Susan Whelan

[Trade, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that today the department initiated a dumping and subsidy investigation into imports of sugar from Korea, the European Union and the United States.

This investigation was initiated in response to allegations filed by the Canadian Sugar Institute that sugar imports are being dumped into Canada and that foreign refiners have been receiving government subsidies which allow them to sell at prices which are sometimes below the cost of production.

These alleged practices have reduced profit levels, forced Canadian refiners to reduce prices to unreasonable levels and to lay off workers. Therefore, the department will now investigate the allegations and should they be proven accurate, apply an extra duty which will take away the unfair advantage enjoyed by imports and once again provide a level playing field for Canadian refiners.

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member was not listening. In the budget the finance minister talked about the fact that we need to review our programs for our seniors.

We have a system in Canada developed by Liberals, a system that met the needs of the 1960s and the 1970s when it was introduced; a system we are trying to up date that will meet the needs of the 1990s and the 21st Century. That is what this Liberal government does and that is what this Liberal government is about. That is what we will do.

The hon. member is not aware, obviously, how programs work in other countries. I am very familiar with how they work. I have an aunt who lives in the United States. I know what happens when you become a senior citizen. I know what happens to programs you have paid into for four years and benefits that are cut off over time. I understand how that system works because I live with that system every day due to a family member who has an illness.

I ask the Reform Party to do a little research into its suggestions before it puts them forward and that it realize what the Liberal government is trying to do.

We recognize things have to change. We started the social security reform and we started the human resources consultations over a year ago. Members on that side took part in them. We are not afraid of that. We are aware of that. We mentioned in the red book that we would deal with the systems and that we would make changes and that is what we are going to do.

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not heard the Prime Minister mention on several occasions that the taxpayers' budget proposed by the Reform Party has forgotten to take into account that our population is aging. The costs of old age security for our seniors will rise every year. It is not in the Reform budget. Maybe the member should take a look at that part and think it through.

The Reform Party constantly claims over and over again that it represents the people, the interests of Canadians and listens to polls and to to Canadians. When 80 per cent of Canadians respond telling us they support public programs for elderly care, does that not send a message to the Reform Party? It should send a message to a party that claims to represent the people. When it hears that 77 per cent support public programs for child care and other programs, does that not send a message? I would think it sends a message.

I would ask the Reform Party to take a look at our budget. Our budget talks about the problems we are going to face. It talks about the fact that we have to deal with old age security and all of our social programs, especially relating to our seniors. The budget has the foresight to deal with that.

Perhaps the Reform Party should actually read the budget.

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate the hon. member's motion. The hon. member says our social security programs are failing. I fail to see how the hon. member arrived at that conclusion.

Before we began reviewing our social security system we heard from Canadians loud and clear. They wanted us to retain these programs, programs that are interwoven into the social fabric of Canada. That hardly suggests failure. It does not mean, however, that Canadians thought we should just leave them as is.

The government recognized social security programs have served us well for many years but that it was time for an overhaul. It was time to make them relative to the needs of the population of the 1990s. That is why we undertook, with the support of the majority of Canadians, the first step in the process of social security reform.

Hon. members are well aware that we carried out massive consultations across the country. The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development listened to the views of Canadians from all walks of life. More than 600 groups expressed their opinions on social security reform.

To break it down briefly for hon. members, 20,000 Canadians took part in more than 200 town hall meetings held by MPs from all parties. More than 40,000 people completed and returned social security reform workbooks. We held a series of seminars where there was broad public discussion in 25 communities across the nation. The Minister of Human Resources Development has received more than 3,000 letters from citizens expressing their views on social security reform. Over 7,000 people have accessed the minister's Internet bulletin board on social security reform and more than 35,000 people have called the social security reform hotline to request information or material.

Hon. members will also recall that some of the hearings were rambunctious affairs, to say the least. While it is true that those who voice strong opinions may indicate disagreement with some program policy, one thing it certainly does not indicate is

complacency. Canadians care about their social security programs.

The government realizes it must move ahead with social security reform in a timely and orderly fashion. The budget confirms this point. We know from the excellent budget presented by the Minister of Finance, a budget that is getting higher ratings than "Hockey Night in Canada", that Canadians agree reform of our social security system is moving in the right direction.

We said from the beginning that meaningful social security reform could only take place in the context of a responsible fiscal framework. The budget has given us that framework. The budget clarifies that effective reform of our social security programs is absolutely essential, given that we must operate with limited financial resources. Let me put to rest the unfounded rumours that social security reform is dead. It is anything but dead.

Here is where we are at. We have completed the very successful consultation process. The government is now studying the excellent report of the standing committee. Now that the budget has given us the fiscal parameters within which to operate, the next phase is to carefully develop an overall design.

In other words, it is time for the architecture. The architecture comes before we start rebuilding the programs. It is a logical process. We need to develop a new structure before we abandon the old or the current one. A key part of the process will be consultations between the Minister of Human Resources Development and the provinces. These consultations will seek to establish national principles.

The government believes that Canadians are equal in every part of this great nation. We will strive to ensure that national principles apply to social security programs for all citizens.

Canadians told us that one of the key areas for reform was the unemployment insurance program. Using the input we have received we intend to develop proposals for the UI program that take into account the views of hardworking men and women.

We have already begun to act. Hon. members will recall that the government had enough foresight last year to make provisions that began January 1 of this year. If the government had not acted, UI premiums would have risen to $3.30. Instead they were reduced to $3. It is estimated that the payroll tax relief will create or preserve 40,000 jobs. We will be able to put additional savings from UI reform toward improved employment development services.

There is more good news on the reduction of UI premiums. The economy is performing extremely well and we have every reason to believe it will continue to do so. For that reason we expect to reduce premiums again, possibly next year but certainly by 1997. I want to stress, however, that the government has not yet determined the amount of any cut to the premium rate. The figures we read in the press are only forecasting estimates.

We plan to move ahead with UI reform this fall. As the budget clearly stated, we intend to have new UI legislation in effect no later than July 1, 1996. It is true that we are shooting for at least a 10 per cent target reduction in program expenditure. How fast we reach that target will depend upon the continued good health of the economy. It will depend upon program details that UI officials are currently working on.

While reform of the social security system is an ongoing process, we know it will function more effectively and with significantly reduced administrative costs as part of the new Canada social transfer. The popularity of the budget tells me that Canadians are very excited about the innovative possibilities and the flexibility that the provinces will have to address the needs of their particular residents under CST.

Again I stress national principles and objectives will be very much a part of the new Canada social transfer. The Minister of Human Resources Development will be inviting all provincial governments to work together on developing a set of shared principles and objectives to provide a solid framework for the new CST. This is one way that all governments can reaffirm their commitment to the social well-being of Canadians.

I think all hon. members will agree that the best form of social security is a well paying, rewarding job. Social security reform is very much a part of the government's job and growth agenda.

With that in mind the Minister of Human Resources Development is bringing together the current programs that support Canadians in preparing for and attaining employment. They will be consolidated into a new human resources investment fund. The fund will pool resources from existing programs to develop a more coherent approach, establish priorities and make use of the best tools available to ensure Canadian workers find stable employment.

The human resources investment fund will take a hard look at the role of the federal government. We will ask ourselves what we should be doing and determine the best way to eliminate overlap and duplication. Streamlining and consolidation will mean some savings in the coming two fiscal years. The result will be that federal employment related programs will make the most efficient use of available resources.

The new programming will recognize clear and distinct roles for the federal government and the provinces. We will co-operate with the provinces to deliver services effectively and at the lowest cost possible to Canadian taxpayers. Together we can

ensure that Canadians are capable of functioning at a high level in the rapidly expanding global economy.

We all know that today's motion is based on the ill conceived quasi-budget of the Reform Party and that document in turn owed more than a little to the Reform minority report on social security reform which contained proposals that the member proposing today's motion conceded were not thought through very well before they were rushed into print.

I am most concerned by the Reform's so-called proposals. After examining them it is clear to me that these are old knee-jerk ideas that would move us backward, not forward. I cannot see how Reform's proposals would help Canadians find meaningful employment and reduce social ills such as child poverty.

The Reform Party has come up with the catchy title "Taxpayers' Budget". However when Canadian taxpayers get a close look at it they will see that if we adopted it taxpayers are the ones who would be snagged.

First let us look at the subject of today's motion, the registered personal security plan or RPSP. As I understand it, Reform wants to replace UI, OAS, CPP and some health, education and training programs with an individually based savings plan. This means that when sickness or unemployment strike or when they take their retirement, Canadians will be expected to rely on their own means and the risk pooling features of our current social programs would disappear.

Obviously lower income Canadians would be much more adversely affected by the proposal. I can see nothing in it except for the very well off who would have yet another instrument for feathering their nest egg.

Next let us take Reform's proposals for UI. The party suggests cutting $3.4 billion from the UI program. That is easy to do on paper but the result in real terms would phase out maternity, parental and sickness benefits as well as the fishermen's program. The measure alone would take away maternity benefits from more than 160,000 new mothers, sickness benefits from 150,000 workers who are temporarily unemployed, and badly needed benefits for 30,000 fishermen.

Who will shoulder the burden to help these individuals? Removing regional benefits would affect 1.3 million unemployed workers, which is more than 50 per cent of UI claimants. The Reform Party would slash income support by $4.5 billion. This blanket insensitive approach would drain billions out of the provincial economies-hardly what I would call a responsible move.

This is not what Canadians want. As I have already outlined the government intends to revitalize its UI program. We need to look carefully at how and why people use unemployment insurance and then make adjustments accordingly. We will not wipe out key social benefits like those for maternity leave.

The Reform Party tries to put forward a social conscience with its principle of equality contributions. Its taxpayers' budget states the burden of reduction must fall least heavily on the most vulnerable members of society.

There is no doubt that all hon. members share those sentiments. The trouble is Reform's proposals would have exactly the opposite effect. Instead of helping those most in need, the taxpayers' budget would cut seniors' pensions by $3 billion. How will this measure help vulnerable seniors meet the cost of living?

Reform also proposes that the government eliminate all regional differentiation. How will this help the poorest regions of the country? It also suggests cutting aboriginal programs by 24 per cent. Someone will have to explain to me how this measure will help our aboriginal brothers and sisters who are quite possibly the neediest group in Canada.

The Reform Party's budget suggests cutting the Canada assistance plan transfer payments by 34 per cent and equalization payments by $3 billion, a 35 per cent cut. If the government did that I acknowledge it would certainly lessen the burden on federal coffers. Unfortunately it would devastate the poorest regions of the country. It would place the burden of deficit reduction on the most vulnerable members of society. It would contradict Reform's stated philosophy.

Cuts like these would not renew our social security system. They would outright destroy it. Reform's approach to deficit reduction is simply reckless. It is easy to be reckless when one is not in the driver's seat.

What about the proposal to slash $3 billion from seniors' pensions? The Reform does not provide any details on this proposal maybe because if it had done so it would have had to tell elderly Canadians that more than half of them would see their benefits cut and low income seniors would be among the losers.

The government's approach is to review the needs of seniors into the next century and determine how best to meet those needs. We are not saying there should be no changes. We have never said that. However, a responsible government examines the repercussions of changes before taking action, and that is what we are doing.

Reform wants to replace old age security and the Canada pension plan with an RRSP and registered personal security plan system. The concept has already been tried in the United States. It is called a personal bank account. It actually works very well provided one is fortunate enough to be wealthy. Those less fortunate are out in the cold.

The Liberal Party's policy is for a sound and efficient income system that provides a balance between public pensions and private arrangements. In other words, the government's philoso-

phy on retirement combines realism with compassion, something the Reform Party should thing about.

The Reform Party should also think its proposals through before presenting them and should come clean on how much impact it would have on the lives of Canadians and the social fabric of this great nation.

The government certainly welcomes constructive suggestions from hon. members on the opposite side of the House. The proposals we see in the Reform Party's taxpayers' budget are so poorly thought out that it simply does not give us anything valid to work with.

The popularity of the budget by the Minister of Finance speaks for itself. Canadians recognize that in order to retain strong, viable social programs we have to find the financial resources to fund them. That is why Canadians support the direction the government is taking. With the Canada social transfer we are entering a new era of social policy that will streamline our social security system and bring us into the 21st century.

As a nation that enjoys one of the highest standards of living, there is no doubt in my mind Canadians reject the simplistic notion embodied in today's motion. They know the government is committed to the renewal of Canada's great legacy of social programs. I am sure they share my belief that the Reform Party is in no position to enact the motion before us today.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Davenport.

Many Canadians are concerned with Canada's future prosperity and with maintaining our quality of life. The finance minister's February 27 budget is a key element in maintaining prosperity and Canada's way of life.

The budget is a plan that will bring this country into the 21st century. It demonstrates our commitment to reshaping government to meet the needs of Canadians and to deliver on our promise to get our fiscal house in order. It supports our primary economic objective to sustain growth and job creation by cutting our deficit. It demonstrates our commitment to fiscally responsible government.

I will not make any bones about it; I believe that the budget is tough, very tough, but fair. The budget is tough but fair both in what it does but also in what it does not do.

Like many members of Parliament, I took advantage of the finance minister's opening up of the budget process. The government held the widest and most open prebudget consultations ever held. To ensure that my constituents had their say, I held two prebudget meetings in my riding of Essex-Windsor. The actions of the finance minister proved that this was not a cynical exercise. My constituents and many Canadians asked the finance minister to tackle the deficit in real terms. That is what this budget does.

This government is the first government in years to set deficit reduction targets and to meet those targets. Let me reassure the House that the deficit will be brought under control and our deficit targets will be met. The government has shown that it has the resolve and commitment to Canada's long term future to do what is necessary to meet our targets.

By 1996-97 Canada's deficit will be at 3 per cent of gross domestic product. That is $24.3 billion. If the economy keeps growing, and it will, this figure may be even lower. The bottom line is close to a cut of $7 in spending for every dollar for new revenues over the next three years.

To ensure fairness, both business and individuals are being asked to share the load. Recognizing that individuals' income taxes have increased over the last decade at a much faster rate than corporate taxes, the budget includes measures to address that inequity.

The large corporation tax rate will rise from .2 per cent to .225 per cent, an increase of 12.5 per cent. The corporate surtax, which is currently 3 per cent of the basic corporate tax rate, will increase to 4 per cent. There will also be changes made to strengthen Revenue Canada's ability to enforce the law and ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and to reduce unfair competition for businesses that do play above board, that play by the rules.

Banks and trust companies are also being asked to contribute further toward deficit reduction during the next year and a half. They will contribute $100 million through a special tax on deposit taking institutions.

Big business has often stated that it does not need or want the level of assistance it receives from the federal government. Accordingly, the government has listened and taken these claims at their word. We will reduce spending on subsidies for big business by close to 60 per cent over the next three years.

However, the government, unlike the last one, realizes that a successful tackling of the deficit requires a two track approach, as was advocated in our red book. To eliminate the deficit, the government must also create a climate that creates jobs.

This budget recognizes that small and medium sized businesses are the cornerstone of Canada's economy. They are the number one job creator. To further help small business we intend to work with Canada's banks and trust companies to establish clear rules so that small business loans are easier to get.

In my prebudget consultations many of my constituents recommended Canada re-examine our commitment to foreign aid in view of needs in Canada. The government has done this and will reduce foreign aid by 20 per cent over the next three years for savings of over $500 million.

Many of my constituents also questioned the need for so many agencies, boards and commissions. As a result of the government-wide review of these government bodies, decisions have been made affecting 120 of them: 73 of these will be closed, 47 will be streamlined and restructured. The result will be 665 fewer government in council positions, fewer ministerial appointments and savings of $10 million a year.

In my prebudget consultations my constituents had many suggestions on what action the government should not take. Do not eliminate RRSPs, they said, and we did not. Do not increase personal income taxes. We did not. Do not introduce a health or dental tax benefit. We did not. Do not eliminate capital gains exemptions for farmers and small businesses. We did not. Do not introduce a tax on casino winnings. We did not.

I have said that this budget is tough but fair. Many of the reviews have also been tough but fair. A Windsor Star , editorial of February 28 stated: ``What we can applaud in the budget is the vow to create a smaller and smarter government. The 14 per cent reduction in the civil service over the next three years combined

with the $10 billion in cuts to departments will result in a fundamental reshaping of government".

The Windsor Star also reported that Windsor's business community was encouraged, shocked even, by the wide swing of the minister's budget axe.

The Windsor Chamber of Commerce chair, Othmar Stein, was quoted in the Star as saying of the finance minister: ``He's got the message. A lot of this was overdue. A lot of the subsidies are gone, even for business''.

Mr. Stein, a vice-president of Chrysler, concluded: "Overall I'd say it's a very realistic budget, quite positive. It's one of the first budgets in a number of years that has not been smoke and mirrors."

Aron Gampel of the Bank of Nova Scotia says it is a strong fiscal statement that meets all the tests.

The Wall Street Journal reversed its editorial stance regarding Canada, summed up in its headline several weeks before the budget as "Bankrupt Canada". After the budget it proclaimed Canada made a right turn.

The editorial commends the finance minister for showing the determination needed for Canada to claw its way out of the debt hole which decades of spendthrift policies landed it in.

The budget charts a new course for agriculture. In agriculture the government has set a target to achieve by the turn of the century, annual food exports valued at over $20 billion. This is an increase of at least one-third over our record setting performance in 1994.

To do this the government will be introducing a new export credits guarantee program to support grain and other agri-food export sales up to a value of $1 billion.

Consistent with the red book, the government will implement a Canadian agri-food marketing council and Canadian agri-food marketing service to ensure enhanced market development and effective use of the global information highway.

Our first fiscal year was not all doom and gloom. The Canadian economy is stronger than it has been in years. Real economic output grew at about 4.5 per cent in 1994, the fastest of the G-7. Over 433,000 jobs were created in the past year, almost all of them full time.

The unemployment rate has fallen by 1.7 percentage points nationally. Manufacturing output is up over 9 percent in the past year. Improved cost performance has lead to record breaking exports, a growing trade surplus and a dramatic improvement in the current account.

I assure my constituents the budget belongs to a Liberal government. A Liberal government brought in new and innovative programs in the sixties and seventies to meet the challenges and needs of those decades. The government is adapting all programs to meet the needs and challenges of the nineties and the 21st century.

We understand change. We have always been at the forefront of change. The budget is change. The Liberal Party has been traditionally a pace setter. I know the budget sets the pace for the 21st century.

I will end with a comment one of my constituents sent me during the prebudget process. With reference to the difficult choices facing the Minister of Finance, he wished him resolve: "My two young children will thank you, as you will be remembered as the finance minister who saved Canada from bankruptcy".

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the decision was made by the Immigration and Refugee Board which is a quasi-judicial independent decision making body.

On the broad general issue of sexual orientation there are two compelling facts that may help explain the issue. In June 1993 the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation constitutes membership in a particular social group.

As well, the Geneva convention recognizes that in certain countries, members of particular social groups have grounds to fear persecution. It is on these grounds that individuals are eligible to apply for refugee status, not only in Canada but in all other countries that are signatories to the Geneva convention.

This case does not set a precedent. To date there have only been two cases on the basis of sexual orientation. One claim was determined to be negative. The other, the claim the member raises, was determined to be positive following an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada.,

Let me inform the member that Canada is not the only country to accept refugees on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact the United States, Germany and New Zealand have all accepted the positive claims on the basis of sexual orientation.

In conclusion, when claims are evaluated it is with a view to offering Canada's protection from systemic persecution and abuse. I remind the member that Canada has been internationally recognized for its compassion and thorough stand on human rights issues when it comes to refugee determination in Canada.

[Tax Loopholes, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I just informed the hon. member, there is a procedure we go through in dealing with taxpayers. We cannot comment on individual situations. They are dealt with accordingly and changes are made accordingly.

[Tax Loopholes, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we cannot comment individually on any specific taxpayers. Many resource companies will be entitled to refunds as a result of the 1992 decision of the Federal Court.

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the department is considering increasing the security requirement for obtaining release prior to payment of duties and taxes to 100 per cent of the average monthly invoice up to a maximum of $10 million. This action is being considered in direct response to the number of cases where brokers fail to deliver to Revenue Canada funds received from their clients, the importers.

Since importers remain liable, they have had to pay a second time to the department. As most brokers' clients are small businesses the department needs to ensure increased security to protect them and the jobs of the more than one million Canadians they employ.

Extensive consultations have been undertaken with the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers that negotiated a master bond program to make it easier for their members to meet the new security requirements. Discussions have also been undertaken with the Canadian Importers Association. Whatever is decided I do not believe any financially viable broker will be forced out of business.

Brokers are already provided with the flexibility to arrange for some of their clients to post their own security or to deliver interim payments to the department. Although many brokers have few assets in their companies they may also restructure their financial arrangements by using personal assets to obtain security.

A recent enhancement has been discussed that would assist both brokers and importers in obtaining security. The requirements for importers posting their own security, whether or not they use a broker, would be based on an amount equivalent to the duties and taxes payable on a monthly basis, less the goods and services tax.

This enhancement could make it easier for brokers to arrange for some clients to obtain security and enable them to protect the remainder of their clients from the consequences of default. As well, the cost of doing business for most of the 8,000 importers who deal directly with the department would not increase.

In conclusion, this enhancement is being discussed with the Canadian Importers Association and the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers, both of whom are contributing positively to resolving this issue.

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration confirmed for the hon. member on November 24 in this House that this case was being reviewed by immigration officials.

The minister had previously advised a colleague of the hon. member on November 17 that immigration officials conduct an additional review in cases where there may be new information that may or might alter a decision to remove a person.

Such reviews may be conducted when in keeping with the authority delegated by the minister to managers, a manager of a Canada immigration centre determines that there might be additional information.

In this particular case a manager in the CIC in Montreal granted a two week reprieve in this case to give the individual an opportunity for further review.

I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the additional review has been completed and immigration officials have determined that the individual and her children should be allowed to remain on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The individual and her counsel have been advised of this decision.