Alex Shepherd

[Government Services, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a matter of great concern to the electorate. That is the quality of service that is delivered to the taxpayers by government.

Many of our civil servants are hard working, dedicated people. However, I have discovered many incidents of poor attitude and indeed the inability to deliver personal services in many departments of government.

A recent freeze on public sector wages has been imposed on government employees. This freeze is, at the choice of the public service, being borne by the junior employees; that is to say incremental increases have been curtailed. As a consequence the freeze on mid-line management is minimal as it would only forgo modest cost of living increases.

As it is generally the more junior ranks that deal with the public, I fear that this policy will further erode motivation and reduce service. This is occurring at a time when the private sector is embracing concepts like total quality management.

I believe that it is time the public sector did the same.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. We seem to be talking about simplicity, making the system simple. Like him, as an accountant preparing tax returns over the years it has been my observation that the problem with the system is not that it is complex. The real problem is that we keep changing it every year. The complexity and the reason people do not understand it is that it changes year after year. The reality is we should stop fiddling with it.

Could the hon. member comment on why he wants to continually fiddle with the system and make it more complex so that people will not understand it next year either?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I will comment on possibly two aspects.

First he talked about punishing success. I note the income tax system currently has approximately three rates: for those incomes under $25,000, $65,000 and over $65,000. Over $65,000 it hits roughly 45 per cent. Depending on what provinces do it could get up to 51 per cent.

That system has been in existence in Canada for 10 or 15 years. The rates on higher incomes have been higher in the past than they are today. I have not seen a whole outflow of people leaving the country because of this policy. Could the member comment on that aspect?

The second one is the comment about the delivery system. We are using the income tax system to deliver social policy or whatever. Could the member comment on what is a successful system to deliver social benefits? I think of child care expenses, GST rebates and so forth. It seems to me that if we want to simplify government maybe we should be focusing on the

income tax system as a method of delivery. Could the member talk about that aspect?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments.

We are discussing tax policy today and some of that gets fairly dry after a while. I would like to focus on the aspect of what tax policy means in a country like Canada. As the member suggested, I was preparing my tax return just yesterday as well, unfortunately having waited to the last minute.

When I was preparing my return, I was focusing on the fact that everybody else in this country was doing the same thing, that people who have problems with child care expenses and so forth were the same people in Newfoundland and in British Columbia.

It is very important for a country to have a focus. It may not be a happy one that we have on filing our tax return but still it is a focus on what unites us as a nation.

I am interested in some of the comments by the member. One thing was on some of his statistics on wealth creation and concentration in Canada. I heard those very same figures just yesterday and I do not believe them either.

I wonder if the member could focus on why he would not believe in the figures and then build a whole argument based on them.

He was concerned about simplification in the system and I agree that this is one thing we have to do. I do not necessarily believe in a flat rate system but I do think we can make it a little simpler.

I note that yesterday people in the province of Quebec had to file two tax returns, not just one. I wonder if he would reflect on the fact that it is making things complicated for the people of Quebec to have to file two tax returns.

I would like to ask him a question on harmonization. I note that with the GST the province of Quebec attempted to harmonize with the GST but not very effectively. I wonder if he could focus on his commitment to harmonize the GST in Quebec.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the provisions the Reform members are making today.

One is that the system is complex and indeed it is complex. Our society over the years has become more complex and that is a fact of life.

One of my observations on the income tax system has been not so much that it is complex, but I think some of the things that the members have been drawing attention to is the fact that we keep changing it all the time. In fact 1972 was a major time of amendment and reform to the income tax system, as was the early eighties. Now members are proposing another change to the system. Every time we change the system it means we do not understand it any more. It takes us another 10 or 15 years to understand the system.

I would like to suggest to the member that possibly a more beneficial method is just to leave the system partially alone. We need to change some things where some are getting better benefits out of the system than others.

I would like the member to deal with another aspect which is the main part of my question. With the flat tax Reform Party members are proposing today, how can they justify the shift in tax burden from upper income groups to the middle class?

Essentially the mathematics are very simple. If we have to collect x number of dollars from the system we are going to have to collect it from various aspects of our tax system. Right now our tax system is progressive. By definition it has to follow that with the flat tax they are proposing today there is a reallocation of tax burden from the upper income group to the middle class. Could the hon. member explain that?

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Of course I do not know if the math in Quebec is different from that in the rest of Canada. It appears that perhaps it is.

I do not know how it balances things from one hand to the other. It seems that it lives in a different world than we do. It must be a great place to be, it must be a tremendous fairy land in some ways where you can have your cake and eat it too constantly. I find that very hard to believe. I think we have to have a more honest approach to these problems. I am sure farmers in all of Canada want a more honest approach.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. I am as sure as we breathe here today that Agriculture Canada is undertaking research and development. The hon. member is probably correct in the sense that we cannot

increase funding and many aspects of our government have been curtailed. That is just the way it is.

I can assure the member that research and development continues as we breathe today. Indeed I find it very hard to accept this concept of lack of initiative. As we stand here the minister of agriculture is in southeast Asia promoting new markets for agriculture in Canada. It seems unbelievable that the member would think this way.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to speak against the motion by the hon. member for Québec-Est.

Part of that motion talks about the government's lack of action in the agricultural sector. I find this an insult to our agricultural sector. I do not believe that farmers have the intention of coming here with their hands out looking for favours from our government.

I would like to talk about my riding, the riding of Durham, which is a large agricultural sector. It includes Uxbridge, Scugog township, Bowmanville and Orono. These places are well known for their agricultural background and indeed not only in the riding but throughout Canada. They show their cattle at the local royal agricultural fair and compete with some farmers from Quebec.

In my riding agriculture is the second largest industry, second only to General Motors.

My years of living with these people and acting as an adviser to them and farming myself has taught me of their great independence and integrity. They do not depend on government to run their local every day operations. Today I am sure that many are out on the land cultivating and preparing for their spring crops.

What is the role of government and how does it interact with our farming community? What has the government actually done to foster this development?

I would like to talk about three basic areas. One is trade. As some will know, we have just recently culminated our trade negotiations in GATT in which we have had a change in our system from the supply management system to a tariffication system. We spent a great many days and hours in this House debating these negotiations. Indeed, our agriculture department has been involved on an hourly basis dealing with this.

This even continues after the culmination of GATT as we try to get side agreements with the Americans dealing with some of our problems with durum wheat and so forth. In fact, the government has been committed to representing the interests of farmers. I can assure members that the farmers in my riding that I have talked to are indeed happy and proud that our government has stood up for their interests. They realize they did not get everything they wanted from the GATT negotiations.

Having said that, I go back to my original premise. They are proud and independent people. They look at the GATT negotiations and the new trade opportunities as great challenges for Canadian farmers. They look at things like NAFTA and new markets created both in the United States and now in Mexico.

Only last week a number of farmers attended at my office. Their promotion was not that they were upset with the actions of the government, indeed not. They wanted to attend a trade negotiation in South America. They wanted to find out more about bean farmers in South America. I am happy to say that I transferred those comments to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who is considering this.

Another of these farmers had realized the great opportunities presented by the North American market and developed a food processing plant. Many of the farmers in the area got together to support this. This production facility which basically fast freezes vegetables ships 100 per cent of its output into the American market. These are great opportunities that our farmers are realizing.

I would like to speak of another area to do with research and development and our government's commitment to Canadian farmers in the areas of research and development. Our ability to innovate depends on a commitment to research. Agri-food research has produced some exceptional economic gains for Canada.

Perhaps the best example is the development of canola. From humble origins as rapeseed grown during the Second World War to produce a marine lubricant, canola has become one of our most important export crops worth almost a billion dollars.

The Cinderella story of canola is well known but it is still worth noting that researchers at Agri-Food Canada used selective breeding to reduce or eliminate undesirable aspects of the oil and produced a high quality oil substitute for human consumption.

There are many other good examples of innovative thinking in agri-research. For instance the research centre in Lennoxville, Quebec has adapted a technology that helps detect a generic mutation in pork that reduces quality. This technology will help pork producers sell their products into lucrative markets but also very selective markets in Asia.

I should interject at this point to note that as we stand here the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in southeast Asia promoting new markets for Canadian agricultural producers. I am proud to say that I have taken some of those initiatives to heart in my own riding and suggested to some of our dairy producers who export cattle around the world that they should also be focusing on southeast Asia.

Furthermore, I would like to mention that CIDA has an agricultural dairy operation testing in southern China at this very moment. We hope that some of the benefits that will flow

out of that are increased cattle production and shipment to China.

Carrying on with research and development, the Saskatoon Research Centre has developed a new type of sunflower called sunola that is heat and drought resistant. This crop can be grown further north than regular sunflowers and produces a healthier oil. Contract production began in Saskatchewan in 1993 on about 100,000 acres.

The department is also a major player in the development and application of biotechnologies like natural pest controls for the improvement of agriculture and agri-food products.

In these times of fiscal restraint expanding our budget for agri-food R and D is just not possible. But the minister has made a firm commitment to maintain current research funding levels by absorbing administrative costs in other parts of his department.

At the same time the department is ensuring that research priorities are driven by market opportunities. Better focused R and D is critical to global competitiveness and economic growth. It is now increasingly important for us to develop low cost processes and the new products we need to capture new markets. The future holds great opportunities and potential gains for biotechnology and from value added non-food products such as ethanol.

Canada is not alone in this field. Our agri-food sector has a lot of competitors. While Canada has a strong record on public investment and R and D our competitors invest more overall, that is public and private sector research and development, than we do.

The main challenges the government faces are to keep R and D funding at least at current levels to ensure that research priorities are driven by market opportunities, to stimulate industry investment, to look into ways of increasing the accessibility of venture capital for new products and development, to ensure that the right technologies get to the right people as quickly as possible.

R and D unlike other expenditures cannot be turned off like a tap. It requires careful planning. Because of inadequate support for research in the past, Canada has already missed the advantages of leadership in some areas. They will change policies that act as disincentives to the private sector in investment in agri-food technologies.

I would like to go on to a further section and that is to deal with our taxation policies. In Canada we have a very favourable tax policy toward farmers. It is called cash basis accounting. It means that you can buy cattle and so forth and write them off for tax purposes. This has existed in Canada and indeed Quebec for many years. It allows our farmers to build up big inventories of cattle and livestock without paying any income tax. This program of course is being continued by our government.

I look also toward the last budget. There was much talk about losing the $500,000 exemption for farmers. I am proud to say that our finance minister has listened very well to the needs and concerns of farmers and kept this in place.

I note also that we are debating through the finance committee, of which I am a member, the GST. One of our major concerns is to reduce and to avoid taxing farmers and try to make that tax simpler for farmers so that they do not have to get involved with the accounting and so forth for it.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, almost everything the government has done has been for the best interest in advancing the best interests of farmers.

I would like to go back to where I started and that is that this motion is inconsistent and makes farmers feel they have to be dependent on government for everything. This is just not the case and it is unworthy of Canadian farmers.

[Canada Pension Plan, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Currently if a proprietorship or partnership incorporates during the year Canada pension plan premiums start anew. Employees are subject to a refund of Canada pension plan premiums on filing their income tax returns. Small incorporated businesses are not eligible for such an overpayment.

Will the minister address this inequity which results in a form of indirect taxation on small and medium sized businesses as well as acts as a hindrance to business formation?

[Migrant Workers, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the township of Uxbridge is a largely rural municipality in my riding. The municipality is currently being asked to rezone land to allow for an influx of migrant workers in order to harvest 1994 crops.

These migrant workers are brought to our country under a program administered by the Canada Employment Commission. In the case of Ontario for the 1993 season this program was responsible for the importation of over 9,000 workers.

Many farm organizations claim that they need this workforce to address the seasonality of their industry. I note that many of our industries have seasonal fluctuations such as construction and tourism and that these industries do not require the importation of labour. Others question the reluctance of Canadians to perform this type of work.

I wonder with our current high levels of unemployment and social assistance whether farm organizations and the Canada Employment Commission could review this process with a view to hiring Canadians.