House of Commons Hansard #167 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Immigration And Refugee Board
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bauer made it clear yesterday that the minister's single member panels are a step backward and will worsen the current mess.

Two former IRB members concluded that Canada accepts terrorists as refugees, that some lawyers are scripting refugee claims, and that in Bauer's opinion up to two-thirds of claimants are accepted under false pretences.

Why does the minister continue to put the interests of bogus claimants, refugee lawyers and advocates ahead of the interests of Canadians who pay $1 billion a year for this disgrace?

Immigration And Refugee Board
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

York West
Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the member does not know what he is talking about. If competence for membership in the Chamber was any guideline he would not be here.

Now he is talking about a $1 billion budget for the IRB. I ask the member to have the decency to put forward the facts, to put forward things that we can do better, things that we can do to build the institution, rather than reduce everything to rubble.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

March 15th, 1995 / 2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Wells South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The minister just revealed that DFO was successful in retrieving the net of the Spanish trawler, the Estai . Congratulations to the minister and his department are in order.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Wells South Shore, NS

Would the minister inform the House of the significance of the net's mesh size and the accompanying liner in the matter at hand?

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte
Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The matter is important to Atlantic Canadians and obviously important to people right across the country, given the support the Reform Party has given to the government in pursuit of the conservation of the fishery.

It is extraordinary to see the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party-and I should acknowledge the Conservative Party-and the Leader of the Official Opposition endorse unanimously the conservation measure in the House on behalf of Canadians everywhere. It is a great moment for Canada. I acknowledge the support of the parties opposite.

However, let me in answering the question acknowledge the tremendous leadership of the greatest Prime Minister the country has ever had in standing up for the country.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Speaker, you want me to come right to the point and I shall.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

Yes, I would like the minister to come precisely to the point.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

The significance of the 80-millimetre mesh is that it is some 15 millimetres smaller than the official NAFO approved mesh size for this species. Therefore the animals being caught in the mesh are far smaller. They are juveniles. They are immature. They are far smaller than what should be caught if we are to have a sustainable fishery.

Canada Labour Code
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard St-Laurent Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. After waiting for several months, the federal government has started distributing a working paper on future anti-scab legislation. The proposals in the working paper are unacceptable to workers, in several respects.

Will the minister agree not to interfere in union matters by requiring, for instance, that 60 per cent of union members must be in favour for anti-scab provisions to apply during a labour dispute?

Canada Labour Code
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Saint-Henri—Westmount
Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are reviewing Part I of the Canada Labour Code, and the issue of replacement workers is on the table. We are now engaged in consultations with the various parties, both management and labour. I am prepared to listen to what the various parties have to say. Still, I do hope the member for the Bloc Quebecois is not against this kind of legislation.

Trade
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow two of Canada's trade negotiators will be in Washington to discuss the recent restrictions placed on Canadian sugar exports. The government has taken the position that GATT takes precedence over NAFTA. That is because we have imposed new tariffs as high as 350 per cent on butter and other supply managed products.

Does this not put us in a very difficult position when arguing against new U.S. tariffs on sugar?

Trade
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Ottawa South
Ontario

Liberal

John Manley Minister of Industry

Mr.Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for International Trade let me

say that we are conducting these discussions with a very high regard for Canadian interests which will be defended in all aspects of the continuing discussions.

Health
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. It concerns the budgetary betrayal of federal funding promises to B.C. and other provinces with a community action program for children or CAPC, a program for vulnerable and at risk children.

In view of the profound concerns of the B.C. Coalition for Children and the B.C. government arising from drastic cuts in funding for 1996 and beyond, how can the minister justify the decision to cut the deficit on the backs of poor and vulnerable children?