Murray Calder

[Income Tax Act, October 20th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oxford for seconding the bill.

Every day in Canada volunteer firefighters donate their time and risk their lives for the good of their communities. Often they receive an allowance to reimburse them for the expenses they incur in discharging their duties. There is no income tax on the first $500 they receive as part of their expense allowance but they must pay tax on any amount exceeding $500. This bill would double the tax exemption from $500 to $1,000. It would mean that volunteer firefighters would not be taxed on reasonable expenses incurred in their work, work which requires them to risk their lives to protect their fellow citizens.

In our communities today we are relying more and more on volunteer firefighters to perform these services.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if we change CPP, one of the changes could be the disability benefit part. If it is to be replaced it would have to be with an insurance policy.

Would the cost of that insurance put jobs in jeopardy? I do not think we could get it as cheaply as we are paying out for the same benefits?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Kamloops. Over the last four years I have known him to be a member of Parliament who really cares.

I was happy to hear that he agrees with certain parts of the CPP. Of course there are parts that he does not agree with. When we take the bill to committee we will tinker around to see if we can make it agreeable to everybody.

I would like to question the member on his thought about the increase in CPP causing unemployment. That could be a concern. I have raised the issue of CPP disability before. I raised it with a member of the Reform Party as well.

Currently 300,000 Canadians are receiving CPP disability. Another 50,000 in Quebec are receiving QPP disability. For 1997 that will amount to $10,597 a year or $833.17 a month.

If CPP does not exist in the same way, what would an insurance policy cost to replace those benefits? The whole workforce would have to become involved in it. If they did not have an insurance policy they would not have coverage.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Could the member tell me what kind of disability insurance programs are incorporated into their super RRSP?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary—Nose Hill is getting a lot of partisan politics messed up in the CPP. She is probably not aware of the fact that starting last year one-third of Canada's population was turning 50 at the rate of 500,000 a year.

If CPP is to be there for the upcoming generation we have to make changes to it right now so that they can survive. She has a lot of problems with the return coming out of CPP, but she is only looking at one of three pillars. We have CPP, seniors benefits and the RRSP program which gives an 18 percent tax shelter on income. She is obviously expounding their super RRSP program.

CPP is not only a pension plan but is a disability insurance policy. It is a very comprehensive one and a very good one because it is backed by the Government of Canada. Their super RRSP program is a typical Reform way of looking at things: we will pay them money out of their RRSP program but if they are not able to contribute to it, tough luck.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the member's maiden speech. I would advise him to do a little better research. He should look at what has been done with the Canadian Business Development Bank, for instance. Its mandate has been expanded and it is certainly helping tourism in Canada.

He should also take a look at the Farm Credit Corporation because its mandate has been expanded. Not only does it deal with farmers, but it is now dealing with value added product which is helping the agriculture industry.

He talked in his speech about things that he had not heard the government say. One of the things I noticed was that he did not talk about health care. I would like to get his opinion on health care and what it should be into the third millennium. One-third of Canada's population, 9.8 million people, are now turning 50. There will be 500,000 a year turning 50 each year for the next 20 years.

The health care system is going to be used at a very high rate as this segment of the population ages. I would like to hear what his opinion would be on how we pro-actively answer that problem.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 14th, 1997]

But it's good news.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the overall thrust of this budget has been restoring Canada's fiscal health. The deficit for 1996-97 will be no more than $19 billion; $5.3 billion less than the target of $24.3 billion set in the 1996 budget.

The target for 1997-98 is $17 billion and for 1998-99 it is $9 billion. By 1998-99 the deficit is expected to be 1 per cent of GDP with no new borrowings. On top of that these projections are based on prudent assumptions and include a contingency reserve to cover any unpredictable events.

There is more to this budget than just the figures I have talked about, particularly for the agricultural community. I know the chairman of the standing committee on agriculture is going to be very interested in what I have to say about this. This is the national advantage. It is by far a better way of looking at agriculture than what the Reform Party, heckling me from the other side, has come up with so far.

All stakeholders in our agriculture and agri-food sector stand to gain substantially in net benefits from being included within the larger Canadian federation. Together as a strong and modern unified nation we as an industry are indeed much greater than the mere sum of our individual parts. That is what the Reform regional approach is about.

By being Canadian we have access to a valuable domestic agricultural marketplace serving 30 million people, valued at more than $70 billion per year. While some interprovincial barriers still continue as impediments, over 90 per cent of our agricultural food products flow freely from coast to coast aided by federally developed standards. This is underpinned by the mobility of human technology and by financial resources and a single monetary system.

By being Canadian we all benefit from national regulatory policies which, for example, created and sustained our made in Canada supply management system for dairy, poultry and egg producers. No one province alone would be able to do so. The financial fiscal policies of this government have resulted in a dramatic drop in interest rates. That has saved thousands of dollars in input costs for farmers and the agri-food business in every corner of the country. It is by far a much better system than the tax cuts that are put forward by the Reform Party. National taxation policies which include unique advantages for agriculture are available to all Canadian farmers.

By being Canadian we all gain from Canada's international credibility and influence earned through 129 years of nationhood. Our reputation for the highest quality and reliability is an invaluable asset, something the Reform Party would try to destroy, the respectful manner in which we deal with our customers.

Our unified Team Canada approach to trade missions in dealing with trade disputes has had a strong role for Canada to play in the WTO, the Cairns Group, the Quad Group, the APEC the Commonwealth, the UN and the G-7. In short, worldwide goodwill about Canada gives us the advantage that could not easily be duplicated. By being Canadian we all enjoy substantial economies of scale. This is important for our bargaining clout in dealing with both consumers and competitors.

It is important in running a world class inspection and quarantine system, the cost of which would be prohibitive on a provincial basis. It is important in the field of science and technology where we have the leading edge in research and development facilities distributed nationally according to local natural advantages with all the accumulated knowledge networked to everyone regardless of location.

The 1997 budget funding for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation can be used in support of research into biotechnology and other agricultural sciences. Our national advantage is impossible to quantify but it is hugely important. It is a combination of

synergy, strength, equity and compassion which is the envy of the world, and our government is committed to building it even better.

Budget levels for the key responsibilities of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, research adaptation, safety nets and inspection, were maintained, ensuring the department would be able to continue to meet the needs of the sector. In maintaining spending for these key areas, the 1997 budget responds to the needs of the sector for stability.

The government is working toward a growing, competitive, market oriented agriculture and agri-food industry, one that is profitable, responsive to changing needs of domestic and international customers and less dependent on subsidization; one that contributes to the well-being of all Canadians and the quality of life in rural Canada and one that generates farm financial security, environmental stability and a safe and high quality food supply.

Significant progress has been made toward these goals but more remains to be accomplished. Strong partnerships with all the stakeholders are key to the further success. To this end the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been consulted extensively with all the agri-food sectors in all the regions through a series of round table meetings across the country, a national conference on Canadian excellence in agriculture and agri-food held in Winnipeg in June 1996, and a prebudget meeting with all stakeholders this December. The output of this effort is a practical business plan which portrays the ambitions of our sector as we head into the 21st century and lays out an agenda for action for governments, farmers and farm organizations, agri-food business and other stakeholders as we together strive to achieve our future goals.

Examples of this consultative process between government and agriculture and agri-food sectors that reflect this desire to move together are numerous. It is hard to put a figure on it.

The Canadian adaptation rural and development fund, for instance, is providing $60 million annually to support diversification, value added processing, market development, innovation and job creation. The national biomass ethanol program will help support financing of ethanol plants across the country. This is the fuel of the 21st century. The pesticide management advisory council and economic management advisory committees are being established right now to better foster communication and co-ordination of pest management issues. The Farm Credit Corporation has introduced new programs which will provide long term stability. A national agricultural environment committee, made up of farm leaders, has been tasked with providing the federal government, the federal minister of agriculture, with advice on new policies, research and development and key agricultural environmental indicators. The Canadian Agri-Food Marketing Council will provide strategic sectoral advice on how to make the most of the available market development programs.

I could go on and on with this good news. We must continue to let more and more people know that agriculture and agri-food in Canada accounts for 8.7 per cent of our gross domestic product. Two million Canadians' jobs are dependent both directly and indirectly on the health of the agri-food sector which presently generates $17.5 billion in exports annually. We are going to go over the top of $20 billion by the end of the century.

The Canadian agri-food sector is on the leading edge of highly sophisticated science and technology. Canadian agriculture is a leader in environmental stability. It is one of our base industries.

[Canada Pension Plan, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, among the many myths that the Reform Party has continued to rant and rave about is the supposed 73 per cent increase in the Canada pension plan.

I have been asked by constituents what the actual increase in CPP premiums is to the average taxpayer.

The truth is that the increase in CPP premiums, together with the reduction in EI premiums, will by the year 2006 result in an additional cost of little more than $125 annually, or 35 cents per day.

Everyone wonders why Reform is making such a fuss over nothing if this is all it will cost to solve the problems with the CPP and put it back on strong financial footing.

All I can say is Reform members are not interested in the facts. All they are interested in is the politics of opportunism, the politics of envy and greed.

The Liberal government is committed to saving the CPP for future generations.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

Yes, I do. If you want to listen, you will understand. The argument appears to be based on the idea that by repealing paragraph 46(b) of the existing Canadian Wheat Board Act that we are repealing the legislative authority for the order in council which authorizes free interprovincial trade in feed grains in the designated areas. Consequently that order in council would be null and void. This is not true and I will try to explain now why.

The order in council has nothing to do with that paragraph of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is not even mentioned. Several other provisions in the act are cited. It is as necessary, legislative authority, but not paragraph 46(b); therefore there is no substance to the suggestion that repealing this paragraph somehow undercuts the order in council.

If members do not want to take my word for it they can look it up in the SOR/93-486 on pages 3872 and 3873 of the Canada Gazette Part II, Volume 127, Number 20.

Even if the order in council did rely on paragraph 46, it would still be valid unless it were inconsistent with the new act as amended. Since this is not the case, the order in council is not in jeopardy.

Again I quote the minister's own words: "It is not now and has never been the intention of the Government of Canada to restrict trade in the domestic feed grain market which was liberalized in 1974".

This simple point is adamantly clear from the very wording of the questions that are being asked in this winter producer vote about barley marketing. The continuing existence of the domestic feed market is written right into the words on the ballot.

I hope this ends this discussion, but if it does not and if a reasonable doubt about this issue surfaces during the standing committee's detailed study on Bill C-72, the minister has already assured the sector that he would be happy to receive the committee's advice as to what its members believe should be done to make the point even clearer.

The other matter I would like to raise is the legislation introduced last November to amend the Canada Labour Code. Grain exports are very important to Canada in earning foreign exchange. These sales are of course dependent on our ability to deliver high quality grain consistently on time.

Most of the time we have been able to do this but there have been several occasions when work stoppages at western ports have significantly curtailed grain exports. Since 1972, for instance, there have been 12 work stoppages that have adversely affected grain exports, although only on 3 of these occasions has the handling of grain been the cause of the stoppages. The other 9 involved longshore operations.

The Minister of Labour last November introduced into this House legislation to modernize the Canadian Labour Code, including amendments to the industrial relations section to clarify the rights and the obligations of the parties during a work stoppage. The amendments benefit the agriculture and agri-food sector by promoting the continued movement of grain to market and reducing the cost of work stoppages to farmers.

In all, Canadian ports engaged in longshoring and other ports activities as tugboats and mooring for instance would be required to continue providing services to grain vessels if they become involved in a work stoppage. Grain handlers and their employers retain the right to strike and lock-out. I am pleased that this legislation will help ensure that farmers can get their grain to the market in the event of work stoppages at Canadian ports.

The agriculture and agri-food sector is one of the most significant sectors of the Canadian economy. If we continue to work co-operatively with this sector to improve the way that we operate, I am confident that this sector will generate more growth, more

wealth, more trade, more jobs and more innovation for all Canadians. There can be no doubt that we are living in an era of unprecedented change, change that is occurring at a faster rate than we have ever experienced before. That change is driven in part by a shrinking world brought about by new world trade regulations and new world trading opportunities.

For 61 years the Canadian Wheat Board has been one of the cornerstones of our successes in the agricultural industry. With the changes that we have introduced to build on that success, providing the board with more modern governances and in its accountability to farmers and more flexibility and being responsive to that, farmers will be empowered with more to say in their marketing system, more power to take on the very real challenges and opportunities that lie before us.

The amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that we are currently debating and the changes to the Canadian Labour Code to improving grain handling in the western coast ports will help keep Canada on course into the next millennium.