Herb Dhaliwal

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. Unfortunately he missed the first half of my speech. It was an excellent part of my speech. I know he will not do that again.

I will be telling the minister, and I am very happy to share it with the member, that we need to look at duplication. We need to look at the overlap between the provinces and the federal government. We need to look at that to see if we can save money by dividing some of the responsibilities. Let us have a look at them. We will look at the different departments.

Is there something in the coast guard? Can we amalgamate the services of the coast guard fleet with the department of fisheries fleet to create more efficiency? Can we consolidate those services so a better job can be done in a more efficient and effective way?

I will be telling the minister that we need to look at small craft harbours. Maybe we can privatize them. Maybe they can be privatized at a much lower cost than for us to continue holding on to them.

I will be advising the minister that we have to look at overlap. We have to look at duplication, not only between the provinces and ourselves but between the different departments like the Department of the Environment and the coast guard. Let us see what services we can consolidate and save money.

Why should we have within a mile fleet maintenance services for the coast guard and close by one for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? It does not make sense.

We have to look at the common sense approach. We need to look at overlap and duplication. I hope the minister will listen to what I have to say because coming from the business sector I can provide some good advice on saving money for the taxpayer.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that the debt is going to increase. However, we have to make sure that we deal with the deficit before we can deal with the debt issue. That is what we are doing in a reasonable, common sense approach.

If we say we will do it within a year, I guess if we cut every program in government it could be done within a year. But what would be the long term cost of that? It could be done in two years if we wanted to cut every program. We would have to look at the cost of the programs.

Let me respond to the question of my hon. colleague. I am sure he is willing to listen to my response. In our cultural industry and scientific community it takes years to build infrastructure. They do not pop up from nowhere. We as the government are not going to cut them wholesale, which would cause serious problems in the future.

It is the same with our social programs. We can ignore and cut our social programs, but what price do we pay in the future? I ask the hon. member to look at the future cost of cutting those programs because in the end we will have to face the social costs.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for a very good question. There is a very good answer for that question.

Some time last year I was in Singapore and I had an opportunity to look at some of its infrastructure program. As many members know, Singapore has been a miracle of economic development over the past few decades. It is a model that other countries have looked at.

The reason that country has been so successful is because it has an incredible infrastructure program. It had a vision.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pride that I stand in the House today to make my submission to the first significant prebudget consultation

process in Canadian history. On behalf of the constituents of Vancouver South I want to thank the Minister of Finance for this opportunity to express our views.

Let me begin by saying that there continues to be a tremendous amount of confidence within my riding for the Liberal plan for reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97.

As many have remarked in the House before, this 3 per cent target serves as one of the major benchmarks for entry into the European Union. It is also a target that has not been achieved in Canada in 20 years. Still there are those on the opposition benches who continue to argue this 3 per cent target is not tough enough.

What is indisputable is that the Liberal government made a promise to the Canadian people on October 26, 1993. We promised Canadians we would meet this target within the specified time. Then we would begin our ultimate objective, the complete elimination of the deficit. I would like to quote the Minister of Finance: "Come hell or high water we will meet this promise to Canadians".

Recently the Reform Party attempted to bring some credibility to its original zero in three claim, which I know is very difficult for it to do. I am glad that today the leader of the Reform Party has changed that zero in three to zero in five, to do it in five years. He is learning that our goal is much more rational and balanced. He has moved from a zero in three approach to a zero in five. I ask my colleagues to check the record.

The members of the Reform Party have outlined a remarkably vague and draconian plan to cut a number of government programs. All one has to do is read the Edmonton Journal which is often quoted on the other side to understand about what has been brought forward.

This plan along with the announcement of more brutal cuts to come to programs like post-secondary education and old age pensions demonstrates what I will call the half-marble approach to deficit reduction, an approach that only deals with half of the whole solution. Dealing with the deficit in Canada requires a two-sided approach: decreasing government expenditures by streamlining programs and services and increasing government revenues by promoting a healthy and vibrant economy.

Trying to solve Canada's economic problems through extracting $25 billion from the economy in two years without any plan for economic growth is like trying to roll half a marble. Like the marble, it is an idea that will not go very far.

Further, anyone who believes that government revenues will not be seriously diminished through a plan which, while cutting regional development spending, also cuts Canada's social security system is not only trying to roll half a marble but is not playing with all the marbles.

If members take a moment to look at the plan of the Reform-I do not know from where it gets its economics-it thinks that by cutting $42 billion over three years that will somehow create great confidence in the economy and will create jobs. Then everybody will be spending money and we will get a tremendous amount of growth. The Reform Party has a lot to learn. What we are presenting is a much more balanced and rational approach. Canadians see that.

Recently I took the question of how to solve some of Canada's economic problems back to small business owners in my riding through the venue of a public policy forum. I would like to share some of their valuable ideas with the House today.

Overall, my constituents have requested that the budget continue to reflect the commitment of the government to promoting the health and growth of Canada's small business community. I am sure all my colleagues would agree with that.

With regard to access to capital, my constituents feel that the federal government should introduce strong measures to ensure that Canadian financial institutions are more equitable and accountable to small business owners.

With regard to federal deficits, my constituents feel that the federal government should do everything possible to find areas of waste and overlap, duplication and extravagance and eliminate them immediately. I know I will get lots of support from the other side on that issue. In terms of government expenditures on programs and services, there is considerable support among my constituents for the extensive program by program review currently under way.

With regard to taxation, they felt that the federal government should begin reducing the tax burden on average Canadians through a reduction in personal income taxes. It should begin harmonizing and simplifying the tax system so as to decrease administrative costs, expensive paper burden and overall taxation. It should lower payroll taxes through savings made through the UIC system. It should give serious consideration to the recommendation made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and supported by the region's small business working committee to increase the small business tax deduction to $400,000 from $200,000.

As I have noted before, this measure has not been adjusted since 1982 when it was first introduced and should be increased to the rate of inflation.

With regard to the most effective role for government, small business owners stated that they want their governments to offer a hand up not a hand out. They feel that the best route to take is not through grants, subsidies and expensive tax deductions, but

through addressing wide ranging concerns such as interprovincial barriers and global trade.

They feel that government should promote a healthy business environment with low taxes and minimal regulations and that they should support the business sector in meeting their own needs in job training and knowledge networks.

They feel that the federal government should target businesses operated by Canadians with special needs but should do so by reallocating current budget expenditures, not by making further expenditures.

With regard to women in small business, my constituents feel that the federal government should give serious consideration to a system of affordable national day care, allowing more women the freedom to begin small businesses. This can be done either directly through the federal government or with government support. They feel that the federal government should find ways of offering training which will help female entrepreneurs get started and expand their business operations.

In conclusion, there was a reason I went to my constituents for their advice. I knew the government was listening to Canadians. For the first time in Canadian history a government has gone to the people for their input on the budget before the budget is introduced. For the first time the government is making a genuine attempt to include Canadians in the decision making process that will affect them. These prebudget consultations, like the other extensive government consultations currently under way, are part of the Liberal election promise to do things differently, to make government more inclusive and to make government more responsive.

We promised to listen to Canadians and that is exactly what we are doing. I am proud to be a part of this government.

[Grey Cup, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the B.C. Lions on an absolutely outstanding season, a brilliant win in the Grey Cup and keeping our treasured cup in Canada.

The B.C. Lions exceeded our expectations and defended Canada's honour by ensuring that a no-name team returned home as it arrived, empty handed. The Lions have made all Vancouverites, British Columbians and Canadians proud.

On behalf of all members of Parliament and all constituents of Vancouver South, I congratulate a fantastic victory by our football team, the B.C. Lions.

[Immigration, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise out of concern with the continued attempts by members of the Reform Party to portray immigrants and refugees as criminals.

As reported in a recent article in the Montreal Gazette , ``A Reform MP asserted that almost 25 per cent of refugee claimants have criminal records, when in fact all reliable figures place the rate at less than 2 per cent''.

By making statements like these, Reform members not only imply an inability to grasp the concept of decimal points but also imply an overzealous desire to paint refugees in a negative manner regardless of the facts.

It is disappointing that neither the member concerned nor his party has come clean and apologized for their mistake. In the name of integrity and honesty, I ask the leader of the Reform Party to apologize to the House for misleading Canadians.

[Social Security Program, November 18th, 1994]

I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Canadians I have talked to across the country recognize the need for change. They recognize there has to be a change made in the social security programs because they see that 450,000 parents are on single parent social assistance, and 90 per cent of them are women. That is a problem we have to deal with.

What does that say for the children? We have to deal with the situation. One child of every five children grows up in poverty. That is a problem we have to deal with. Mahatma Gandhi once said that poverty is the worst type of violence against an individual.

We have to deal with those issues under the social security programs. We know they are not working well because some of these problems would not exist if they were working. Our expenses on social assistance have continued to go up.

We have to look at why. We cannot just spend money. We have to get at the root of the problem and ensure that people have the training and the skills. We must take away the disincentives that stop them from getting gainful employment, that stop them from getting into the workforce. For example, we need more day care facilities so that we give people a path, a way to get out of the cycle of dependency, making them independent and self-reliant.

That is what social security reform is all about. It is giving those people an opportunity to be gainfully employed. We must tear down the barriers that stop them from seeking gainful employment and take away the disincentives so that they do have an opportunity. They want to work. They are not interested in staying on social assistance. The system does not let them come back.

Those are the things that Canadians are looking for. Canadians are telling us yes, we need to change the system and we need to look at the way we do things because there is a better way. That is what we are searching for.

I thank the hon. member for a very good question.

[Social Security Program, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Fraser Valley East for taking an interest in this. I have often visited his riding, which has many farming communities, and I know many people in his riding. I know his area has a particular interest in this review, because there are many seasonal workers in his riding.

Let me try to address his two questions, first of all in terms of the broader goals of redistribution involved.

We want standards right across the nation. We do not want tremendous poverty in one province and tremendous wealth in another province. We want to be able to deal with the regional disparity. We want to make sure that where help is needed to create employment, to develop better employment programs, that we respond as a nation, that we respond to areas that are having greater economic difficulty than those with economic prosperity.

That is what makes this country so great, that we want to deal with those issues. We want to deal with the regional disparities that exist across the country. We do not want to say that if a certain part of the country has a much lower standard of living than other parts that we do not really care. That is not what this is all about. As a country we must care for Canadians no matter where they live and ensure that we have basic standards right across the country, including employment opportunities.

In terms of the requirements for stamps to collect UIC, this must be looked at once again. Different areas of the country have different needs and those regional needs reflect the UI reform program. Just as in the hon. member's riding there are different needs, we have to look at the needs of seasonal workers and respond to them as well. One of the ways we can respond, as stated in our discussion paper, is to have a two tier program, a basic insurance program and an adjustment insurance program. Those people who use UI more frequently perhaps should be treated differently in terms of the premiums or of the benefits they receive, as opposed to those who have the basic insurance program.

I hope that deals somewhat with the questions of the hon. member.

[Social Security Program, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be speaking on social security review and particularly on the unemployment program.

Before I do that I would like to say that the social security review is very timely for Canadians. It is very important for government and for all members of Parliament to look at it. Too often governments bring in programs or legislation which become obsolete and do not reflect the realities as some of our social security programs do, but do not get examined with the promptness they should.

I am glad we are looking at the whole social security program for a variety of reasons. One is that some programs were brought in some 40 years ago. The economic realities have changed. The family structure has changed. The social circumstances have changed and our fiscal situation has changed. The global economy in terms of the types of jobs out there has changed. The demands on our business communities have changed. All of those changes result in the type of social security program we need that will take us into the next century and which will take into consideration the new realities we face.

The social security review is very timely. It is important that Canadians are participating in ensuring the type of programs we come up with will be sustainable, affordable and effective. With the input of Canadians and other members of Parliament we will be able to put together that type of program.

For now I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the government's idea for renewal of our unemployment insurance program presented in the recent supplementary paper on UI. I am sure hon. members appreciate it is a key component in the reform of our social security system. The UI program has served us well, but because of the structural changes to the economy there are now numerous situations in which the program no longer does what it was originally intended to do.

The UI program was created to provide workers with temporary income support between jobs, but the program no longer adequately addresses the changing nature of employment. Today many workers use it to supplement their income. That was not and is not its purpose. Workers and employers finance UI through their contributions.

It is simply costing too much. For example in 1980 the program cost $4.4 billion. Last year it cost $19.7 billion. We cannot allow this escalation in UI costs to continue. The government is proposing that we spend more wisely. Often some people think that sometimes the more money thrown at a program, the better the program gets. We realize that what we have to do is spend more smartly and wisely. Our emphasis is to shift UI funds from income support to investing in helping people obtain jobs and become self-reliant.

Some hon. members will ask about the seasonal workers. Seasonal workers make up about 40 per cent of UI clients and as much as 60 per cent of frequent claimants. Government recognizes it must address their specific circumstances and we are doing that.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has established a working group on seasonal workers and UI. It is consulting with other stakeholders to come up with innovative ways to address the needs of seasonal industries. That includes reducing their frequent dependency on the UI program.

We know people need experience in the workplace. Therefore, to help people gain the experience and training required to keep a job, the government is testing new approaches such as community projects that offer work experience or earning supplements or assistance to entrepreneurs who wish to start their own businesses. The reason for that is quite straightforward. The government's top priority is to ensure a climate for continuing job creation.

In the past year there have been 275,000 new jobs created. We want to keep the momentum going. One way of doing that will be through the reduced premium rates that will result from UI reform.

As hon. members know, in 1995 we have already announced a premium reduction from 3.07 to 3.00. Estimates indicate that this reduction will help create or preserve jobs. We are proposing to keep moving in that direction.

Another idea presented in the discussion paper regarding UI eligibility is the possibility of income testing, but this would apply only to people who use UI frequently.

We need to use our limited resources to help those most in need. I wonder if hon. members realize that in 1991, 18 per cent of frequent claimants had incomes of over $50,000. An additional 28 per cent had family incomes ranging from $30,000 to $50,000. The benefits received by frequent claimants go beyond insurance. They are more like supplementary income. The system can no longer support this misuse of funds.

Some hon. members have expressed understandable concern about the effects of UI reform in Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canadians are a proud people and we have to take measures to help them generate economic and social renewal. That is not just the government's opinion. Last year an Environics poll indicated that 60 per cent of all Atlantic residents acknowledged that the current UI program acts as a disincentive to finding work. Not only that but the Atlantic premiers stated that easy access to unemployment insurance benefits has created an economic malaise in the region.

The strategy the government is recommending for Atlantic Canada is consistent with our general approach for the rest of the country and that is to invest in people through employment development services. This is the positive approach that will help Atlantic Canadians to get and keep satisfying jobs.

Because of the changing nature of employment that I spoke of earlier, we no longer have any choice but to respond to the growth of non-standard work. I am referring to part timers, the self-employed, temporary workers and people with multiple jobs. Last year more than 60 per cent of all new jobs were part time. Many of those workers were not fully covered or not covered at all. We must address their needs.

We are currently experimenting with initiatives such as earning supplements and consolidation of hours for UI insurability. The government is determined to find effective solutions to help all Canadians move toward long lasting self-sufficiency.

As well, concerns have been expressed that employment development services will be too costly to offer to everyone who might want to use them. However, everything is not going to happen at once. We can meet the needs of some people through less expensive programs. I am thinking of such measures as wage subsidies, earning supplementation and assistance in searching for a job. Training capacity will be expanded gradually and eventually everyone interested will have access to employment development services.

UI reform is not going to happen overnight. First we have to gather input from all Canadians on this process. The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development is currently travelling across Canada listening to the views of a wide variety of Canadians. The committee will be reporting its findings and we will have to evaluate the various ideas to determine what is feasible and what is the best way to structure a new program.

Having done all that, major changes to the UI system would be phased in over a number of years. Everyone affected would have adequate time to adjust. The exact timing might use the three and five rule. That means if changes are implemented in 1995 the new program would not be fully operational until 1998. The timeframe will depend on the complexities of the changes.

The key to successful reform of our unemployment insurance program will be to strike an appropriate balance between UIC's role as a temporary income support and its broader social role, to redistribute income and address narrowing regional disparities.

The government will take an approach that is mindful of just how significant UI is in many provinces and in the lives of many people. We will not pull support from under anyone and leave him or her high and dry. But we will devise and implement a more flexible system, one that encourages adjustment and generates a climate for job creation and growth, a system that helps people to help themselves become self-supporting and contributing members of Canadian society.

I invite all hon. colleagues to join the government in this crucial undertaking.

[Ms. Suu Kyi, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on September 20 I stood in the House to draw attention to the continued imprisonment of Ms. Suu Kyi, the leader who was democratically elected by the majority of the Burmese people. Ms. Suu Kyi has been under house arrest since 1989.

Burma's military regime did meet with Ms. Suu Kyi on September 20. However, during this meeting they did not give a commitment or a time frame as to when they plan to release her.

I urge all my colleagues here today to remain vocal on the subject of Burma. I ask all my colleagues from both sides of the House to support a motion urging the United Nations General Assembly to condemn the current Burmese military regime and restore democracy to Burma.