Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the $2.2 billion transfer that took place in 1991 would still be possible today, despite the announcement made by the minister yesterday?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. There was a loophole in the legislation, and yesterday, with my announcement, it was plugged.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance confirm that the action he took yesterday regarding this problem of tax evasion did not plug the loophole, did not prevent money from being taken out of the country, but, on the contrary, only made things easier than in 1991, because now, with what the Minister of Finance has done, trusts will no longer have to pull a December 23 and obtain special authorization in order to be allowed the huge privilege of taking money out of Canada tax free?
(1420)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, this has nothing to do with trusts. I was very clear in the 1995 budget; we have eliminated all tax advantages for family trusts. The question is how to treat capital gains when someone, whether a trust, an individual or a corporation, wishes to leave the country.
This was precisely the problem dealt with yesterday. In the past, it was not necessary, in certain cases, on leaving the country, to pay tax on gains that had accrued. As I said in yesterday's announcement, emigrants are now required to pay tax on capital gains or give us a security in order to ensure that Canada will receive its fair share.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this is a problem involving trusts and other financial vehicles as well, but the minister cannot say that he has removed all advantages for trusts in his last budget. This is effective 1999, so between now and then, they have the same advantages they had before. I take pleasure in correcting the minister on this point.
When the Minister of Finance says that an emigrant will give securities, he is relying on the signature of a notice of waiver, because sufficient security, under the Income Tax Act, usually takes the form of a notice of waiver. That is the basis on which he says that the taxes will eventually be paid to Canada.
Will the minister confirm that the notice of waiver on which he is pinning his hopes of recovering the taxes due Revenue Canada at some future date has no legal value, but merely a moral one, as the deputy minister of Revenue Canada, Pierre Gravelle, yesterday told the public accounts committee?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. If there is the slightest risk the Canadian government will not be paid its fair share of taxes, we will require a lot more than a notice of waiver. We will require a bond, a debenture, a valid security for ensuring that the taxes will be paid.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the usual practice at this time, when assets are being transferred and we want to make sure that the trustee does not evade taxes, is that a notice of quit claim is required. That is the only guarantee we require at present, and it has no value in international law and tax conventions. That is the reality.
Yesterday, contrary to what he has claimed, the Minister of Finance did not close up the tax loophole for family trusts. On the contrary, he announced that the interpretation of December 23, 1991, which allowed the tax-free transfer to the United States of a two billion dollar trust will, in future, be government policy for all of the assets of millionaires and billionaires.
Will the minister confirm that, by extending the concept of taxable Canadian assets to Canadian residents, as he did yesterday in his ministerial statement, he has given his blessing to the scandal of 1991, which now becomes the basis of his taxation policy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is having a little trouble getting the point. As I have just said, and as I said clearly in my speech of yesterday, the security we intend to require will be far more than a quit claim, if there is any risk whatsoever of the individual's not paying his fair share of Canadian taxes. It is very clear, and I said so in my speech, that it
could take the form of a debenture, a bond, but we will insist upon the security if necessary.
Second, there was a loophole in the legislation in 1991. The legislation was applied as it stood, but there was a loophole.
(1425)
That loophole was blocked yesterday. We have closed up a great many loopholes, and will continue to do so, because it is our objective to have Canadians pay their fair share of the taxes owing to the government.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see the minister is in a co-operative mood today. If I have understood correctly-and we will see in the bill that will be introduced-he intends to require firm monetary commitments, real binding commitments. That is what we have been asking him to do since the beginning, so we are pleased today that he has just now given us at least part of an answer.
Since he is in a co-operative mood, could he respond to other requests from the official opposition concerning the case of interest to us here? First of all, contrary to what he said yesterday in his ministerial statement, can he limit the use of the TCAs, taxable Canadian assets, solely to non-residents? Second- something he has not wanted to do from the start-could he demand that there be a complete investigation of the 1991 case, which is still somewhat unclear, and which is still an outrageous scandal for Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no scandal, The auditor general himself has said that there was no scandal of any kind, that the integrity of the public servants concerned was not in question.
The auditor general himself, whom the hon. member has quoted on numerous occasions, has said that there was no scandal.
[English]
It is quite important that we understand what has happened here. There was a law in place in 1991, of which certain taxpayers took advantage. The government decided there was a loophole in the law which should be closed.
We gave the matter to a parliamentary committee which made a series of recommendations. Within a month of those recommendations we stood up in this House of Commons and closed that loophole.
Let us understand what the opposition is asking. Because it refuses to deal with the substance of the issue, it wants to make a lot of unsubstantiated charges. Also, opposition members are asking us to act retroactively.
They are asking us to say to the world that Canada's laws do not stand, that we cannot count on them. They would destroy the economy of this country, and we will not do it.
The minister has committed so many mistakes, from interference in the Somalia inquiry to personal contracts for political friends, bungling the downsizing of the forces, bungling the base closures, from budget overruns to mismanagement of morale, that nothing the Somalia inquiry finds or the Prime Minister says can rehabilitate this minister.
Does the government believe that it is in the national interest to leave a lame duck minister in charge of the Canadian military?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the point was made yesterday by the Prime Minister that what we are seeing here is the politicizing of the entire hearing process dealing with our deployment to Somalia.
This government has tried to do the right thing. We proposed an inquiry. We created the inquiry. We want the inquiry to do its job. We will hold to that line.
Obviously the leader of the Reform Party does not like those answers, but he is going to get those answers until the inquiry reports.
He says there is one thing that cannot be avoided and that there is a problem. I would say that we could use the same language about him and his party. There is one thing his party cannot avoid. The fact is there is a problem with leadership; it is a problem with his leadership.
(1430)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and now the minister keep repeating the same old thing, let the inquiry do its work. We agree.
Canadians also want the Prime Minister to do some work. The Prime Minister says do not interfere with the inquiry. The minister says the same thing. At the same time, this minister repeatedly protects and endorses General Boyle, one of the key figures being investigated by that inquiry. The government cannot have it both ways.
If the government is serious about letting the inquiry do its work, why does it not instruct the Minister of National Defence to withdraw his protection and endorsation of General Boyle?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the public is finding it quite odd that the Reform Party, day in and day out, is going at this issue. It is, in effect, undermining the integrity of the inquiry process.
Canadians want constructive suggestions about the economy, about national unity, about pension reform, about agriculture, about a host of other issues that affect them in their daily lives.
What do we have here? We have a party that ostensibly supported the inquiry process but has done everything, by its behaviour in the House of Commons, to undermine it. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this answer from a minister who attempted to influence who sat on the inquiry, who tolerates document tampering before the inquiry and who himself makes statements of endorsation about General Boyle even before he gets off the stand at the inquiry. Who is interfering with the inquiry?
We hear that the government is looking for an election slogan. We have one from a letter from a retired soldier: ``Canadians deserve better''. Our soldiers have been saddled with a lame duck minister and chief of defence staff.
How long is it going to take the government to acknowledge that Canadians deserve better leadership at the top of the Canadian military?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really have tried to avoid politics as much as possible in this whole matter.
Canadians want to find the truth regarding what happened with our deployment to Somalia. They want the commission to do its work.
The leader of the Reform Party talks about Canadians deserving better from the government. Canadians deserve better from the opposition. They deserve an opposition that asks constructive, intelligent questions that contribute to the national policy debate, not to come here every day and try to make partisan political interjections on the facts not only of the inquiry but of the Canadian military itself.
As the minister knows, our country's major defence industry companies are concentrated in Quebec. These include Expro, Bell Helicopter, SNC and Oerlikon. It is also a fact that, without government support, up to 10,000 jobs will disappear in this sector over the next five years.
Considering that 56 per cent of the aerospace industry is located in Quebec, and that, for ten years now, Quebec has been receiving $115 million annually under the existing program, will the minister pledge to maintain the same level of funding for Quebec under the technology partnerships program?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning that federal support to Quebec's aerospace industry has been very significant.
Indeed, it is the Government of Canada that established technology centres in the Montreal region. It is also the Government of Canada that set up the base on which was built the industry in Montreal. And now, we are committed to continue supporting Montreal's technology sector.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we take note of the fact that the minister will have to set aside $115 million for Quebec.
I have a supplementary. Does the minister know that the English version of his document on the technology partnership program points out that funding will be exclusively for feasibility studies, while this information is lacking in the French version-
(1435)
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member that he must not use props when putting his questions. The Minister of Industry has the floor.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had reviewed Montreal's economic situation, he would know that it is those sectors relying on the political framework, and the industry sectors supported by the government of Canada that do well, namely the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, telecommunication and aerospace industries.
By contrast, the sectors that depend on the government of Quebec are doing very badly.
[English]
Despite what the Liberals think, most military personnel who served in Somalia served with distinction and should be recognized for their often stellar performance.
The Prime Minister and the defence minister continue to support General Boyle but refuse to support the rank and file in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Will the defence minister move his support from General Boyle to our Somalia veterans and strike and issue a Somalia medal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the majority of work that was done in Somalia by our forces was exceptionally good. However, a serious problem has been identified and it is being dealt with by the commission.
This government feels it would be inappropriate to issue such a medal at this time. Those people who will be deserving of a medal will get their medal in due course. However, I think we owe it to the commission and to a sense of fair play and justice to allow the commission to do its work before we proceed on any other matter.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government's failure to issue a Somalia medal shows its complete disregard for morale in the Canadian Armed Forces
The Prime Minister is rewarding his bad apples, General Boyle and the defence minister, when they do not deserve it. Through his lack of leadership, the Prime Minister has caused morale in the forces to suffer.
When will the government shift its obsessive and misguided support for the defence minister and General Boyle to recognize armed forces personnel who served in Somalia on Canada's behalf?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister and I have dealt with most of these points in recent days.
The hon. member is often talking about the morale in the armed forces. There is no question that when people see television or newspaper reports of the inflammatory rhetoric that comes from the opposition day in and day out, that obviously affects morale.
This is a difficult time for the armed forces. It is time for everyone to pull together and allow justice to take its course. I remind the hon. member, although he should know, a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, that morale does not come only from leadership. Morale comes from a sense of worth, a sense of mission and a sense of duty to the country.
I have every confidence in the men and women of the armed forces, despite the problems we are facing, that they feel they are getting that sense of worth, that they have a sense of mission and that they are serving with distinction despite all these problems.
My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In Quebec, 54 per cent of the positions in the federal public service are bilingual, to serve an anglophone minority that represents 10 per cent of the population. Why are francophones in Ontario and New Brunswick not entitled to the same quality of service in their language?
(1440)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition member missed the main point of the report. The main point is that the position of official languages in Canada is improving steadily, and the report indicates that progress is continuing in nearly all areas, including service to the public, language of work and equitable representation of francophones and anglophones in the Public Service.
In Quebec, the proportion of anglophones and allophones is nearly 20 per cent, and consequently we have a proportionate number of bilingual public servants which reflects the needs of the province.
In the other provinces, the percentages are much lower, and consequently the number of bilingual public servants is lower but adequate to existing needs.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government will not give francophones in the rest of Canada the same services as anglophones in Quebec. How can the President of the Treasury Board be a party to such discrimination, being a francophone himself?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not true there is discrimination against francophones. About 63,000 positions in the Public Service have been designated bilingual. The
total percentage of francophone public servants in the Public Service is 27 per cent, while the proportion of francophones in the general population is 24.9 per cent. So there is no discrimination as far as numbers are concerned.
I would also like to point out that if there is a problem, it is due to the fact that in Quebec, the proportion of anglophone public servants is only 5 per cent, while anglophones represent 13 per cent of the population. We will make every effort to correct this imbalance as we have done in the case of francophone communities outside Quebec.
Over the last six months the Minister of Canadian Heritage has announced spending of $20 million on Liberal propaganda, $23 million on flags, $16 million on Radio Canada, and $100 million on a TV production fund. Not one penny of the money appears in the minister's detailed budget but it does add up to a grand total of $159 million.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage defend $140 million GST on books while spending $159 million in unbudgeted, borrowed money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I happy that the member has raised the issue of spending for flags. Over past months I have received a number of requests from across the country for flags. In particular, I received from the constituency office of Jim Gouk-
The Speaker: I ask hon. members not to refer to other members by their name.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have received faxes from the office of the member for Red Deer looking for flags-
(1445 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Earlier in the question period I asked that members not use props. Of course, we are going to be referring to material which is written. I would ask you not to use the paper to wave it around or to use it as a prop. I would appreciate you doing that. I will return to the hon. Deputy Prime Minister for a brief response.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, there are further faxes from the member for Port Moody, British Columbia and further faxes from the member for Capilano-Howe Sound.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Ms. Copps: Faxes, Mr. Speaker, from a number of members of the Reform Party who obviously believe that the flag program is a popular and useful program.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the minister's point.
Is she saying that Reform members should not be acting on behalf of their constituents when they come into their offices? She is simply trying to deflect the fact that when she was told that her Liberal propaganda office was going to cost $20 million, she said: ``Oh, that's only a cup of coffee for every Canadian''. That is a typical Liberal answer.
How can the minister justify this spending, wrapping herself in the flag and doing all of these things while at the same time leaving the tax, the GST, on books?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party obviously has a very strong affiliation with the flag program as well because in his constituency over 1,000 people have called the government concerning this most popular program ever.
Over the last seven months the government has received over three million calls. Those same individuals in the Reform Party who stand day after day in the House of Commons complaining about the flag program have no shame in demanding that they receive flags for their constituents. Unfortunately for the Reform Party they cannot have it both ways.
The embezzlement scandal at Valcartier continues to cause a stir. The lead witness in the inquiry into this matter contends that Public Works and Government Services Canada simply ignored schemes to bypass the tendering process. Clearly, the military police investigation was not very thorough. While this has been a widespread practice for at least 15 years, only 4 charges have been laid.
Given the very serious nature of the allegations and since this form of corruption is apparently commonplace in several other bases across the country, will the minister launch an independent inquiry into this other scandal?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, regarding the allegations the hon. member referred to, of course it is understood that, if certain things are not as they should be, the authorities are prepared to investigate as required.
As far as the news report he mentioned is concerned, I have asked my officials to fill me in on what happened. I am told that a contract that could be extended for more than one year was awarded. During the first year of the contract, additional work was requested and performed. Later, the department asked for an explanation for this work and an explanation was provided. The work had to be paid for since it had been done; there was no choice.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): This does not sound very reassuring, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers have the right to know how their money is used.
My question is for the Minister of Defence. Does the minister not realize that, by not calling an independent inquiry into this matter, he is lacking transparency and indirectly condoning a fraudulent scheme which, I remind him, is said to be widespread in several other bases, costing taxpayers in Quebec and Canada a fortune?
(1450 )
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, we are obviously aware of what has been going on there and disciplinary action has been taken. Certain charges have been laid and other charges may be laid.
The way to deal with a problem, no matter how regrettable, is to allow the normal course of justice to go on. Those people who have committed an offence will be dealt with appropriately.
As to the allegation about this series of events which have gone on at Base Val Cartier being prevalent across the country, I would invite the hon. member to give us evidence of that. Is this just wild speculation? If he has evidence then he has an obligation to bring it forward to me or to others so that we can investigate it.
The final post-election statement on the recent Armenian presidential elections concluded that very serious breaches in the election laws took place affecting the outcome. Over 250 opposition members, including eight members of Parliament, have been arrested.
Can the minister assure the House that the government will review its policy toward Armenia to guarantee the protection of the democratic process and the physical safety and human rights of Armenian citizens?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Don Valley North for bringing to the attention of the House a serious breach in election law that took in Armenia.
Canada is one of the few countries that actually sent observers as part of the OSCE team. We have now undertaken to represent to the OSCE that there should be a full scale assessment given to the government of Armenia and ask it for a clear answer to the criticisms of that breach of the process.
We have also conveyed directly to the Armenian ambassador here our very deep concern about the breach of the rights of certain people in the assembly in Armenia and we hope to have a response from that government soon. If we do not get a response I can assure the hon. member and other members of the House that we will take all the actions necessary to make sure the democratic process is respected in that country.
I realize that the broken GST promise has probably harmed her future leadership bid, but does she really think that taxpayers would prefer cutting in health, education and other priority areas while spending moneys on a flag program?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member did not express that view when on March 25 and on several other dates the member for Fraser Valley East contacted my office so that I might send the flags out to his constituents.
Mr. Abbott: What a joke.
Ms. Copps: The fact is flags certainly will not save a country, but it is also true that in this time when our country was taken to the brink it is important that we find public expressions of our connection to our country.
The reason that three million Canadians have called the 1-888-Fly Flag line is because they obviously believe this is a government program that has some merit.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, flags are symbolic and this $23 million giveaway is symbolic too. It symbolizes a failed national unity strategy. It symbolizes the waste of other people's money that this minister seems to regard as her birthright. It symbolizes the arrogance of thinking that patriotism can be bought. It symbolizes the Liberal Party which uses taxpayers' money for crass pre-election spending.
How many more flags will the heritage minister wrap herself in to disguise the fact that this government simply does not have a national unity plan?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that the flag program is not wanted by Canadians. Perhaps the member can explain to the House why on March 25, March 27, March 14, March 20, March 21, April 3, April 4-
(1455)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The relentless fight against inflation has been the Bank of Canada's policy since 1988, and this goal set by the former governor expires at the end of 1998. So talks on the monetary policy to be adopted for the next decade are now being held.
Could the Minister of Finance specify his government's position with regard to the inflation fighting strategy soon to be adopted by the Bank of Canada for the years 1998 to 2008?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly have talks with the Bank of Canada when the time comes. It would be premature at this stage to comment. I would, however, like to make a slight correction: the 1 to 3 per cent goal valid until 1998 was set by myself and the current Governor of the Bank of Canada when we came to office in 1993-94.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today's interest rates are low but the question is: Will they stay low? Now that we know the disastrous impact a zero inflation monetary policy can have on employment, will the Minister of Finance see to it that the Bank of Canada does not unduly restrict the money supply as soon as inflation raises its head?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because he raises a very important point. I can tell him that the 1 to 3 per cent range set by the government and the Bank of Canada remains our goal at this time.
Canada paid dearly, perhaps too dearly, in the fight against inflation in the early 1990s. Now that our inflation rate is very low, it is an asset we want to keep. Having said that, I think the range set jointly by the Bank of Canada and the government is appropriate for now.
The Prime Minister promised that senior benefits would not be reduced. Budget documents show that the removal of age and pension tax credits will in fact reduce seniors' income.
Who should Canadian seniors believe: the Prime Minister or the budget documents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time the new seniors' benefit was set out it was made very clear that current seniors would be protected, that the new benefit plan would come into effect only in the year 2000 and at that point seniors would have the ability to choose which of the two plans was best for them.
There may well be changes in the tax act that are going to affect all Canadians. Those changes will occur. However, let us be very clear. The Prime Minister said that current seniors would be protected and current seniors have been protected.
It is very important that we listen to what the Prime Minister said because opposite him is the Reform Party which has made it very clear that it would eviscerate the Canada pension plan, the OAS and the GIS. That is why what the Prime Minister said is so important.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we can be sure of: today's extreme Reform policies will be Liberal policy tomorrow. Of that we can be sure.
(1500 )
I know Canadian seniors have a bit of a worry with the present government which promised them the moon before the last election. I would like the minister to seriously consider this: The clawback provisions of the seniors benefit affect low income seniors the most and by far the hardest. Income of up to $16,000 is clawed back at a rate of 50 per cent, but income between $16,000 and $25,000 is not clawed back at all. It makes absolutely no sense and it is-
The Speaker: Would the hon. member please come to the question.
Mr. McClelland: The Prime Minister promised protection; the government is not delivering it. Will the minister go back to the books, revise that portion of the provisions of the clawback and make if fair to seniors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let it be very clear that what we have done is ensure that low income and middle income seniors will be protected. It is true that at the upper end certain seniors may receive less. That has been done in order to make the program sustainable and to make sure that low income seniors are taken care of.
However, I think a far more significant thing has been said here today in this House. A member of the third party has finally admitted that which all Canadians know: whether it is health policy, pension policy, or another way in which they approach society, theirs is a party of extremists. It is a party that refuses to take the middle course. It is a party that says extremism is a virtue.
Nowhere in this country will Canadians allow the forces of the far right to dominate.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matching investment initiative is a very creative way in which my department works with the private sector in increasing the total pool of funds available for agri-food R and D in this country.
In the 1995-96 fiscal year, the first year of the program, it was virtually fully subscribed with a total of $24 million being invested in new agri-food research and development activities. So far in 1996-97, just in the first quarter of this fiscal year, we have invested a total of more than $30 million in matched funds under this initiative.
I am confident it will be fully subscribed doing good work from Newfoundland to British Columbia in the interests of agriculture and agri-food in Canada.
As far as I know this government has never repudiated the endorsement of the Brundtland commission that was given by a previous government.
A tremendous environmental effect will be felt as a result of the rail line abandonments which are now proceeding as a result of the government's policy with respect to transportation. We are going to see more trucks on the road. We are going to see a lot of other environmental effects.
Has the Minister of the Environment commissioned an environmental assessment of this major policy decision? Pursuant to the recommendations of the Brundtland commission and a Canadian endorsement thereof, has the Minister of the Environment commissioned that kind of assessment? Will he make a representation to his colleague the Minister of Transport to put a stop to these rail line abandonments until we have had that kind of environmental assessment?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not yet.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-55 and hopefully be done with it. If this is the case, we will resume the debate on Bill C-58, which concerns marine transportation, before moving on to Bill C-29.
[English]
On Monday we will be calling Bill C-26, the oceans bill. After that, we would like to do report stage and third reading of Bill C-54, the extraterritorial measures bill, and second reading of the Canada-Israel trade agreement bill that was introduced this morning.
We would then like to get Bill C-60, the food inspection bill into committee. In this regard, I would like to give notice to the House that it is the intention of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
to propose that Bill C-60 be referred to committee before second reading.
We would then turn to the Indian and northern affairs bills, Bill C-6 and Bill C-50, followed by Bill C-49 regarding administrative tribunals, and Bill C-47 respecting reproductive technologies.