Debates of June 5th, 2019

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had the privilege of learning from the thousands of residents of Mississauga—Erin Mills over these past four years. From knocking on doors to hosting 45 town halls, to helping over 4,000 families with their individual cases, to advocating for support for organizations, to promoting small business, I have had the opportunity to be the voice for my riding here in this place.

I start my remarks today on budget 2019 by thanking the residents of Mississauga—Erin Mills for trusting me to be their voice and to advocate on their behalf.

Today, I would like to focus my remarks on the impact that our Liberal government has had on the everyday lives of my constituents and how budget 2019 enhances that positive impact.

Mississauga—Erin Mills is home to the University of Toronto's Mississauga campus. It is a beautiful campus with lush green spaces, amazing architecture and incredibly engaged students. On occasion, one can spot a deer wandering from the Credit River nearby. However, what brings me back to the campus time and time again are the students. I have had the pleasure of meeting them on numerous occasions during campus events, coffee meetings and classroom visits.

When we speak of students, I find that we often speak of youth, but in my experience, the student body is far more varied. In my visits, I have met single mothers working for their degrees to better provide for their children, and women in their thirties and forties pursuing the means to a better career or pursuing their passions for the first time. I have met seniors who, in their retirement, are studying, learning and engaging with questions that they have had all of their lives. When I meet these students and listen to their stories, I better understand the issues that matter most to them.

These conversations with Canadians, knowing their struggles, hopes and ideas, are what inspires our government to make real investments to create a better quality of life for all. This commitment has informed budget 2019, as it has informed our budgets each and every year of our mandate.

As we continue forward on our path, the path that Canadians chose in 2015, a path of hope and hard work and the pursuit of a more positive future, I find it is also important to look back on where we started and how far we have come.

I saw employment ads back in 2014 and 2015 that were looking to hire for an entry-level position but required five years of experience, or for internships of six months, unpaid, for 40 hours a week. That was the reality facing youth in Canada. It is difficult for young Canadians already facing massive debt from their education to find work, let alone work in their field, and harder still to find work that is paid. I met one new graduate who had taken on an unpaid internship and just to afford the commute to downtown Toronto was forced to work a second job on evenings and weekends.

Young Canadians struggle to find the means to move out on their own to start their adult lives, and despite their hard work, many live in poverty.

Since 2015, our government has worked to create a better quality of life for young Canadians and we are continuing that commitment in 2019. In 2016 and 2018, we invested over $80 million to create the student work placement program, supporting 8,400 student placements to better prepare students to pursue a career in STEM and business. We are continuing this commitment through investments that will create 84,000 new work experience placements. We invested in the youth employment strategy and have committed $49.5 million over five years to modernize it and ensure all youth have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Through our investments, we more than doubled the number of opportunities created through the Canada summer jobs program, totalling more than 70,000 jobs for students last year and even more this year. In my riding, that meant over 1,500 jobs for youth. We also eliminated unpaid internships in federal sectors to ensure Canadians receive fair payment as they pursue meaningful work experiences.

To further tackle student debt, we are investing $1.7 billion to not only lower the interest rates on student loans, but to eliminate them entirely for the six-month grace period.

We are implementing a first-time homebuyers incentive to support young Canadians looking to move out and purchase their first home.

For those who are struggling and facing mental health challenges, we are investing $25 million to implement the pan-Canadian suicide prevention service.

One of our commitments to Canadians is that we are a feminist government, one that works to ensure equality of opportunity for everyone across the country. The struggle for equal rights for women has a long history and we are doing our part to promote gender equality in Canada and around the world.

This challenge to overcome systemic gender discrimination and violence requires hard work, and that is our commitment. Not only did our Prime Minister appoint a gender-balanced cabinet and a full department for women and gender equality, we also invested $2 billion in Canada's first women entrepreneurship strategy, with a goal to double the number of female-led businesses by 2025, as well as increasing the participation of women-owned enterprises in federal procurement by 50%.

We have introduced proactive regulations to guarantee equal pay for equal work for women in federally regulated industries and taken steps to boost women's participation in the workforce.

Every month, the Canada child benefit puts more money, tax-free, into the pockets of nine out of 10 families, including those led by single mothers, and is lifting 300,000 children out of poverty.

In 2015, we heard stories of seniors in my riding who were struggling to make ends meet. Their pension benefits had been clawed back or lost entirely as their providers went out of business. Their retirement had been pushed back due to legislation that unfairly increased the age of eligibility. I met seniors who were forced to choose between paying for food and heat or their medications. The seniors of Canada worked all their lives to shape this beautiful country and they deserve to retire in peace and dignity.

Since 2015, we have been investing in their quality of life. We consult with seniors and we are continuing to implement supports to help them thrive through budget 2019. We have boosted benefits for nearly 900,000 seniors in Canada. Through our top-up payments to the guaranteed income supplement, we have lifted over 57,000 out of poverty.

Building on this, we have committed $1.76 billion over four years to enhance and extend the earnings exemption to include self-owned businesses. We have already restored the age of eligibility for retirement back down to 65, the way it should be, and we will be proactively enrolling CPP contributors over the age of 17.

We are implementing legislation to protect pension benefits even in the case of corporate insolvency.

We have empowered seniors through increases to the new horizons for seniors program, which continues in budget 2019, with the addition of $100 million over the next five years to create even more programs supporting seniors across Canada.

Last year, our government appointed a minister for seniors to advocate for the support that our seniors deserve. I was proud to sponsor the e-petition that called for this appointment.

As members can see, we have come so far in what feels like such a short time. There is still a lot to do and we are just getting started.

Our plan to invest in Canadians is working. Over one million jobs have been created. More than 800,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty. Our unemployment rate is the lowest it has ever been in over 40 years.

Budget 2019 is a framework for the next steps in our plan to improve everyday life for Canadians living in Mississauga—Erin Mills and across the country, from coast to coast to coast.

The fact is that I have barely scratched the surface in my speech. As we move ahead with our plan to fight the effects of climate change, our strategy to bring Canadian businesses to new markets and our efforts to make Canada a shiny example of equality of opportunity for all, we will always remember and renew our commitment to Canadians. That commitment is of hope, hard work and the path toward positive change.

In 2015, Canadians chose this path because they believed in a better quality for life and they believed in a better future. That is what we are delivering.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard the list of achievements from the member opposite. Since the member is aware of all these achievements and government activities, is she aware of the high unemployment rate in Alberta? If yes, what does she think the percentage of unemployment is in Alberta?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech and as the Parliamentary Budget Officer and many Canadians have seen, Canadians have created over a million jobs from coast to coast to coast over the past four years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Tens of thousands of jobs in Alberta.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

There have been tens of thousands of jobs in Alberta—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I can assure the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that his colleague is well able to answer the question. I would ask members in the official opposition not to be heckling or inciting more debate while somebody has the floor.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your intervention. I thank the parliamentary secretary as well for his assistance in making the House a more lively place.

As I was saying, Canadians have created over a million jobs over the past four years and that is because of a different way of doing politics, a different way of governing. Investing in Canadians has created these jobs. As we continue to reinforce those investments and embellish them through budget 2019, we will see more and more impact on the lives of Canadians, including those who live in Alberta.

I encourage the member opposite to continue his advocacy and ensure we work together for the people of Alberta.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard nothing but great things from the other side about the bill. We will have to agree to disagree. A lot of things in it are not at all good for Canadians.

The member talked about pensions and bankruptcy. The legislation the Liberals are talking about has nothing to do with protecting pensions. It is absolutely garbage, foolish and nonsense. It is lip service on what they said they would do in 2015. I will say more on that on Friday.

In the bill, the Liberals want to remove the labels on dangerous products in the workplace. I cannot believe this is even in a budget bill. This is health and safety in workplaces. We are not only putting the workers at risk by cowing down to the owners of the companies, but putting front-line paramedics and firefighters, who deal with disasters and spills, in danger. They do not know whether they are dealing with dangerous products or not. I do not know why anybody in the world would put that in here. It is unbelievable. It is a shame and it should be taken out. I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for raising these concerns and for agreeing to disagree.

I would like to thank the first responders across Canada who do the hard work and protect our lives. We really must commend them for the work they do and provide them as much support as we can. I was not able to address this in my speech today, but in budget 2019, there is legislation and policy, not only in the budget but across the government over the past four years, to tackle workplace harassment issues, for example, and ensure safer workplaces.

The member opposite also talked about pensions. In my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, I held numerous consultations with senior and labour organizations to talk about about pensions and what the government could to ensure future pensions were protected. It is because of those consultations, not only in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills but across the country, that we have put forward legislation. It is in that culture that we are building better lives for Canadians every day.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to rise in this august chamber to talk about the things that are important to the good constituents of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It is always a pleasure to speak on their behalf.

Before I begin my speech tonight, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, who will give a much more comprehensive speech on the finer details of the budget.

I will share a few thoughts and observations on the budget implementation act, Bill C-97.

Who said that omnibus bills were used to prevent debate in the House and limit the ability of MPs to examine what was in the budget by putting all kinds of different things in a single budget? I will spare colleagues the suspense. It was the Prime Minister.

It was also the Prime Minister who said, “I hope that future prime ministers will not make excessive use of omnibus bills and will not resort to prorogation to avoid problematic situations.” The same Prime Minister said, “the abuse of omnibus legislation under the previous government was egregious and something on which we committed to take action.” In fact, we know he promised not to use omnibus legislation in the last election, yet here we are.

I only mention this because it points to the usual pattern from the Prime Minister. He is happy to demonize others, to make promises that he will never do that which he says is wrong. Even if he promises not to, he breaks his promise. Of course, in his mind it is always okay when he does it, just not okay when someone else does it: do as I say, not as I do.

From my perspective, I am actually prepared to give some leeway to the use of omnibus legislation. Why? Because I have sat on the government's side of the House. When we are in government, our goal is to bring forward as many initiatives as we can and hope it will keep the economy strong.

As I used to say when I sat on that side of the House, I would much rather be criticized for attempting to do too much for the economy in a budget bill than not enough.

As an example, in one of the omnibus budget implementation acts of the last Conservative government, I was honoured that an amendment I used in my private member's bill to end the prohibition or ban on the shipping of wine was adopted by the previous Harper government and expanded to also include beer and spirits in the 2014 budget. I would even make light of the fact that it was one page in the former Conservative implementation act that received absolutely no complaints.

Indeed, in this current Liberal BIA, there is language that seeks to further amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act with the intent to remove federal barriers to directly ship to, in this case, the end-user, shipping of wine, beer and spirits. Of course, that is all subject to provincial regulations.

While the intention, I am sure, is fine, the deletion of any reference to domestic or interprovincial rules in the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act seems to me to be more of an abdication of any federal role. This is important. It is contrary not just to our Constitution and the framework that was set up in Confederation, but also it really says that the Liberal Party has lost any sense of imagination or creativity to apply leadership. In fact, it feels that abdicating the field is better than no leadership at all. I would take issue with that.

There is also language in the budget implementation act that also proposes to protect RDSPs. As some may know, I submitted a private member's bill proposing to protect registered disabled savings plans and registered education savings plans. I was pleased to see the government take my suggestion of protecting RDSPs, which are a crucial savings option for many Canadians, particularly for those with children who have challenges.

In last year's budget implementation act, the government also adopted another idea I submitted from one of my private member's bills to amend the Bank Act so that credit unions could continue to use consumer-friendly terms, such as “bank, banker and banking”.

I mention these things to demonstrate that I do believe there is some merit in tabling comprehensive budget implementation acts and, at the same time, to also point out there are measures in a BIA that I would support.

One other thing in this bill is about reducing the regulatory burden on credit unions. There is one measure in the bill that does exactly that. It was one of the four items proposed last December by the Canadian Credit Union Association. Therefore, I give big points for listening.

However, of the two items listed in this year's budget, introduced by this Minister of Finance, we see in this bill only one. Again, the Liberals get points for listening but zero points for delivery, other than that one.

This also leads to the challenge of budget implementation bills and why many critics oppose them. The downside of a budget implementation bill is that there are things one may strongly support, but there are also things that one may strongly oppose. As an example, this budget implementation act would not lead Canada back to any semblance of a balanced budget in 2019. This Prime Minister looked Canadians square in the eye and promised them that he would do precisely that. Again, what we have here is a broken promise.

If we are being candid, let us simply admit the obvious. He is not even trying to balance the budget. The finance minister will not even say the words “balanced budget”.

There is another challenge with omnibus legislation, and that is when a government tries to hide something in a budget implementation bill that has no business being there. In last year's budget implementation act, one example was the deferred prosecution agreement language. Not even Liberal MPs on the finance committee had any clue that the proposal was hidden in there or why. Several said it did not belong there. Now we know, sadly, why the Liberals hid it in there, or at least some of the reasons. I suspect that the full story will never be known.

In this year's budget implementation bill, there are proposed changes to Canada's refugee system that, frankly, do not belong in the bill. Those changes need to be debated independently.

Let me get back to the budget itself, and I will point out some other concerns that I will continue to raise.

This budget is silent on household debt. Let us recap why this is a problem. After the Liberals' first year in government, household debt, as a percentage of gross income in 2016, was 166%. In January of this year, that had increased to 176%. Let us pause to think about that for a moment. Canadian household debt is now 176% of gross household income. That has occurred in spite of the Liberal government spending over $60 billion since being elected, and still Canadians are falling further and further behind. This does not include government debt that is being added onto the backs of Canadians every single day.

Why do I raise household debt? Let us look at the Canada training benefit. On the surface, it sounds like a good thing. What can be wrong with encouraging skills, jobs and retraining? However, when we read the fine print, only $250 per year is available, up to a career maximum of $5,000. The challenge I am already hearing is that the majority of training programs cost well in excess of $5,000. Many skills training programs are literally thousands of dollars or more. For many workers, to benefit from this $250 training credit will mean borrowing thousands of dollars and increasing household debt.

Similarly, to access a credit of $5,000 toward the purchase of a new electric vehicle, for most people, would mean borrowing up to the maximum program amount of $45,000. This again would result in more household debt for anyone borrowing money for a new vehicle purchase.

A similar situation would be created with the new homebuyers' program. This budget offers many programs that sound great until we read the fine print and realize that people will end up borrowing, and becoming deeper in debt, to access them. How about the proposal to borrow up to $10,000 more from an RRSP, up to a maximum of $35,000? How many new homebuyers have they run across with a spare $35,000 kicking around in an RRSP? Still, homebuyers are only being allowed to borrow that money. They have to pay it back. Once again, more debt would be added.

Ultimately, a budget implementation act should try to do as much as it can for the economy. There are so many different things in here that it makes it difficult for us to say what is good and what is bad. There are so many aspects I have not been able to touch on. What should be number one on any government's mind is whether it is in the national interest to pursue this legislation. My vote will be no.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, earlier in the night, I had some interesting questions for the member for Sherbrooke on the issue of different mechanisms in the budget to help homeowners with affordability.

The debt issue is obviously important, not just to people in his riding but across the country. While home values are rising and the amount of debt and leverage associated with home ownership is up, my understanding is that non-mortgage-backed debt is actually in a slight decline. As long as we are trying to support housing prices, make homes affordable for people and protect them from defaults on mortgages, if we see a decline in non-mortgage-backed loans and credit card debt, is that not a sign that the economy is doing well, and should the member not support these initiatives?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we had the Governor of the Bank of Canada at the finance committee, my province at the time had put forward a program similar to the shared equity program the government is offering. I asked the Governor of the Bank of Canada what he thought of it. At the time, the Bank of Canada was not in favour of it, simply because it can cause home prices to rise. We would have home prices rising at the same time we have people going into the market and taking on more debt, in addition to having a government that is borrowing money to pay for the program CMHC would be offering.

Debt is an important part of an overall plan, but the government does not have a plan for its own debt. It does not have a plan to help Canadians get into homes without encouraging them to take on more and more debt. At some point, we have to find reasonable limitations and work with people. We should start in our own backyard with the Government of Canada starting to tame its own debt.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his hard work in his constituency.

I want to talk about this supposed benefit for homebuyers, the equity portion. The member comes from British Columbia, as I do. I would like him to talk about the average home price in his riding. In my riding of Chilliwack, the idea that people can get into a new home for anywhere near the $480,000 cap is just not possible. The prices in the Lower Mainland are much higher than that. Who would this be benefiting? Would it benefit people in his riding, or is this just a marketing gimmick to make it look like something is being done for first-time homebuyers?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Chilliwack—Hope for the work he does. Obviously, his community has been impacted, because people are now having to go out further from metro Vancouver to be able to raise a family on a single detached lot. His community is fortunate to have many of those families, but again, it means longer drives, and it can be very tough.

When it comes to that program, the government has not been very transparent with people. Liberals say that they will lend on property up to $480,000, but what they do not say is that people can only borrow a maximum of four times their income. For example, people would need to have $120,000 worth of income to get $480,000. Again, in many communities in the Okanagan, the average income is between $60,000 and $80,000. Four times that is not going to even be able to buy someone a condo.

This is where the government is trying to play games. Rather than dealing with some of up-front challenges, the government is trying to say that three lefts make a right and offers a program so that people somehow feel that it is doing something. It is more of a gimmick than an actual program that will help people.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, for sharing the block of time we have here this evening. It will allow me to zero in on one issue. He said that there are many that I might speak about, but I am going to zero in on one this evening.

In the Liberal's budget implementation bill, the government snuck in a major change to Canada's refugee laws. In fact, the Liberals did not even want to send division 16 to our immigration committee for review. Luckily, our former Liberal chair, who I believe is very much opposed to his own government's changes, was able to get it referred to our committee.

I want to set the stage for why the proposed changes are too little and too late. There is a good chance that they will be deemed not compliant with the Singh Supreme Court decision from the 1980s.

Since the between-ports border crossers started to enter in the numbers we have seen in these past couple of years, the Liberals have literally done nothing to close the loophole in the safe third country agreement with the United States. While there are MPs in this House who want to scrap the agreement in its entirety, our public servants, who are in constant contact with their American counterparts, still firmly believe that the United States is upholding the spirit of the agreement.

What we do not know is if the Liberal government has tried to renegotiate the agreement. Trying to get a straight answer out of the immigration minister is harder than getting the finance minister to tell us when the budget will be balanced.

I also understand that division 16 caused great consternation in the Liberal caucus. This was a major pivot from their previous stance that we could not do anything because of obligations and international law. Somehow this change, which came out of nowhere, seems to have been given the green light by the justice department.

The proposed Liberal changes have been panned by virtually every immigration professional in Canada and are not likely to withstand any sort of court challenge. We have asked for the government's charter review of the legislation, and it has yet to provide it. What the government did provide was a very high-level response that said it was compliant.

Multiple witnesses testified at our immigration committee and said that these changes might even add to the administrative backlog and the burden on the refugee system by directing people through the pre-risk removal assessment process. This change also raised concerns that the pre-risk removal assessment process would be conducted by departmental officials rather than by the independent and quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board.

After ignoring concerns about how the Liberals reacted to the influx of people walking across the border to claim asylum, they took almost two and a half years to introduce legislation. In fact, they stuck it into the budget implementation bill, and our immigration, refugee and citizenship committee was not even permitted to amend it. The Liberals pushed it through and tried to limit any political fallout. It sounds just like how the Liberals presented the deferred prosecution agreements issue in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

To add to the confusion, there are conflicting media reports as to whether the Liberals have reached out to the Americans to amend the safe third country agreement. According to the CBSA, they have had fruitful discussions with their American counterparts, but neither the Minister of Border Security nor the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship have told us if they want to amend the safe third country agreement.

Moreover, the Auditor General just gave the Liberals a failing grade on how they have handled Canada's refugee system. The Auditor General was clear that the government “did not process asylum claims in an efficient and timely manner.”

The audit revealed that the Liberals did not adequately respond to the influx of border crossers from the United States, and the Auditor General uncovered serious inefficiencies, which are contributing to significant delays.

Due to these delays in processing claims, there has been an increase in total costs for all levels of government for such things as housing, social assistance and health care. This report confirmed that the Liberals were incredibly slow to react. They should have responded immediately, rather than delay for two years.

The Auditor General conducted this review because “the rising number of asylum claims that is testing the ability of Canada's refugee determination system to process claims in a timely manner.”

According to the report, if the Liberals do not improve the system, the backlog and wait times will continue to grow. They are projecting that if the number of new asylum claimants remains steady at around 50,000 per year, the wait time for a decision will increase to five years by 2024, which is more than double the current wait time. It goes without saying that these delays are costing taxpayers millions of dollars and putting tremendous strain on the resources of our provinces and municipalities.

In the report, it was determined that roughly 65% of all asylum hearings are being postponed at least once before a decision is made. This means that individuals seeking a decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board are facing increasing wait times to determine if their claim is valid or they will be issued a deportation order.

The Liberals have only themselves to blame. The Auditor General was clear when he stated the postponements “were due to administrative issues within the government's control.”

The Auditor General also brought to light that while the government records the identity documents of those seeking asylum claims, some were indecipherable and could not be read.

Furthermore, the Auditor General took a sample of the asylum claims and reported the government failed to check for criminality or to determine the identity of 400 individuals. He concluded that neither CBSA nor the immigration department tracked whether criminal record checks were always completed.

There is a vacuum of leadership at the very top that is now permeating throughout the entire government. If the Liberals cannot properly manage our immigration and refugee system, it is time for a new government. They should stop blaming others and take responsibility. They have had years to make the necessary changes to improve efficiencies, and now the entire system is backlogged for years to come.

If the Liberals think their proposed changes in the budget implementation act are a step in the right direction, they should listen to the litany of people who are speaking out and saying it will only create more confusion. What we would have liked to have seen is a clear commitment to fix this situation once and for all.

It was just last year that I wrote to the Parliamentary Budget Officer to request a full financial analysis of border crossers into Canada. The request stemmed from the lack of financial information provided by the Liberal government.

Since January 2017, over 40,000 border crossers have been intercepted by the RCMP in Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. The PBO revealed that the border crossers cost taxpayers $340 million in 2017-18, $368 million this year, and if similar numbers come across next year, it will cost another $396 million. It is projected to cost at least $1.1 billion in just these three fiscal years, while costs will only continue to go up as the wait times for processing through the Immigration and Refugee Board have ballooned.

These numbers are just the federal government's expenses, and they exclude the hundreds of millions of dollars in costs being borne by provincial and municipal governments for housing and for welfare payments.

The numbers in the report are quite staggering. If the Liberals do nothing to either close the loophole in the safe third country agreement or deter border crossers, we can expect that the overall price tag will only continue to grow.

The PBO outlined in his report that the average cost per asylum claim will grow from $14,321 to $16,666 by 2019-20 as the backlog continues to grow.

The reason for this increased cost is that while asylum claimants are in the country waiting for their refugee hearing, they are eligible for various government services. Moreover, as asylum claimants are denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the individual can appeal that decision, which could end up costing $33,738 by the time the appeal is done.

The PBO also revealed that only 18% of border crossers have had their refugee board hearing, and out of the failed claimants, only a fraction have been removed from the country.

Because of this influx, there has been significant pressure on resources for all organizations involved in this process, which has led to delays in the processing of these claims.

To wrap up, not only do I oppose division 16, but I also want the Liberals to immediately get to work to renegotiate the safe third country agreement. Then and only then will we be able to restore confidence in our refugee system and stop ill-thought-out changes of the kind we find in this budget implementation act.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do have the fortunate opportunity to work with the member on the citizenship and immigration committee, where we had the opportunity to study not only divisions 15 and 16 of part 4, which he spoke about, but other aspects in the estimates as they relate to budget 2019 and, of course, budget 2018.

In budget 2018, we brought in measures for biometrics to better engage with our partners, including the United States, in identifying people who come across the border. As the member knows, this will allow us to have some type of a path for the repatriation of people back to the United States who come across the border irregularly. Hopefully, it will be a mechanism that the minister will be able to negotiate with his foreign counterparts, a mechanism to have people who cross irregularly to be sent back at a regular crossing, because with thousands of kilometres of borders, it is not possible to render people back without someone to receive them on the other side. If they come irregularly at one point, there needs to be a mechanism to send them back, and I look forward to hearing what is able to be negotiated.

However, with respect to budget 2019, $1.18 billion over five years is committed for things like border security and improving the asylum process. The member has identified some problems with the asylum process, but I wonder if he is favourable to our approach on strengthening border security itself, and whether he feels that these reinvestments in border security, after previous years of cuts, are worthwhile.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question he has put forward and congratulate him on his new position as the the chair of the immigration committee.

However, to answer his question, no, I am not in favour of division 16. If he was listening to my speech, he would have learned that we think still stronger measures are needed to be more clear in how these border issues are being handled.

On the issue of people who have come across between the border crossings, the government has come up with an idea right out of the blue, which I think half of its own caucus was surprised to see come forward. I think there needs to be consistency in dealing with this issue.

As my colleague for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola said a while ago, that consistency is lacking in this budget, and the situation facing the border crossers right now is another point of inconsistency with the way the government has handled it. One of the things the Liberals took two years to do was to even talk to the Americans about whether or not they could begin the process.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I will pause the time for a second.

The other day we had a question from the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills on a point of order which helped me to remind members that one member should be standing at a time. I do not mean when it is time for questions and comments, which is the time to stand, but when a member is speaking, everyone should wait until the member is finished before getting up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg South.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I think the hon. member and I agree on. One is that Manitoba is the friendliest province in the entire confederation and the second is that we are friendly to immigration.

I would ask the hon. member to reflect on the immigration and refugee policy of the previous government. He will recall the snitch line to report barbaric practices. He will recall health cuts to refugees. He will recall the parents and grandparents program being called a “burden” by the previous government. It took two years to reunite spouses. We have that down to one year.

If the hon. member reflects on the record of the previous government, which he was part of, does he support the measures that were introduced by the previous government, and does he agree that what we have done on this side of the House is an improvement?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Mr. Speaker, I just remembered the second attribute of Manitoba. It is the curling capital of the world, not just Canada.

I am going to share my time with my good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, whom I have known for 33 years. He had a lot more hair back then, but he is wiser. He is my counsel. I am so proud to have him sitting next to me.

I am pleased to rise today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, as well as the member for Winnipeg South, to speak about budget 2019, a budget that focuses on building an economy that works for everyone, a budget that gives all Canadians, regardless of gender, a fair and equal chance at success.

Our government truly believes that our country and our economy benefit when women, girls and people of all genders are safe and free to live their lives to the fullest.

The facts speak for themselves. Over the last 40 years, greater participation of women in the workforce has accounted for about one-third of Canada's economic growth. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, advancing gender equality could contribute as much as $150 billion to our economy by 2026. More and more, we can see there is a very close correlation between gender equality, the level of competitiveness and human development in our country. It is clear to us that gender equality is the foundation for a prosperous Canada. For decades, women's organizations and other equality-seeking organizations have been working hard to tackle the systemic barriers impeding gender equality, and they have made a huge difference.

We need to support further community action to create the right conditions so that everyone can achieve their potential. Our government has stepped up with historic investments to advance gender equality, but women's organizations know first-hand how vital it is to safeguard the hard-won rights and progress they fought for.

Budget 2019 made an important investment of $160 million to support projects that work to tackle systemic barriers impeding women's progress while also recognizing and addressing the diverse experiences of gender and inequality across this country. These new funds allow the government to set in motion new innovative partnerships to fundamentally change the way we fund women's organizations so it is more stable and sustainable, and our Minister for Women and Gender Equality has made some really terrific announcements at Women Deliver in Vancouver this week.

Canadian women are among the world's most educated, yet women and girls still face barriers in achieving their potential. We cannot move forward if half of us are held back. Budget 2019 recognizes that and encourages women's participation in high-demand fields of the economy through investments and skills development and financial support for training in order to promote science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the STEM sector, to girls. These are wise investments indeed.

Investing in the middle class includes investments in gender equality, and gender equality is a core consideration in this government's policies and programs. Our government is working to develop policies and programs that will deliver a society where a person's gender identity or expression does not deter the likelihood of developing one's potential. In this vein, budget 2019 helps address the unique needs and persisting disparities among LGBTQ2+ Canadians by investing in capacity-building and community-level work of service organizations. I want to thank the member for Edmonton Centre for his great work in this regard.

Ending gender-based violence is crucial if we are serious about giving everyone the same opportunities to join and grow Canada's middle class. Our government has invested over $200 million in a strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence. We have heard from survivors and the organizations that support them, and we are responding to the need for funding to prevent and address gender-based violence. We have heard from underserved groups, groups that are often impacted disproportionately by gender-based violence and that need more resources to address the gaps in services. We have listened and are investing more than $50 million for more than 60 projects in communities across the country to support survivors of gender-based violence and their families.

One of the harsh realities of gender-based violence is human trafficking, which I know is an issue everyone in the House feels strongly about and one that needs to be addressed aggressively. Budget 2019 announced a whole-of-government human trafficking strategy, recognizing that individuals at greatest risk of victimization include persons who are socially or economically disadvantaged, women and girls, youth and children, indigenous peoples, refugees and migrants, LGBTQ2+ individuals and persons with disabilities. We need to address their needs.

Budget 2019 also supports combatting child sexual exploitation online, preventing hate crimes and providing increased access to family justice in the official language of one's choice.

Our government was elected on a promise to support the middle class and to work hard to help those who want to join the middle class. From day one, we have understood that one of the most important things we can do to achieve this is to ensure that everyone has access to safe and affordable housing. The budget implementation act before us today recognizes that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law. It ensures that Canada's first-ever national housing strategy is not also the last. The national housing strategy and the commitments to build and repair shelter spaces for women fleeing violent situations mean that more women and their children have a safe place to turn to.

The decisions governments make impact different people differently. That is why gender budgeting is at the heart of our government's strategy to improve equality in Canada. In December, we passed the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act, which requires by law that all future budgets take gender equality into account when we make decisions. As we have said, what gets measured gets done. The gender results framework, launched in budget 2018, has guided our decisions on policies and programs that are responsive to the needs of the diversity of individuals in our society.

The most important determinant of our country's competitiveness is its human talent and the skills and productivity of its workforce. No one should be left behind. We all deserve equal access to the workforce and to political decision-making power. We should all have access to resources and opportunities.

To have a country where all citizens are equal and have a fair chance of success is a goal worthy of our best efforts. I believe the people of Canada deserve nothing less than our very best.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a little more about the issues related to gender-based budgeting.

There are, I suppose, two approaches one could take in this regard. One is to try to maximize choice and flexibility for women to ensure they do not face the barriers they have historically faced in accessing certain kinds of opportunities. The alternative is to try to create incentives to propel women into the workforce even when they might want to make a different choice.

In that context, I want to ask the member about the issue of the “use it or lose it” parental leave program. The government's approach to parental leave is to try to constrict and reduce the space for choice, requiring that in order for families to get the full allotment of parental leave, both parents have to take it at some point. That is just not realistic for certain families, as it may be that one parent is not able to access parental leave. There is also a question of equality in this type of program with regard to single parents.

What I hear from women and young parents in my riding is that they are looking for greater flexibility. They would prefer a system that allows, for instance, a greater opportunity for moms or dads on parental leave to work a bit from home. Could the parliamentary secretary tell my why the government believes the path to advancing equality involves limiting choices? Would he not agree that a better path might be to expand choices and flexibility for parents?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the current system is very flexible. Men and women can share parental leave. What we have done is added an extra five weeks for a second parent. Often that time would be taken by fathers.

This is a well-trodden path in Scandinavian countries and in Quebec. In previous eras, very few men would take parental leave. We found that in Scandinavian countries and in Quebec, somewhere upwards of 87% of people, particularly fathers, will take parental leave because of the kinds of provisions we put in budget 2019.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a chance to help people who are off sick from work. I have been getting a lot of complaints from my constituents, and I know we have been lobbied here in Ottawa about 15 weeks not being long enough, especially nowadays because of the long hospital waits. People might have hip injuries or need a new knee, but it takes a long time to get that surgery done, and until that is done, they cannot work because they are having a hard time performing their jobs.

Fifteen weeks does not cut it. Why did we miss the opportunity to increase those weeks when we have been pressured by society for many years to have this looked after?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have made a number of improvements to the EI system since we were elected in 2015. I participated in some of those when I was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Families. We have increased flexibility, and maternity and parental leave benefits have been improved. I know that the EI system is constantly being looked at and that the question has been raised in the House many times. The minister certainly is aware of these questions and is always looking to improve the EI system in this country.