results when more plants will be closing and more jobs will be lost.

Is the minister telling Canadian workers, businesses and families that they should give up--

Manufacturing Industry November 28th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, by now the government should have realized that Canada is facing a manufacturing crisis. As a result, thousands of jobs have been lost as countless plants have been forced to close their doors and yet the government does not seem to care about the impact this is having on Canadian workers, businesses and families in communities and regions throughout our country. I say this because no plan has been laid out and no strategy has been put forward.

Why is the government giving up on such an important sector of the Canadian economy?