This morning, as they were going into cabinet, three ministers gave the following justifications for the choice of June 23 for the Supreme Court hearing regarding the next Quebec referendum: the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it was the only date available; the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said it was the date they had requested; and the President of the Treasury Board said it was the same date as his birthday.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Very serious, this government is very serious.
Mrs. Tremblay: How else can the Supreme Court's comment that the government had not done its homework very well be explained except by the fact that it has improvised unpardonably in such an important matter?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, justice department lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada this morning to receive instructions, including the date the reference will be heard. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court indicated clearly that the court will set the date for arguments and for the hearing. It is up to the court to decide, during the coming weeks.
I would like to add that there was no intended provocation on our part in suggesting June 23. We need time between now and next June to prepare, and we intend to do everything necessary to prepare.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Once again, Mr. Speaker, the facts are being distorted.
As I have mentioned in my preamble, at 8.30 this morning, as they were going into cabinet, three ministers defended this date. However, when the government lawyers set out for the Supreme Court, they received a counter-order. Between 8.30 and 9 o'clock, cabinet changed its mind and the government lawyers were asked to withdraw the June 23 date. What the judge said was this: ``That is a good decision, because it really is up to me. You should consult with all the provinces to find out which ones wish to make a contribution. At a time that suits everyone, when we know who wishes to take part in the debate, we will all sit down and we in the Supreme Court will set a date in consultation with all parties concerned, according to our schedule''. This was what was actually said this morning by the Supreme Court.
I therefore ask the Minister of Justice to explain why they changed their mind between 8.30 and 9 o'clock, if it was not because the editorials, the hot lines and the whole world opened their eyes to the fact that it was provocation.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of provocation. What we are interesting in doing is resolving legal issues that are raised by the position of the Government of Quebec in relation to the application of the Constitution toward its desire to separate that province from the rest of the country.
Provocation is hardly the word one would use for a government that seeks a court date to determine issues of fundamental legal and constitutional importance to all Canadians but particularly to Quebecers.
[Translation]
It is in the interests of Quebecers in particular to resolve these issues, to clarify the consequences of the position taken by the Quebec government and to determine the legal issues that arise.
It is in the interest of Quebecers in particular to avoid chaos after a unilateral declaration of independence. It is because of the position taken by the Government of Quebec that we have made a reference.
(1125)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in life there are no chance occurrences, only coincidences. And one must be able to read, analyse and interpret these coincidences. The government selected June 23 and then, this morning, changed its mind.
Once again, are we looking at a government that is at the mercy of mandarins who suggested that it be June 23, or will the government have the courage to tell us that it alone took the decision, and that it is therefore the prime mover in everything that is now going on?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tries to make something out of very little.
The indignation that comes from this episode is very difficult to accept. The hon. member speaks of provocation and humiliation and I suppose we should take it that the hon. member and her party know what that is all about.
We saw it during this past week with a display by the bloquistes and their partners in the Government of Quebec, the kind of political humiliation and provocation of which they speak, when they set out to destroy Jean-Louis Roux, the lieutenant-governor of Quebec. They used tactics that have no place in Canadian politics. That is the kind of provocation we should avoid in public life.
If we want to start somewhere to avoid provocation, I suggest that the Bloc Quebecois and the hon. member cease and desist with tactics such as that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Minister of Justice is a master at provocation. I would submit that the official opposition is a master at showing respect for the people of Quebec.
What explanation can there be for the decision to choose June 23, with its obvious political repercussions? How could the government make that decision without considering the impact of such a provocation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out first of all that we are not the ones who will choose the date, the Supreme Court of Canada will choose the date of the hearing.
As for the question of provocation, it is the Government of Quebec itself which has provoked questions, which has said that neither the courts nor the Constitution have anything to do with the issue of sovereignty. That is where the provocation lies.
We have acted on behalf of all Canadians, including all the people of Quebec, in asking questions before the courts so as to regulate, clarify, determine the legality of these important questions.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that the Supreme Court has exercised great good judgment in rejecting the government's choice ofJune 23.
Might this government provocation in the constitutional issue, which appears to have had its origins with employees in the Department of Justice, not be explained by the fact that their ranks also include supporters of the hard line, of plan B?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was my experience as an advocate in the courtroom that when one of the parties was completely without confidence in his or her position on the merits of the case, he or she would resort to tactics such as complaining about the date for hearing in order to distract attention from that weak position.
What we are witnessing in the House today is exactly that syndrome. Left completely without any argument on the merits of the case, finding themselves in a position that is untenable legally, the members of the Bloc Quebecois have resorted to the selection of the hearing date as a ground on which to resist this initiative which is intended to clarify and resolve legal questions that they themselves have raised.
(1130)
I suggest this is conclusive evidence of the falsity of their position in the law.
The so-called official opposition says that we should merely let Canadian go, that there is only room for one national airline in Canada. That simply is not acceptable. I am sure the minister agrees that is not an option for the Canadian airline system.
We are not sure, though, exactly what options or ideas the minister has brought to the table in his talks with the airline. Would he detail for the House what plans, options or proposals he has made to Canadian Airlines to help it in its restructuring plan?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member's comments with respect to the importance of Canadian Airlines International, our second largest carrier. It is very important to the government's competition policy, which has had such a dramatic effect in reducing the costs of travel in Canada and increasing the number of Canadians who travel.
With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, it is not possible for this or any other government simply to continue to cover losses of a company that has had a chronic problem of losses. What must happen is restructuring to place that company on a profitable, competitive footing so that it can expand beyond the 16,000 jobs which have been created by Canadian Airlines International.
The plan of restructuring involves a number of elements, for example, changing the contract with American, changing the routing structure, making use of Vancouver's hub, increasing the Asian routes and the open skies routes with the United States, adjusting salaries and wages, as well as other measures. We want to make sure that plan has a fair chance.
I know it is difficult for the employees, but we want them to be able to vote on that plan.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the government knows and is concerned about the 16,000 jobs that are at stake in the restructuring of Canadian Airlines. I believe that Canadian Airlines is doing its part. It is aggressively attempting to restructure everything from its debt to its service contracts.
However, the minister also knows that the government is intimately involved in the Canadian airline industry. It is involved in everything from fuel tax rates, which are some 30 per cent higher than our American competitors, to regulatory regimes and so on. All of this plays a part in any restructuring plan. The company cannot do it all on its own. The government will be, by necessity, involved in whatever changes come to be.
Will the minister tell us what options he is considering on the open skies treaty and on the taxation policy? What are some of the specifics he is offering to Canadian and its employees?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not a situation where we are offering to any one particular company some special deal, not at all. What we are trying to do is make sure there is competition in the industry and that the players are treated as fairly as possible by the government.
I would like to thank the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who stated recently that a government bailout does not appear to be a viable option. With that I agree wholeheartedly.
We want to put Canadian back in the business of being a profitable company, creating new jobs and expanding internationally and domestically as well.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour.
Canadian Airlines is trying to restructure and would like to take some of its proposals directly to the Canadian employees for their evaluation. While it is up to Canadian Airlines to convince its employees of the merits of any restructuring plan, the union leadership still refuses to let its members vote directly on any company offer. Even after the union leadership divided on the question it will not allow its employees the chance to vote on any restructuring plan.
Will the Minister of Labour intervene to free up employees of Canadian Airlines to ensure their democratic right to determine their opinion on the restructuring plan and will he ensure that they have the right to vote on any restructuring offer by Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that the employees of Canadian should have the right to vote on their future and on the restructuring program that has been proposed by Mr. Benson, the CEO of Canadian Airlines. It is their right and opportunity. It is a difficult decision. They have been asked for sacrifices previously. In no way do I wish to influence their vote one way or another, but they should have that right.
(1135)
It is unacceptable to us to have a decision made by 300 people, I understand, in Toronto. There are 6,000 to 7,000 employees of that company in Vancouver and 6,000 to 7,000 in Calgary. That type of approach is simply unacceptable to us.
We want to make sure that the actual employees who are affected by this plan have the opportunity of expressing their views. That seems to be only fair. I certainly implore the leaders of the machinists and the Canadian Auto Workers to allow this element of democracy to take place.
Today, Rwanda opposed France's participation in plans for intervention by the international community. Meanwhile, more than 13,000 people have died since the beginning of the conflict, and hundreds of thousands of refugees are in danger of dying in eastern Zaire. Deprived of help for more than two weeks, they are cut off from the outside world by the rebels, who prevent humanitarian organizations from reaching their region.
Since Kigali is opposed to France's participation but would look positively on an Euro-African military mission, could the minister tell us whether a proposal of this kind is being considered?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I share the tremendous concern of the hon. member over the tragic situation in Zaire and the great lakes region. Today, the UN Security Council is considering several proposals for a cease fire in the region.
As you know, a ceasefire is the only way to ensure that humanitarian aid can be safely delivered to these regions. The Canadian position is to support the efforts of ambassador Chrétien and also to encourage all parties to submit plans to the UN and the Security Council for a security program in the region and also for expanding humanitarian aid as soon as possible.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the aid professionals sounded the alarm, saying they needed action, not words. People are dying like flies in Zaire.
Does the minister realize that, if the international community continues to wait and see, there will be a real slaughter, and that, in the circumstances, considering the humanitarian emergency, the only solution may be to consider military intervention on short notice?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly we agree fully that the potential for disaster is imminent.
The latest report is that there are still supplies available in the region. The major difficulty faced is finding a secure environment so that they can be delivered. That has to come about through political agreement at the international level.
I disagree with the premise of the hon. member that there is no action. As I just pointed out, we have the engagement of Ambassador Chrétien on behalf of the Secretary-General. He is in the region at this moment meeting with leaders and attempting to forge some form of consensus.
The Security Council is considering a number of proposals today. We hope by the latter part of the day to have an indication of the initiative by the United Nations. It is something that has to take place. There is no magic wand. There is no panacea. There has to be an agreement by the international community on a course of
action. At that time, all members of the United Nations will consider how they can participate.
We are trying to get that agreement through the efforts of Ambassador Chrétien, by the diplomatic efforts at the UN and by the special efforts that Canada is making to try to influence and persuade the Rwandans, in particular, to agree to the return of the refugees.
Those are the necessary conditions. We are working as actively as possible to get that agreement. I hope we can get it soon so that we can continue to go on with the kind of aid the hon. member would like to see happen.
The former minister of defence violated section 23, clause 3, of this same code when he gave a former campaign pal over $150,000 in untendered government contracts.
And the youth minister violated section 3, clause 9, of this code when she improperly used her government credit card.
Why were these clear violations of a code that we know exists allowed to go unchecked?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these questions were asked yesterday, the day before, the day before, last Friday, last Thursday, last Wednesday, and the Prime Minister, the minister and the President of the Treasury Board have answered every single one of them.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, the questions remained unanswered and that is why we are asking again.
The emperor has no codes. The President of the Treasury Board, the ethics counsellor, the youth minister herself and even the Prime Minister have admitted that the minister violated the conflict of interest code and Treasury Board guidelines.
In the face of the facts and the admissions, where are the consequences?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only emperor I know with a clothing budget is Preston Manning.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would remind you not to call each other by name.
In spite of all his posturing and the government's attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, the unemployment rate in Canada has reached the 10 per cent psychological threshold. I will not call for a minute of silence, but I will remind the House that the OECD had forecasted a 2.1 per cent increase in employment, one of the highest in the world, according to the government. However, since the beginning of the year, in the past 10 months, the average increase in employment has been only 1.1 per cent, barely half what had ben forecasted.
What steps does the government intend to take to create the tens of thousands of jobs necessary to reach its goals according to the OECD's forecast?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the slight increase in the unemployment rate in October is due to the arrival of 58,000 more workers on the labour market, which shows an increase in their faith in the continuing economic recovery.
It should be pointed out that, in fact, that same month the private sector created 46,000 jobs, a rather significant number. Moreover, since the beginning of the year, nearly 200,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector certainly thanks to the climate of confidence due in part to the government's agenda.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to listen to our colleagues opposite, one would think that everything is going well in Canada. And yet, we know that last month the youth unemployment rate climbed again, reaching the official critical threshold of 16.8 per cent. Moreover, everybody knows that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Will the minister finally acknowledge that the measures put in place by the government for young people are a totally failure and far from meeting its goals?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, we are all very concerned by the level of unemployment affecting our young people. As a matter of fact, it is a problem common to every country, including the United States where the job creation rate is rather impressive, I might add.
This is why, in the last budget, the Minister of Human Resources Development introduced a significant job creation program aimed at young people. We doubled the funds earmarked for the creation
of summer jobs for young people. We have on-the-job training programs, we have youth programs.
We have put in place a very strategic program to promote job creation for young people, and we will continue to do so.
[English]
Blaming the industry is absolutely inexcusable. This government negotiated a bad softwood lumber deal with the Americans and now it does not have the backbone to admit that this government, not the industry, is the cause of the loss of thousands of sawmill jobs in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.
The Liberals ran on a platform of job creation, yet now with thousands of sawmill workers losing their jobs they refuse to show leadership to rectify the situation.
What is the minister going to do now to ensure that these sawmills remain in operation?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preamble is entirely wrong. I certainly do not blame the industry. In fact, the industry has been most co-operative. However, there are some companies within the industry that have tried to take advantage of the fact that prices have been high and have used all their quota up and are now coming and crying to us about needing more quota. However, they knew what the rules were because the industry and the provincial governments were the biggest participants in setting out the rules.
In fact, today we made public the entire list of rules that the industry presented to us, the quota details by province. I am happy to table them and make them available.
The industry wanted this deal and in fact helped set the rules. We have bargained with the United States the kind of agreement it wanted, to give it protection for five years from countervail from the United States. It is a good deal. It is just that all of companies, not just most of them, have to comply by the rules that they were a big contributor toward setting and not cry about them, as the member is.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to tell the families out of work what a good deal this is. They tend to disagree and disagree strongly.
The reason for the losses of thousands of jobs is not that the lumber mills overproduced, as the minister said, but that the quotas allotted to those mills came in at far below expected levels.
Yesterday the minister refused to table a full list of quota allocations for the mills all across the country. I suspect the reason for the secrecy is that in this way only the minister and his staff know the whole picture. There is a large unallocated portion of the quota sitting in this minister's pockets.
It appears that the minister is refusing to disclose the entire allocation list because he wants to reward his Liberal friends with the unallocated-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member should not impute motive. I would ask the hon. member to go directly to his question.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the minister avoid the secrecy and table the allocation documents in this House now.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, even before he asked the question, we tabled all the information relevant to how the allocation was arrived at and what the allocations are per province.
In terms of the individual companies, it is up to them as to whether they want to divulge their figures.
Let me say, because jobs are very important, that some of the companies have known full well what the formula is and that a great amount of the basis for the formula has been their past experience and they know what their past exporting is. However, they have chosen to rush the border and thereby create a problem for their employees. I am sorry that some of them have done that because that is outside what the industry wanted to have happen.
Notwithstanding that, there are two things they can do. They can continue to ship. It is a question of what is free quota. They can continue to ship and pay the quota fees. There is nothing stopping them from doing that. Further, we have provided for a very small quota bank so that we can help these firms if they are-
Yesterday, the minister said he could consider relaxing the rules to allow American Airlines to acquire a bigger share of Canadian. He said he was waiting for an application before reviewing the matter. However, yesterday, the Canadian Auto Workers who represent 4,000 employees from Canadian International urged the
federal government to relax foreign investment rules so that American Airlines could buy a bigger share.
(1150)
Can the minister give us the assurance that if the rules are relaxed he would give Air Canada equal access to destinations currently served by Canadian International, thus putting an end to its partisan patronage in favour of a company which will be getting more and more americanized?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have misunderstood what I said yesterday. The government policy has not changed. No decision has been made. There is no review concerning the participation of an American company in the airline industry, none at all.
The hon. member also mentioned CAW. No American company has made an application to invest or increase its investments in Canadian International. This is a purely hypothetical issue.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at least, the minister was not being hypothetical when he clearly stated yesterday that he did not intend to provide financial assistance to Canadian International.
However, we were told that his government awarded an extension of 30 days for the repayment of a loan granted in 1992. Is the minister about to financially assist Canadian International, by giving it an extension of 30 days to repay the money it owes the federal government?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has an incredible imagination.
What we said was that we had absolutely no intention of investing in Canadian International. The reason is obvious: this company which has incurred losses year after year is in need of some restructuring. The structure of the company needs to be changed, its contracts with American Airlines need to be changed, its routes need to be changed, and a lot of other things need to be changed before this company can begin to show a profit.
This is what I want to tell the hon. member. We mentioned no investment from the Canadian government. We have have received no application for an increase in American investments. No amount of Canadian or American money could help a company faced with structural problems.
Within a few weeks the United Nations will vote to establish a permanent international criminal court to try individuals who commit serious violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, including genocide and ethnic cleansing.
I know the government supports this measure but it requires an amendment to our domestic legislation to permit the referral of accused Canadians to the new international court. In order to give impetus to a positive vote at the UN, when will Canada amend its domestic legislation to facilitate this matter?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed to provide an answer for the hon. member, at the United Nations general assembly this fall in the statement we totally endorsed the idea of an international court and indicated that we would do everything possible to facilitate its development.
We will be working very closely with the Minister of Justice to see what means or measures might be necessary to implement that kind of idea.
Behind closed doors cabinet has jigged the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to allow this sale.
Instead of scrapping Canada's environmental laws to benefit China, should Canada not urge China to change its laws?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are not providing any interest free loan. This is a regular commercial operation. In fact, AECL is expected to make money on it. One hundred Canadian companies will profit from this. It will mean some 27,000 person years in employment.
(1155)
With respect to the environment there is absolutely no diminishing of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That act was never intended to apply to the Export Development Corporation's commercial financing operations in foreign countries, and so it does not apply.
Over the years that AECL has produced the CANDU-6 reactor, it has done a great deal of environmental work on it and in fact it is the safest, most reliable, most environmentally efficient nuclear reactor in the world.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government is breaking its own environmental laws and its red book promises on the environment. The red book
promised to strengthen the enforcement of the Environmental Protection Assessment Act.
Instead, behind closed doors the government is violating and changing its own environmental review requirements. Is ignoring environmental review laws what the government had in mind when it promised in 1993 to protect the environment?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have greatly protected the environment by putting this act into effect. It was never intended to apply to foreign projects funded by the Export Development Corporation.
We have said that when there is an international environmental agreement with respect to standards, yes, we would want to be a part of that and we have promoted that very thing. We are not going to in an extraterritorial way, like some countries do, apply our law against another country. We continue to do all we can to protect the environment and have the most environmentally friendly products in terms of other countries, and that is what this CANDU-6 reactor is.
On Wednesday, the minister admitted that the tax convention between Canada and the United States was unfair to low-income pensioners by depriving them of 25 per cent of their American pensions.
While waiting for the results of negotiations with the Americans, would the minister be willing to consider the net income rather than the gross income to determine income supplement eligibility so that low-income earners are less penalized by this convention?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this problem has not arisen as a result of the Canada-United States tax convention, but as a result of action taken unilaterally by the American government. I think we all agree that we need to continue to put pressure on the Americans because some people have certainly been treated unfairly as a result of this action.
We are negotiating with the Americans. In fact, on election day, I discussed this issue with my American counterpart. I think the best thing is to pursue these negotiations. We are not making progress as fast as we would like, but we are indeed making progress.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even though the minister keeps saying that it is the Americans' fault, it does not change the fact that Canadians are the victims of this unfortunate situation.
Is the minister willing to ask a special parliamentary committee to propose to him, by December 1, 1996, temporary solutions to rectify the situation until negotiations with the Americans lead to a permanent solution?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that there are members on all sides of this House who are very concerned by this matter. In fact, in the negotiations with the Americans the ability of the government to say that we speak with the virtual unanimity of this House gives us a very strong card to play.
The one thing I would not want to do is anything that would slow these negotiations down. Under those circumstances I think we are far better to continue with the course of action with which we are now engaged.
That being said, I very much appreciate the desire of members to participate and I am certainly prepared to sit down with them anytime and discuss the matter.
(1200)
Will the Minister of Justice reassure workers who depend on the firearms industry in Canada that the fees he introduces in this House will not result in any job losses nor have any negative economic impact on the industry?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me acknowledge and express how much we welcome more evidence of the Reform Party's newly found interest in jobs. It is nice to see.
Yes, we do acknowledge and recognize that hunting represents not only an important and traditional pastime, but also an important source of revenue and an economic activity in many parts of this country. It is for that reason that no part of Bill C-68 interferes in any way with the enjoyment by Canadians of hunting as a sport and a pastime.
On the subject of the regulations, let me make it clear that those regulations are now being drafted in consultation with all interested parties including outfitters, those who organize and are paid for working in hunting expeditions. We shall very much keep their interests in mind as we put the final touches on the regulations, including the fees.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minister says, a firearms manufacturer in Ontario states that his present fees are $850. Yesterday the justice minister proposed fees that would cost that company $242,000. Today the justice minister lowered it to $15,000, still over 15 times its present level. This new export tax will force some of the manufacturer's employees out of work.
What does the justice minister have to say to that manufacturer? Exactly how will he keep his promise not to hurt the firearms industry, sports shooters, hunters, collectors and tourism?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is relying upon information which bears the usual degree of unreliability when it comes from him and his colleagues.
We have not yet tabled the regulations. We have not yet tabled the fees, yet the hon. member is quoting numbers which I take it are intended to inflame passions and as usual to groundlessly frighten people.
When Canadians want advice, direction or policy about firearms in this country, they know where to look. They look to this government for sensible approaches.
It is clear where the Reform Party has come from. One of its riding association presidents in Alberta is Mr. Tomlinson, the president of the National Firearms Association. The national chair of the gun lobby is a riding president for the Reform Party. I think we can draw our own conclusions about the approach of the Reform Party toward firearms.
People who live in co-operative housing in Peterborough are concerned about the government's plans for social housing. They are particularly concerned about the future of co-op housing across Canada. My personal preference would be for the co-ops to manage themselves through their national organization. Can the minister assure me and my constituents that the federal government is not abandoning social housing in Canada?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, this government is offering management of social housing to the provinces and territories. However I want to assure the hon. member that we are not backing away from our social housing commitments.
Currently this government pays about $2 billion toward social housing which will be maintained. Moreover, there will be savings from the consolidation of management of social housing and those savings must be kept within the social housing envelope. That is over and above the $2 billion.
I am glad the hon. member raised the issue of the co-ops. This government believes the co-ops play a very important and major role in social housing. That role will not be overlooked and it will be given every consideration in the current negotiations.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
[-] also engaged in anti-Semitic behaviour by vandalizing businesses belonging to members of Montreal's Jewish community.That statement is completely false and unbefitting a leader of the opposition.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, this is not a point of order in my opinion, but a point of debate. We will all have the opportunity to debate this question, but for the time being, I cannot accept it as a point of order.