House of Commons Hansard #162 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, Reform has stated time and time again that what health care needs is flexibility. We do not need the solutions of 50 years ago. We do not need poor technology. We do not need poor innovation.
Will the Prime Minister recognize in front of all Canadians that his budget will gut health care?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the absolute hypocrisy of the Reform Party is never more evident than when its members rise to defend the benefits of universal health care. This is the very party that would have cut the heart and soul out of the health care system.
We are not going to let them do it because they will never form the government.
Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the budget tabled on Monday, the minister decreed that a $975 fee will now be charged to every person who wishes to immigrate to Canada. This large amount of money is on top of the $500 processing fee all immigrants already have to pay.
Does the minister not realize that it makes no sense to ask prospective immigrants to pay $975, as this may represent up to a year's salary or more in their countries of origin?
Why do future immigrants have to pay for the government's deficit?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is in any position to lecture the government on how it treats immigrants when members of his party in the PQ would not even extend democratic rights to immigrants in Quebec.
The Minister of Finance said on Monday that all Canadians, fishermen, farmers, public servants, business people, Canadian families had to sacrifice for nation building and to maintain Canada's prosperity. We have chosen to extend that invitation to those wishing to join the Canadian family and also to recover some of the costs for immigration settlement.
There are two options. Immigrants either share with us in the cost of settlement or we go the route of the United States of America where there is no settlement. Like the commercial says: "You can pay now or you can pay much more later". We prefer settlement because it is the best way of integrating immigrants. We also believe that the landing fee is worth the price to come to the best country in the world.
Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that the message of openness Canada is trying to convey to future immigrants to this country is greatly compromised by this immigration tax, which can represent more than $3,000 for a family of four?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the member did not mention that the Minister of Finance has also instituted a loan program that would allow those individuals who believe that the $975 would be a hardship to apply for a loan.
Just like refugees since 1951 have been able to absorb a transportation loan, we believe that this fee will not cause hardship. We are prepared to implement the loan program.
With respect to other countries that ask immigrants to help shoulder the costs, Canada is in the middle of the spectrum where it ought to be.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In the budget the government announced the elimination of the public utilities transfer tax rebate. Since 88 per cent of the $250 million tax grab hits Alberta, the elimination of this rebate is a discriminatory tax hike aimed directly at Albertans and will cost them at least $170 million.
As the senior federal minister representing Alberta, does the minister support this measure?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
Mr. Speaker, this nation has a very large deficit and a very large debt. It was incumbent upon the government to deal with it in the fairest and most expeditious way possible. That is what we have done.
In this case we have followed the lead of a number of provincial governments, including the Government of Alberta. I believe the member for Lethbridge was a member of the Government of Alberta when it took away the equivalent tax exemption for the public utilities in that province.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, in view of the discriminatory nature of this tax grab and the fact that the socialist power companies of Ontario and Quebec get away scot free, does the finance minister view this as fair and equitable?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
Mr. Speaker, I would simply refer the member to the statement by the premier of Alberta, in which he said that the federal government had to face up to its responsibilities. We did so and basically this is a good budget.
Anna Terrana Liberal Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The infrastructure program has been very successful and encouraged all levels of government to work together. In my riding of Vancouver East the projects were enthusiastically received and put many people to work.
Could the Minister responsible for Infrastructure inform the House of the status of the programs following Monday's budget?
Art Eggleton LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, the program on infrastructure is being extended from a three-year to a five-year period. This comes about as a result of two things: first, many municipalities with major projects have asked for extra construction time to be able to complete their projects and, second, the fiscal needs of the Minister of Finance as announced in the budget.
I am pleased to say that this coming construction season will be the biggest by far in terms of the infrastructure program. Sixty per cent of all the funds under the program will be allocated within the two years. The $2 billion from the federal level and the $6 billion in total will stay intact over that five-year period of time. It will lead to even more jobs than we had predicted: over 100,000.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister for a clear answer about his government's intentions on a question he was asked yesterday in the House.
Will women 65 years of age and older lose their OAS because of their spouse's income as implied on page 58 of the budget plan? Yes or no.
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, the single most damaging element of this week's federal budget will be the devastating effect on the regional economy of the prairies, that is the elimination of the Crow rate including declining land values and the lack of investment for value added production.
Has the minister given any thought at all to the long term implications for the prairie economy of the decision to end the transport subsidy? If so, could he identify the sources in which he has so substantially misplaced his optimism?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I note that a number of farmers in western Canada over the course of the last two days in commenting on the budget have noted that the change with respect to freight rates in western Canada has the potential to encourage diversification and value added production in the west.
I would point out that the hon. gentleman, coming from Saskatchewan, should perhaps know with respect to the $1.6 billion ex gratia capital payment that something in the order of $800 million or more of that total will find its way into the province of Saskatchewan because of that province's historical share of grain movement.
It does not include Saskatchewan's share of the $300 million adjustment fund. It does not include the capital gains tax advantage. It does not include the time cost of money that will accrue to the recipients of those payments and not to the government. It does not include the impact on efficiency in the transportation system.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Christos Lazaris, Governor of Lefkada in Greece.
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, in response to a point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena on February 9, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated that I held a meeting in my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley entitled "Let the people speak" and that natives were neither notified nor asked to sit on a panel at the meeting.
I held no such meeting in my riding. The minister has confused my riding with another and I would ask him to withdraw these remarks.
Ron Irwin LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, I stand as a minister but first I stand as a member of Parliament who does not pick and choose which constituents I speak for.
One of the purposes of the House is for the views of those who have the least voice, who are the most oppressed and who need our help the most to come before Parliament. The silence of the Reform Party on aboriginal issues is so profound that it is deserving of respect.
There have been four critics; I have gone through four critics. They sit there like a Greek chorus.
Ray Speaker Reform Lethbridge, AB
In my view the point of order is a dispute as to facts. From time to time in the course of debate-and I am not saying this happened here-sometimes errors are made. I would hope hon. members would give each other enough latitude in debate so that if errors are made inadvertently they are accepted as such.
Ron Irwin Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, I accept the explanation of the hon. member but of the two critics one represents the Nishga-
Ray Speaker Reform Lethbridge, AB
I take it from the acceptance of the statement that perhaps an error was made. I am hopeful this will close the matter as of now. I would like the matter to be closed as of now.
This point of order is finished. If the member has another point of order I would like to hear it. Is this on the same point of order?
On a point of clarification, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all members of the House, would you clarify whether or not it is in order for a member to ask for a retraction and either the member retracts the statement or refuses to retract the statement and then, I suggest from my understanding of the standing orders, you, Mr. Speaker, make a decision on which member had the right position?