House of Commons Hansard #80 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
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.
Sheila Copps Liberal Hamilton East, ON
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.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
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?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
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-
Richard Bélisle Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
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?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
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.
Richard Bélisle Bloc La Prairie, QC
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?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
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.
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, in his reply to the speech from the throne the Prime Minister promised seniors that the OAS and GIS payments which they receive would not be reduced. However, budget documents show that some seniors will pay at least $1,200 more per year in taxes.
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?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
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.
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
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.
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 BudgetOral Question Period
The Speaker
Would the hon. member please come to the question.
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
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?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
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.
Murray Calder Liberal Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, last year the minister of agriculture introduced the matching investment initiative program for agricultural research which is vital to the continued growth of this country's agri-food sector. After a year of operation does the program have the support and participation of industry? Are the funds being shared across Canada?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
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.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
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?
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
Colleagues, I would like to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Chuck Furey, Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the government has on the agenda for the coming week.
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
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.
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.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
