Arif Virani

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and her concerns on these very pressing issues.

The budget involves choices. Any legislative policy, any government initiative obviously relates to choices. Balances are struck and certain issues will come to the fore and be prioritized.

First nations are a commitment that cannot be understated by this government. I urge the hon. member opposite to consult the two things that are in common among all of the mandate letters issued by the Prime Minister to all 30 ministers of this government. The only thing that is in common, other than the Prime Minister's signature, is to repair the relationship we have with our first nations communities. No one should underestimate or discount the level of commitment and prioritization that has been made in this regard.

Just a few days ago, we had a very robust debate initiated by one the hon. colleague's members, the member for Timmins—James Bay, about the deplorable conditions in which our first nations exist. We acknowledge that. We are working as quickly as possible to remedy that situation.

Can more be done? Absolutely, more can be done, and we are working to address these issues as quickly as possible. We are trying to make this as non-partisan an issue as possible.

I have no doubt about my friend's conviction in assisting in that regard. Obviously, addressing the needs of first nation communities continues to be a priority, and I hope to work with her on it going forward.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that countless jobs can be created with this kind of investment. It takes a bold vision to agree to invest in infrastructure, to invest in the economy and to stimulate it, but it is actually not that bold a decision. It is quite facile when we have extremely low interest rates and a debt-to-GDP ratio that is the envy of the G7.

It is a prime opportunity to invest in the economy. It is something that we campaigned on during the election. It is something we are fulfilling with this budget and will continue to fulfill as we meet our overall infrastructure investment targets of $60 billion over the next 10 years.

The statistics are already coming in from Stats Canada apropos my friend's question in respect to the job creation, which is already occurring and will continue to occur in this country because we finally have a government that is daring to invest in the economy when it is sorely needed.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the 2016 budget. The document was created after listening to what thousands of Canadians wanted to see from their government. It reflects the priorities of Canadians and embodies the real change that the people of Parkdale—High Park voted for on October 19 last year.

Today, I want to organize my thoughts around three central themes that infuse the core of this document: first, our government's commitment to a fair and more inclusive society; second, our objective of helping Canadian children thrive; and third, the goal of creating a long-term vision for Canada.

On the first theme, I came to this country as a Ugandan refugee in 1972. I was 10 months old at the time. My father, my mother, my four-year-old sister, and I arrived with nothing more than a couple of suitcases. However, we lived in a society where my sister and I, the children of working-class parents, had access to the same opportunities as everyone else. We were treated with respect and dignity. We were shown that no matter where we came from or how limited our means, we lived in a country where our success was limited only by our imagination and our capacity to work hard.

However, over the last 10 years, the previous government systematically eroded the foundation of that fair and inclusive society, putting in place barriers to success and limiting rather than empowering people to reach their full potential.

I am proud that our new government is doing things differently. We are committed to restoring a fair and inclusive society

First and foremost, as part of that commitment is repairing our relationship with indigenous peoples. Over the generations, that relationship has suffered from both passive neglect and active hostility. First nations, the Métis nation, and the Inuit do not enjoy anywhere near the same quality of life as other Canadians. With the 2016 budget, our hope is that this relationship can begin anew. Our government is taking its first steps by launching a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. Coupled with this, we are investing $8.4 billion over five years to create opportunities and improve the socio-economic conditions of indigenous people. Correcting this relationship and improving the plight of our first peoples is not only beneficial for the collective, it is also a moral imperative. I know that the residents of my riding know this as well.

Organizations in Parkdale—High Park have already been taking action. I am proud of the work that Wigwamen has been doing in my riding to rebuild this relationship. Wigwamen is Ontario's oldest and largest urban indigenous housing provider, with 214 units throughout Toronto, including in Parkdale—High Park.

Our commitment in this budget to fostering a fair and more inclusive society extends to protecting many of our most vulnerable. We are working toward lifting seniors out of poverty. Our government is restoring the retirement age from 67 to 65, and increasing the GIS that is provided for single low-income seniors by nearly $1,000.

Budget 2016 also targets housing and homelessness. Our social infrastructure investments include $504 million over the next two years alone to construct affordable housing units, and $573 million to address repair backlogs in social housing.

More importantly, this budget dedicates $112 million in the next two years alone to homelessness, which also includes much-needed support for things that relate to mental health and addiction.

Budget 2016 also strengthens protections for the survivors of domestic violence. Our infrastructure plan will allocate $90 million over two years for the construction and renovation of shelters and transition houses for victims of violence. Unfortunately, my riding is no stranger to this issue. For 23 years, the excellent staff at The Redwood shelter in Parkdale—High Park have been providing a safe and empowering space for women and children fleeing domestic violence. Notwithstanding its incredible work in our community, the need for safe spaces for women fleeing domestic violence in Toronto and other cities around Canada persists. This budget acknowledges that and works toward fulfilling that need.

A fair and inclusive Canada is one that promotes access. Budget 2016 will also make the objective of post-secondary education more attainable by doubling the size of the Canada student grant for youth from low-income and middle-income families.

We also know that helping people afford an education alone is not enough. We are committed to helping our youth transition from the classroom to the workforce by investing $495 million next year alone in the youth employment strategy. Again, the task of preparing our youth to succeed involves the community, and West Neighbourhood House in my riding has been contributing to this task for decades. Through the Toronto Youth Job Corps program, West Neighbourhood House in Parkdale connects youth to the workplace through employment, school, or training for young people between the ages of 16 and 29. It is helping kids who are out of school and out of work develop important life and employment skills that will help promote future success.

This budget's commitment to enhanced funding for youth employment reflects the fact that we value the work being done by entities like West Neighbourhood House.

Helping our children thrive is the second thematic point. The task of positioning our youth to succeed and contribute to our collective well-being begins much earlier than the post-secondary education that I just referenced. Evidence shows that children who have a strong start at the beginning of their lives have a greater chance of success later on.

Time and again at the doorstep, young families in my community of Parkdale—High Park told me about how difficult it is to raise kids in today's economy. I have two young boys of my own: Zakir is age five and Nitin will be two tomorrow. If I could be permitted a brief indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say happy birthday to my little guy and that I will see him tomorrow.

More importantly, as a father of a young family, I know that it is rewarding raising a family, but it is very challenging in this economy. Enter budget 2016. It will give Canadian families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children by replacing the current complicated system of child benefits with a single CCB, the Canada child benefit. It is simpler and it is more generous.

Gone are the days of the previous government's universal benefits cheques sent to persons with seven-digit salaries who frankly do not need government help in raising their families. Gone also are the days when the previous government would issue a cheque, only for it to be clawed back by the taxman the following April.

This new child tax benefit is tax-free, and it is targeted so that low-income and middle-income families will receive more benefits than those with the highest incomes.

We campaigned on a very specific promise to deliver assistance to those that need it the most. This targeted Canada child benefit coupled with the middle-class tax cut that we passed on January 1 this year will do exactly that.

Turning to the third point, we have a long-term vision for Canada that is encapsulated in this budget. Some of the aspects of that vision have already been articulated from the day we assumed office.

We believe in equality; hence, we have a gender equal cabinet.

We believe in evidence-based policy; hence, there is the immediate reinstatement of the long-form census.

We believe in daring to name the danger of climate change; hence, we renamed the ministry, led in Paris at the COP21 summit, and invested $3.4 billion in this budget alone, for the next five years, to address climate change.

We also believe in compassion. A subject near and dear to my heart, we have accepted 26,000 and counting Syrian refugees into this country.

With this budget, another part of our vision becomes clear. We believe in Canadian culture. The support in this budget for the CBC and other organizations that promote Canadian culture illustrates this.

The residents of my riding include a large number of artists, writers, filmmakers, TV producers, musicians, actors and editors. They contribute to the culture of Toronto, and they are a huge economic engine for our country. We believe in cultivating that creative and economic engine, not impeding it. That is why this budget includes an investment of $1.3 billion over five years to support arts and culture organizations, including $550 million alone for the Canada Council for the Arts.

Our plan is not simply about promoting Canadian creative output, it is also about preserving Canadian cultural icons. Time and time again on the campaign trail and thereafter, the residents of Parkdale—High Park told me that, after a decade of neglect, to save the CBC. We have listened, and we have responded. Budget 2016 commits $675 million to the CBC over the next five years as a reaffirmation of the vital voice that CBC/Radio-Canada plays in our public discourse in promoting our two official languages and supporting our shared culture and values.

In conclusion, this budget is transformative. After 10 years of neglect, this budget signals to Canadians that they finally have a government that is willing to invest in this country, in its people, in its institutions, and in its infrastructure.

Most importantly, the budget illustrates our government's commitment to creating a more fair and inclusive society, and helping all Canadian children get the best start in life possible.

Budget 2016 crafts a long-term vision for this country that reflects our shared values, values like equality, compassion, and a commitment to evidence-based policy. I am proud of this budget, and I will be wholeheartedly supporting it. I urge all members of this House to do the same.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in response again to my colleague's question, and I appreciate her passion on this issue and her sincerity in trying to address family reunification and the processing times in particular, there are definitely concerns with certain processing posts abroad. Certain parts of the world have slower processing times than others. The minister, the ministry, myself, and the government are working on correcting this. The minister himself will be taking a trip in the latter part of this year to visit places like the processing centres in India, China, and the Philippines to try to address some of those inequities.

In terms of the processing times abroad, they are in the area of approximately four years, and inland, they are in the area of approximately two years. We have committed before, we are committing again to addressing processing times for family reunification. It is vitally important for this government, it is vitally important for Canadians, and it is vitally important for the families of newcomers. Spouses should be reunited, and parents and grandparents should be reunited with their children and grandchildren. That is what we are working toward. With the member opposite's help, that is what we will achieve.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for her concern about immigration processing times.

IRCC looks at the processing times from the outset of when the application is actually filed. It is important to track that, because this is something that has been identified by the minister as a serious issue that he is devoting his priorities and his time to addressing. He described this in the House in his original response to my friend's question a few months back as a “mess” that was left as the legacy of the previous government, because it basically depleted the resources of the department, allowing waiting times to mushroom and balloon such that we are now in a situation where they have ballooned to the point where families are being unjustly treated. What we are trying to do is bring down those waiting times, and we are doing that in a number of respects.

In the first instance, we have a government that has tabled our immigration levels and we are responding to the levels by beefing up the number of family class applicants that can come in. It used to be at a 5,000-applicant level, and we have increased that to 10,000 applicants per year. That is particularly for parents and grandparents. It goes to some of the concerns that have been expressed by the opposition critic for the NDP, because it relates to the need to address family reunification as an important priority.

In that regard, we understand that families need to be reunified, because it is morally correct but also because it is an economic imperative. That is why we made that commitment during the campaign, and we have upheld that commitment already. We realize that people who come in as part of the family-reunification category both represent caregivers to children who might exist in those families and also represent a means of economic liberation for other people who are within those families. In providing care, a grandparent allows the mother or father in a family unit to, for example, seek work on his or her own. We also recognize that people who come in under family reunification, and come in quickly, are able to participate in the workforce themselves.

We recognize this, as a government. Groups around the country, including people and agencies in the member's riding of Vancouver East, recognize this. People in my riding of Parkdale—High Park recognize this. People like those at the Polycultural Immigrant and Community Services, at Kababayan Multicultural Centre, and at the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society on Bloor Street West are all working hard to get people here quicker in terms of family reunification, and to integrate them once they have arrived. It is a very important objective.

On another front, we are addressing the need for family reunification and the processing times, by addressing the need for further work permits. There is a pilot project that has been in place to allow open work permits for all eligible applicants under the spousal category. We have renewed that pilot project, again recognizing that not only do we need spouses to be here, but we need to give them a vehicle for working.

The last point is that we are also working on citizenship applications and the processing times that relate there too. We are committing to new applications. New applications are currently being processed within a 12-month time frame. That is because our view of citizenship is that we should facilitate it, rather than create obstacles toward citizenship.

It is a complete divergence of views from the previous government, because we believe the ultimate integration and success of newcomers, including the family members of those newcomers, is signalled by their attainment of citizenship. It produces better economic outcomes and better health outcomes, is better for the newcomers, and is better for Canada.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton North for her comments and her articulation of the important facets of this legislation.

I know the member as a passionate advocate for immigrants and the economic outcomes for newcomers and new, hard-working Canadians.

I want to ask the member for Brampton North if she could articulate to this House, from her perspective and her perception, how facilitating pathways to citizenship and facilitating integration of new Canadians would actually help improve some of those economic outcomes for our new Canadians.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I also acknowledge the fine comments made by the member for Newmarket—Aurora and his contributions in this chamber on behalf of his constituents.

I wonder, in his experience in noting the diversity of his own riding and the diversity of other areas in and around Toronto, for example, if he would comment on the path to complete integration. People talk a lot about countries that accept newcomers, whether they are asylum seekers or refugees, but sometimes they are stuck in the status of permanent resident or landed immigrant for a long time and do not have the rights or the ability to complete that journey all the way to citizenship.

Would the member for Newmarket—Aurora comment on the value of citizenship for new Canadians, how it facilitates their integration, their economic achievements, and their health outcomes in his riding?

[Tibet, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 57th anniversary of the Tibetan national uprising. On March 10, 1959, thousands gathered in front of the Potala Palace, in Lhasa, to rise up against injustice in Tibet. That year, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, an honorary citizen of this country, and 100,000 other Tibetans, became refugees.

His Holiness and thousands of other Tibetans are now seeking a path of return. They are pursuing an approach called “the middle way”. The middle way seeks nothing more than greater autonomy for Tibet within China. It is an approach that would peacefully resolve the issue of Tibet and bring about stability and coexistence between the Tibetan and Chinese people based on the concept of equality and mutual co-operation.

It saddens me greatly that in a desperate attempt to raise more awareness about the cause of Tibet, 151 persons have self-immolated. Those deaths should never have been necessary.

On the 57th anniversary of the 1959 uprising, it is up to all of us to focus on raising awareness about the Tibetan cause.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Durham invited a lot of responses and questions.

First of all, he started his commentary with respect to the intent-to-reside provision actually posing no conflict or confusion in the minds of newcomers. Simply put, currently, if one does not indicate an intention to reside, citizenship is not granted. If that does not sow confusion, I am not sure what does. It readily displays how out of touch my friend opposite is with the concerns of immigrants and newcomers to this country.

Second, he stated that revocation has not ended altogether and that we are therefore not principled as a government in what we are proposing in Bill C-6. However, revocation on the basis of fraud has existed in legislation in this country since 1947. We are returning to the status quo ante. The reason revocation for the purposes of fraud is the only provision that has existed, until the previous government decided to up the ante, is that we treat fraud in the context of citizenship with a citizenship sanction. We treat other acts, such as criminal acts and the litany of items raised by the member for Durham, with a criminal sanction. In fact, he said so himself that revocation is not a criminal sanction. That is right, and that is the point. It is why revocation on the basis of criminality has no place in this legislation.

On the last point, the member indicated at length that the record of the previous government on diversity was quite good. However, I find it incredible that one would start with an oath of citizenship reference and recite the oath of citizenship, when the previous government in fact limited the taking of that oath of citizenship for certain women from certain religious communities based on what they wore.

Why does the member continue to defend a diversity record that is in fact lamentable and not recognize that Bill C-24 was a barrier to integration of newcomers, as opposed to some sort of lever to promote it?

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech and thank him for his comments.

I want to ask the member about, in part, the comments that were raised opposite, which I find quite incredible. Even after legislation was enacted by the previous government, which explicitly put in an intent-to-reside provision in the legislation and which we are removing, somehow the effects of that impact are being denied by the members opposite.

I was quite taken by the comments of the member for Fredericton in respect to the fact that there are two terrific universities in New Brunswick, St. Thomas and UNB. I wonder if the member for Fredericton could comment on how this kind of legislation, which would create pathways to citizenship and formal and full integration into New Brunswick and Canadian society, assists great universities such as UNB and St. Thomas in recruiting people and retaining them in our Canadian communities.