Does the Minister of Justice not agree that making it easier for an accused to plead voluntary intoxication is deplorable?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no. When read properly, I suggest the judgments that were released yesterday simply confirm the practice in most Canadian courts already. It clarifies the instructions to be given to a jury in cases where the defence of intoxication is raised and makes technical adjustments to the way the law is put to juries in such cases.
What is most important of all is that there are some crimes in the Criminal Code that by their very definition require the formation of specific intent. That is just the state of the law. If one is incapable of forming that intent, it is clear that one cannot be convicted of that crime.
However, it is also true that by reason of the statute that was passed by the House of Commons last year with the support of parties opposite, we made it clear that if you intoxicate yourself voluntarily and then commit a crime of violence toward another you cannot escape criminal liability.
That is the effect of Bill C-72 and the state of the law in Canada today.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice not agree that the Supreme Court has quite simply made murder more commonplace, by making it possible from now on for murderers who were intoxicated to get out of
prison earlier, because being found guilty of involuntary homicide will make them eligible for release after serving only one third of their sentences?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member.
The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday did not change the law with respect to liability for murder. It simply clarified the technical instructions that judges must give to juries in cases where the defence of intoxication is raised.
In manslaughter the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. It is open to the court in the facts of any given case, and the circumstances can vary widely, to determine the appropriate sentence. Sometimes that will not involve incarceration as in the recent case in Hamilton where a woman took the life of her terminally ill husband. In those circumstances the court felt that in that manslaughter case, incarceration was not appropriate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of his mandate, the Minister of Justice has done no more than pass legislation piecemeal. Here are a few examples of this: Daviault, DNA, genital mutilation.
When will the Minister of Justice shoulder his responsibilities and propose the appropriate measures?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the foundation of the hon. member's question is an interpretation of these judgments that I do not share. So we start from different points of departure.
(1120 )
With reference to her suggestion that our approach has been piecemeal, in the case of Daviault the House at the initiative of the government took specific steps to deal with the decision that we thought resulted in a criminal law that was inappropriate. There should be responsibility for acts of violence committed when one induces one's own intoxication.
In other instances we have taken a very comprehensive approach, for example in Bill C-41 where we comprehensively reformed the whole structure of the sentencing process in the criminal law, and as in Bill C-68 where we entirely took a new and comprehensive approach toward the control of firearms.
Our approach has been responsible, it has been coherent and it has been effective.
[Translation]
While the military police are investigating initiation rituals in poor taste at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick, we now also learn that two officer cadets are facing court martial and that eight others were apparently found guilty of harassment for their participation in other hazing incidents that took place at the same base last June. One cadet was apparently even tortured and beaten by his colleagues.
How can the minister explain that his directives against hazing are not always respected, and what excuse can the minister give the House this time?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that in these cases there are ongoing investigations. There has yet to be a resolution in one particular matter. It would be very wrong for me to comment in any way on the substance because I may prejudice the examination and the judicial process.
My parliamentary secretary really hit the nail on the head yesterday in answering a similar question from the official opposition. All manner of procedures can be put in place, all manner of regulations can be put in place, but people sometimes commit errors of judgment.
The issue here is to make sure that when errors of judgment occur, when offences occur, they be investigated thoroughly, promptly and that disciplinary action be taken where warranted.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to understand, in light of this other disgraceful incident that reflects poorly on the reputation and credibility of the Canadian Armed Forces, that the minister did not draw the obvious conclusions from the events in Petawawa, and that he was unable to get his defence staff-because that is what is now in question-to take the action necessary to avoid other unfortunate events of this sort?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we have
learned a lot in recent years from earlier examples of where behaviour was unacceptable. Procedures have been put in place.
We do our best to ensure those procedures, those codes of conduct, are followed but when they are transgressed it is dealt with promptly and in the appropriate way.
The government is so desperate to whitewash its promise on the GST, perhaps to save the political career of the Deputy Prime Minister, it will pay the Atlantic provinces hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars if they agree to harmonize the GST.
Why is the government spending taxpayer dollars to harmonize the GST when it clearly promised to save taxpayer dollars and kill, scrap, abolish it?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really not very interested in the speculation in the press reports. We are interested, however, in negotiations with the provinces to harmonize the GST.
I know members across the way will be very disappointed when we are successful in harmonizing the GST because they will not have any questions to ask any more.
The report the hon. member refers to is pure speculation.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate part is that the Liberals used to be interested in scrapping it when they sat on this side of the House before they formed the government in 1993.
It is evident here that desperate men do desperate things.
(1125)
The Deputy Prime Minister knows the voters of Etobicoke North and Newfoundland and Labrador will be thinking about the Liberal's broken promise when they go to the polls on Monday. They will not be fooled by talk of harmonization.
The government is so desperate that it willing to spend truckloads of taxpayer dollars to get the Atlantic on side. When the minister says the rest of the Canadian public will harmonize gleefully, he is dreaming. The government is so desperate that the Prime Minister might just pop up in Etobicoke North on Saturday right at the end of the campaign.
Instead of spending millions on harmonization, instead of engaging in PR exercises for the byelections, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not simply live up to her word and kill, scrap, abolish the GST?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hate to read page 22 of the red book again for the hon. member and so I will not do so.
I will, however, quote from a minority report of the Reform Party: ``While the replacement goes part of the way in responding to concerns presented to the committee, many of the concerns will only be addressed by future negotiations with the provinces''.
That is what we are doing. We are negotiating with the provinces and we will harmonize the GST. I know the Reform Party will be disappointed.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the provinces will certainly talk about harmonization; their answer will be no. They want no part of harmonization. They made it very clear.
When the government talks about page 22 of the red book, that it will replace the GST, it is the same letters, the same meaning. GST perhaps means ``give Sheila time''. How much time does the Deputy Prime Minister need?
The Speaker: The hon. member should put her question.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, these people know exactly what they campaigned on in the last election. It is on tape. We saw it on television last night. Unlike Richard Nixon's, these Liberal tapes cannot be erased. Over two years have passed and nothing has happened.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister lie awake at night knowing that she has broken promises?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: A lot of the time different emphasis is put on words. Although I am sure Hansard will show the words ``lie awake'', I caution hon. members to stay away from the word ``lie'' as much as you can.
The term was ``lie awake'. I accept that. If the honourable Deputy Prime Minister wishes to answer, fine. If not, we will proceed.
[Translation]
In a press release dated March 12, the minister announced that he would increase funding for summer jobs for students to $120
million. Curiously enough, the amounts allocated by the government add up to $105.65 million and not $120 million, a $14.35 million shortfall. How can the minister explain this shortfall in his release concerning summer jobs for students?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should send me a copy of the press release he is referring to. All I can tell him is that, this year, we managed, with the finance minister's help, to contribute another $60 million to the creation of summer jobs for students.
In total, $120 million will be spent this summer on jobs for young people attending post-secondary institutions.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the minister is cutting post-secondary education in Quebec by $150 million this year alone, how can he brag about doubling to $120 million the amount allocated to summer jobs for students, when the former Conservative government used to spend more than $180 million a year?
(1130)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the amount distributed to post-secondary institutions still falls under the responsibility of the provinces. Of course, some of the money comes from the Canadian government through transfers to the provinces.
How this money is managed is up to each province, since we do not want to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. If he hon. member is suggesting that we revert to the ways of the old administration, I can only tell him not to hold his breath, because we have no intention of acting as the former Tory government did for nine years, from 1984 to 1993.
[English]
However, there is widespread opposition to the radical constitutional precedent which will be set here. There has been insufficient meaningful consultation with all of the people who will be affected by this agreement.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister instruct the minister of Indian affairs to postpone today's signing?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the signing will proceed as scheduled today.
Prior to this agreement in principle, over 200 public meetings were held, a number of open houses, a number of consultations to keep all of the interested parties totally posted on the process involved.
As I am sure the hon. member knows, the negotiators will continue to ensure that public information is available and that the consultations will continue right through to the signing of the final agreement.
I am sure the hon. gentleman would want to agree with me that this is a major move forward in the history of the country, one I am sure the Reform Party would want to support.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the minister believes there has been consultation.
Here is what a forestry industry representative from the treaty negotiations advisory committee said about the process: ``I cannot say we worked on this document because we never saw any of it until February 15, just hours before it was signed; not one page, not one paragraph''.
The government has given the separatists a constitutional veto. Why is it denying the people of B.C. a say before this agreement is signed? Postpone it.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. gentleman knows this is an ongoing process. What is being signed today is the agreement in principle.
There have been consultations and public information processes conducted up to this point. That process will continue. In the public interest of the country it is vital that this major initiative be carried through to a successful conclusion. Obviously further consultation which is a part of the process is necessary to ensure that successful conclusion.
[Translation]
Could the minister tell us what major changes have been made to the American legislation since 1992 that would now justify his party's about face?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of changes to the legislation that would affect this kind of case in the United States would be rather technical and lengthy.
If there are specific parts of the American legislation that she would want to be made familiar with I am sure my colleague, the minister of immigration, would be very pleased to prepare a package of information and allow for a briefing to be held so that she could be familiar with the American legislation.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, in her testimony before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the minister suggested that the arrangement was about to be finalized. However, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Canada told the same standing committee just the opposite regarding the harmonization of this legislation.
Does this mean that the minister now condones U.S. practices that contravene the international convention relating to the status of refugees, for instance, automatically returning Cubans and Haitians to their country of origin without even having established whether or not they are legitimate refugees?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all agree that the refugee determination rules vary greatly from country to country. The approaches taken by various countries are often very different.
In response to the hon. member's question dealing specifically with the approach taken by the Government of Canada, over the years, we have always seen our role as that of one of the most welcoming countries in the world for refugees. As Canadians, we have a duty to keep playing this humanitarian role we have played on many occasions already.
Regarding practices in the U.S. and elsewhere, I do not think it is appropriate for us or for me to comment on them at this time.
[English]
There has been a shroud of secrecy over the Nisga'a deal. The process has been manipulated by the politicians and taken out of the hands of Canadians.
Nisga'a members have said they did not even know they were to vote on this agreement. They were invited to an informational meeting. The vote was by show of hands instead of a secret ballot. This is not democracy, it is a fraud.
Will the government respond to these disturbing allegations and resubmit the deal to the Nisga'a people for real consultation and for a real vote?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again on behalf of my colleague, the minister of Indian affairs, the hon. member will know that in this process of dealing with this settlement we have been negotiating with representatives of the Nisga'a who are democratically elected under their own processes every year.
Given the very broad scope and importance of the negotiations, some disagreement within the Nisga'a community is naturally to be expected. The agreement in principle ratification by the Nisga'a was an internal process which the Nisga'a have designed for themselves to inform and seek the support of their constituents.
After the final steps are taken in the development of a final agreement on the land settlement, that final agreement must be formally ratified according to a formula that calls for 50 per cent plus 1 of eligible Nisga'a voters.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once the agreement is ratified today it will be very difficult to change anything.
This agreement in principle will encode different treatment of Canadians based on race, different constitutional status based on race, different taxes based on race. If this is put into the Constitution Canadians will never again be one people. We will be permanently divided by race. This will affect our children and our grandchildren, all of us.
On behalf of all Canadians, will the government postpone the signing of this agreement until a broad consultation of all Canadians has occurred? This is too important to leave in the hands of a few politicians. Postpone it.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians, I congratulate the parties who after decades of unresolution have finally reached an agreement which should be celebrated by the people.
When the aboriginal people were driven off their lands and when the aboriginal people were put into a situation that was not of their choosing, they asked for justice. Finally we have a minister for Indian affairs who is delivering that justice. We think he should be congratulated. Today should be a day of celebration for the Nisga'a and for Canadian justice.
(1140)
[Translation]
On February 16, Canada and the United States reached an agreement in principle on softwood lumber. The five year agreement seeks to restrict Canadian softwood lumber exports to the U.S. It provides for an increase in stumpage fees in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, and for the implementation of a quota system of sorts in British Columbia.
Does the minister realize that letting British Columbia set up such a system violates the free trade agreement itself, which is precisely based on the elimination of control measures at the border?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously knows that the question he is posing is based on a false premise and a false fact.
The reality is that agreements have been negotiated with the provinces. Their interests have been totally taken into account. Negotiation is now simply being worked out in detail between the representative spokespersons for the two countries.
The hon. member might want to go back and check what he is saying because it does not relate to truth.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we do not question the fact that this was done in co-operation with the provinces. We question the federal government's approval of new barriers in a free trade context. The federal government was ill advised in that regard. If you set up barriers, it is no longer a free trade environment. At first it was wheat, and now it is softwood lumber.
Will the minister recognize that the current agreement will not solve anything, since Americans are still not happy with the concessions made so far, and will he also recognize that his government is opening the door to similar agreements in other economic sectors?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the whole point of having the agreement is to allow us to have a process through which we can work out agreements so that trade can flow.
There is not some kind of arbitrary ideological perfect world. The reason the NAFTA agreement was put into place was to ensure that the immense flow of commerce between the two countries can be organized by a set rules, a set of practices and a set of institutions. The minister of trade is using those rules and those practices to negotiate a deal that will allow us to continue the very lucrative and very important trade with the United States in softwood lumber.
[Translation]
I would like to know her intentions with respect to the negotiations with the Franco-Columbians, who are anxious to know what stage the negotiations affecting their future have reached. I am well aware of the importance the minister attaches to francophones, particularly those outside Quebec. As we know very well, there are very nearly one million francophones outside Quebec, and some people at least are concerned about their future.
The Franco-Columbian community is anxiously awaiting the outcome of the negotiations with the federal government. Is the Minister in a position to inform us of the status of these negotiations?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during this Semaine de la Francophonie, it is important, I believe, to celebrate the agreements already in place between Canada and various communities, and those which are still under negotiation.
We are very pleased today, during this special week, to announce that, within the hour, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women will be making an announcement in Vancouver, at la Maison de la Francophonie. The matter has been settled, and there will be good news within the next hour.
(1145)
[English]
The minister has known about last weekend's hazing incident at CFB Gagetown and has been investigating it since Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. Media reports tell us today that there was another hazing incident in June at CFB Gagetown. The minister has known about this and has been investigating it since July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March.
Will the minister admit defeat and acknowledge that he is unable to manage this issue?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after that question, one thing I can admit is that contrary to my earlier opinion, the hon. member does know the days of the week and months of the year.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Collenette: These questions were answered yesterday by my parliamentary secretary and earlier this morning. The fact is that an incident occurred last weekend at Gagetown and we view any incident as described to be quite serious. The matter is being investigated not by me but by the military police. The hon. member should know, being an ex-serviceman, how the military justice system works. When the matter is fully investigated, then the judicial proceedings will take place.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that the minister only acts when these incidents are brought forward by the media.
Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the Canadian forces personnel are not participants in these activities nor do they condone these activities.
Today the base commander declared that he has no explanation on how to prevent these incidents.
This is beyond hazing. This is about the chain of command in the Canadian Armed Forces and it is failing under the leadership of this minister. What is this minister going to do about it? Canadians want to know.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when incidents such as this happen in the armed forces, the minister obviously is fully informed and the investigative process takes place.
As my parliamentary secretary said yesterday, the very good procedures that have been put in place especially as a result of some problems we have had in recent years cannot always be seen to be working if certain people in the forces display errors in judgment. There is very little we, the chief of the defence staff and other senior officers can do about errors in judgment in the same way that I cannot do anything about the hon. member coming to the House of Commons and asking rhetorical and fatuous questions.
[Translation]
Given the government's continued political and moral responsibility in this matter and the prime concern-to repair the past errors of this very government-will the minister ask ADM to hold real consultations with the public concerned before making any final decision?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Dorval and Mirabel belong to the federal government, but their management and development have been the responsibility of Aéroports de Montréal or ADM since 1992 under the terms of a 60 year lease.
My job, as the federal minister, is to ensure that issues concerning security, individuals and aircraft are addressed. I would like to give the member more information, if I could do so. However, responsibility was transferred to ADM a few years ago.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on February 22, the minister agreed to study the possibility of compensating the operators of concessions that might be affected by ADM's decision.
Would the minister at least acknowledge that the government is still open to such compensation?
(1150)
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, up to now I have received no report on the concession operators at the two airports. Do not forget that Mirabel is not being closed. It will continue to be a major airport in Quebec and in Canada. All charter and cargo flights will leave from Mirabel.
A change is being made, but it is a change implemented by ADM and not the Department of Transport.
[English]
Will the Deputy Prime Minister for the federal government accept the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and recognize Labrador by this name change?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will use the same open approach that we used with Nunavut.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that open approach sounds pretty vague and very typically Liberal. The Deputy Prime Minister should be aware that many Quebec provincial maps do not recognize the Quebec-Labrador border. All that is required to change the name of the province according to section 43 of the Constitution is simply a bilateral agreement between the federal government and the province.
I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, will she commit the federal government today to accepting this provincial initiative?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for finding Labrador on the map for the first time in four years.
The member will know that not only have we had very strong Liberal interests in Labrador for many years, but we have had excellent representation in the person of the former member and current senator, Bill Rompkey. We fully expect that tradition will continue on Monday.
When I said earlier that we would respect the process as we did with Nunavut, there is a process in place. It does require resolutions by respective Parliaments. I am sure the member would not want us to get up 48 hours prior to a byelection simply so he could score some cheap political points.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important question.
With respect to prairie grain producers, their former transportation subsidy under the WGTA was cancelled in one fell swoop on August 1 of last year. To help them adjust to a totally non-subsidized environment, we put certain WGTA adjustment measures into place. In the case of the dairy subsidy, it is not being terminated all at once. It is being phased out gradually over what is effectively a seven year period.
When we compare the federal money being provided for the so-called one time buyout of the WGTA versus the federal money being provided for the phase out of the dairy subsidy, the values are very much comparable, equitable and fair.
[Translation]
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has just deferred the shutting down of Radio Canada International for one year, since the funding allocated is only for a year. This announcement does nothing at all to reassure the spokesperson for the Coalition to save Radio Canada International, and his concerns are justified, for this settles nothing.
Why is the minister not able to provide permanent funding for Radio Canada International?
(1155)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I announced yesterday precisely what I had promised at the beginning of my mandate as Minister of Canadian Heritage, namely that we would start with one year of funding.
If I had the least bit of Bloc Quebecois support for the long term funding of Radio Canada International, it is absolutely certain that this matter could be settled for the long term.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like the Conservatives, two years and a half after the election of this government and despite the commitments made in the red book, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is still leaving Radio Canada International, the CBC, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada hanging.
Where does the difference lie between the Liberal and the Conservative approach to culture, despite its acknowledged importance?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the importance of culture, and that is why I support the creation of a special fund for culture. What makes it difficult, every time we seek new avenues of funding, is the block we run into, the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
Will the Minister of Justice commit today to act to ensure that killers cannot use drunkenness as a way to escape the justice that is due to them? Will he do it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is far better to take the supreme court judgments and read them rather than misread them. If that is done, one will know that the organizing principle of the criminal law in Canada is that those who do harm to others are held accountable for their misconduct.
I was very grateful to the hon. member last year when he stood with others to support the government's initiative to change the Criminal Code by Bill C-72, and ensure that those who intoxicate themselves are held accountable in the criminal law. That is the law of Canada today.
The judgments yesterday, if one goes beyond the headlines and looks at the substance of what was done, simply clarified the technical elements of charges to the jury, when juries, people from our communities, have to decide whether someone was able to form the specific intent to murder. If they were not, then they are culpable for manslaughter which is punishable by life imprisonment.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, stable waste has reached a new height in this Chamber. Canadians have lost all faith in the justice system and they are looking to Parliament to restore some of that faith.
I ask again, so that Canadians can be sure that the justice system is going to work to protect the victims of crime and protect Canadians from becoming victims, will the minister do something to ensure that killers will not escape justice by simply claiming they were drunk? Will he do it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my perception that Canadians have not lost confidence in the justice system. Canadians are losing confidence in politicians who engage in sloganeering and fearmongering for narrow partisan purposes.
The hon. member must allow himself to at least be distracted by some of the objective facts. I suggest that when he does that, when he takes his eyes from his slogan filled question sheet and looks at the judgments of the court and the reality of the law, he will see that those who commit the crime of taking another life in this country, intoxicated or not, are held accountable in the criminal law.
As the minister must be aware, the moving of the some 50 jobs of the income security program from Regina to Winnipeg has become a major issue. The cost of the move could climb as high as $2.6 million and will certainly result in the deterioration of services to seniors and the disabled in Saskatchewan. Will the minister rescind this move of jobs from Regina to Winnipeg, a move that will squander scarce dollars?
(1200)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has expressed his views on this matter. The decision was made some time ago.
The number of jobs that are actually affected and that would be moved are less than half of the number attributed to this situation by the hon. member in his question.
Any job that is being rearranged is always the grounds for great concern. I want to assure the hon. member that the purpose of making changes throughout the delivery system of human resources development is to improve service and to manage those scarce dollars, to which the hon. member referred, in the best way possible.
The department will be doing some work in Regina that is new, that is innovative, that will support the people to whom the hon. member has referred and that will actually increase the number of jobs in that sector.
There will always be an ongoing exchange of responsibilities and jobs, but in the final analysis, money will be spent wisely and as fairly and equitably as it can be to workers in all of the provinces of Canada.
Can the minister inform the House if his department has undertaken an investigation of reports of failure in rear door latches on certain Chrysler minivans and if the Department of Transport has the authority to order automobile manufacturers to conduct an immediate recall of all automobiles found to have safety hazards?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his concern about safety which is the primary duty of Transport Canada and its main responsibility.
With respect to the question of all issues relating to automobile safety, investigations of accidents are carried out for all categories of motor vehicles so that a safer fleet can be created.
More stringent standards have been applied to minivans. In 1994 roof strength standards were introduced and next year a slide
protection standard is proposed for the 1997 model year. This spring the rear door latch regulation for the 1998 model year will be introduced.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there has been a continuous improvement through regulation for safety of minivans.
The Speaker: This brings question period to a close.