Lynn Myers

[Police And Peace Officer National Memorial Day, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in support of the motion to designate the last Sunday in September as the police and peace officer national memorial day.

Since 1978 Canadians have been afforded the opportunity to officially commemorate the memory of police and peace officers killed in the line of duty. The annual Canadian police and peace officers memorial weekend service is a solemn occasion for family colleagues and all Canadians to honour and pay tribute to the men and women whose job it is to enforce the law and to protect society.

I have attended these services and they are an occasion to honour the memory of those who did so at the price of their own lives. The participation at last year's service is testimony to the increasing respect and esteem we all have for our peace officers whether they be police, correctional people or others in law enforcement.

It is because of the work of these officers that we as Canadians live in a safe society. However we sometimes take for granted the security we enjoy and it is commemoration ceremonies such as a memorial that remind us of the courage and dedication police and peace officers display day after day.

More important, it brings us all together to thank them for a job well done. Each year we hope that new names will not be added to the list of those to remember. Unfortunately this has not yet been the case.

Despite the fact that Canadians are fortunate to live in one of the safest countries in the world, adversity is a real risk and a real danger. Peace officers are vigilant about the safety of the entire community but the safety of their own lives may be compromised as they carry out their duty. In this regard I am especially grateful for the services provided by Canadian police and peace officers.

I have firsthand knowledge about police service in Canada. I sat as a member of the Waterloo Regional Police Services for 10 years. As chairman I was intimately involved with the work of police and the police service. I certainly applaud the loyalty, the commitment, the dedication and the outstanding professionalism of not only Waterloo Regional Police but of police and peace officers across Canada wherever they may be.

The motion speaks to the need to officially endorse a national police and peace officer memorial day on the same day as what has become an unofficial tradition for the past 20 years. It is a time when we all pause to reflect on the contribution our police and peace officers make to society and to honour the fallen. In addition, it is a time when we can pay our respects to the families who have also lived with the risk that each day brings and who have been called upon in their own way to make great sacrifices.

In addition to the memorial tribute each year, the government continues to recognize the work of police and peace officers across Canada during National Police Week. Again I have been intimately involved with that.

The government also provides practical support through the provision of new and innovative tools required by law enforcement officers to carry out their duties as safely as possible.

This means passing legislation that will prevent crime as well as legislation that will tackle crime in many ways simultaneously whether it be targeting high risk offenders or putting in place special measures to deal with criminal gangs.

This government will continue to make public safety its priority. This is demonstrated on a number of fronts. For example, through our efforts to combat organized crime, to develop crime prevention initiatives, to fight drug abuse and to redefine correctional strategies. The record on public safety speaks for itself.

Since the last police and peace officers memorial this government has taken steps toward making Canada a much safer place to live. The last Sunday of every September gives us all an opportunity to appreciate the difficulties and the importance of the work of police and peace officers.

Therefore, it is my belief that to designate the last Sunday of September as the date of the memorial service for the police and peace officer national memorial would entrench our respect as Canadians for police and peace officers who protect us, sometimes at the price of their own lives.

A formal national memorial day, such as the one proposed in this motion, would serve Canadian police and peace officers. It would serve their families, their colleagues and indeed all Canadians.

This government supports Motion No. 342. I am honoured to do likewise and I urge all members to do the same.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

As he knows, as all members of the House know, and indeed as all Canadians know, this is a very difficult decision. This is a very tough decision. This is a decision fraught with a great deal of emotion. It is clear that it strikes at the heart of all Canadians. We very much appreciate that.

The point is, though, on tough decisions like this one sometimes tough decisions have to be taken. An issue like this one sometimes requires that tough public policy decisions be taken in a manner that I think is fitting with what the majority of Canadians believe.

In answer to the hon. member's question I simply want to say a tough issue like this one sometimes requires tough decisions but is in the interest of the broader public policy.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I thank you for providing me with the opportunity to participate in this very difficult debate.

Governments created the Krever commission to examine all the information, to hear from many witnesses and to report on findings of fact about the blood tragedy of the 1980s. Justice Krever's final report is a comprehensive and exhaustive examination of the events. He recognizes the significance of the period 1986 to 1990 as a time when the Canadian blood system could have responded better with appropriate risk reduction measures.

After fully examining the facts Justice Krever advised us that rather than waiting for full scientific proof the Canadian Red Cross could and should have acted in a way similar to what occurred in the United States in 1986.

On the issue of the blood supply in general there can be no doubt of the government's continuing strong commitment to resolving the problems associated with Canada's blood system and to restoring public confidence. We fully understand the need to take appropriate action to rebuild public confidence in the blood supplies.

Any solutions must be governed by three principles. First, the safety of the blood supply must always come first. Second, a fully integrated approach is essential. Third, accountabilities must be clear and the system must be transparent.

The key to success lies in the proper governance of the system. That means we need an effective system of accountabilities, management structures and processes that control the safe supply and use of blood and blood products.

As we move toward a new system for regulating and safeguarding Canada's blood supply, it is important that we discuss thoroughly the details of the new system.

Questions have been raised about the role of the regulator during the transition of responsibilities for governance to the Canadian blood services. Let me review some of the basics.

The regulator's role is to set the standards for safety of the blood system and to ensure that they are met. Over the past several years Health Canada has taken decisive action to improve blood safety, and blood safety will continue to be a priority for the department in the future.

Health Canada regulates the collection and manufacturing of blood and blood products. Health Canada has a comprehensive approach to improvement calling for co-ordinated initiatives in many different parts of the department with the cumulative effect of overall strengthening and improving the blood system safety.

Health Canada is involved in strengthening standard setting and inspection of the blood system, in improving the development of test kits used in blood safety and in facilitating public health intelligence with an emphasis on bettering blood science.

Each of the individual improvements noted contributes in its own way to ensuring that Canadians continue to have a supply of safe, effective blood and blood products when they are required.

The regulator must provide guidance to the operator on how to meet these requirements. Health Canada is in the process of developing guidelines on the regulatory requirements for blood establishments.

Health Canada is also working with the blood transition bureau to advise on regulatory issues during this transition and is working closely with the bureau to communicate regulatory requirements.

Health Canada will also continue to provide guidance to the blood transition bureau and will evaluate any submissions according to established standards.

These are urgent matters and Health Canada fully recognizes that urgency. It has therefore made a strong commitment to give such evaluations top priority. Health Canada has undertaken a major initiative to improve the surveillance and investigative capacity of Canada's public health system. Blood science and blood borne infections, old and newly emerging ones, are at the forefront of this initiative.

The department is building the capacity to answer basic medical and scientific questions by taking an approach guided by principles of consensus building, priority setting, expertise and strong national and international linkages.

Health Canada has established a blood borne pathogens unit to carry out consensus planning, development surveillance, investigation programs, design projects and activities to address the needs that are identified.

Health Canada is building a network of experts and information to include federal, provincial, academic, professional, clinical and public communities to focus the extensive research capacity that exists in Canada on the demanding questions that remain in the blood system.

The goal is to co-ordinate a consortium of research agencies in Canada, including the Medical Research Council, National Defence, Health Canada's national health research and development program, the National Research Council, the Networks of Centres for Excellence and the private sector so that priority applied research agendas for blood borne pathogens can be developed.

This strategy of consensus building will help all partners move beyond collaboration toward total commitment and achieve consensus answers to urgent questions about blood borne diseases.

The department is forging strong international links to ensure that Canada's public health intelligence keeps pace with developments in other parts of the world, putting Canada's various health protection partners in a strong position to trigger effective scientific action.

Over the past several years Health Canada has proven by its actions in areas which fall under its responsibility that it is committed to keeping Canada's blood system safe and of the highest quality.

The year 2000 problem, a central information management issue facing many organizations, is being addressed diligently through several contingency plans. Health Canada has also made a commitment to expediting reviews of information related to the implementation of the year 2000 compliant system.

The initiative of Canada's governments to take action on the national blood system marks an important mutual commitment to achieve a common goal, and that is ensuring the safety of the Canadian blood system and supply.

Health Canada carefully monitors developments at all levels in the blood system. The department will continue to regulate any changes that fall within its jurisdiction. It will take the lead to direct changes which in its view will further strengthen that system.

In his interim report Justice Krever advised Canadians that “safety is an absence of risk”. He also said “safety is an absolute and can never be achieved”. Health Canada believes that all of partners and participants in the national blood system have to strive constantly to reduce health risks and ensure the blood supply is as safe as it can be.

The department has shown leadership on blood safety and it will continue to take an aggressive leadership role in making Canada's national blood system second to none.

We can see from this brief review that Health Canada is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the transition to a new blood system is smooth and successful, and that we will have a system in which all Canadians can have confidence.

[Access To Information Act, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that there is a growing movement both nationally and internationally to have jails and/or correctional facilities privatized. We see this happening more and more. I note, for example, that New Brunswick, Ontario and Nova Scotia are experimenting with jails planned, constructed and operated by private interests. Meanwhile I also note that the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand have more than 130 proposed or completed correctional facilities with varying degrees of private involvement.

Some advocates who favour privatization argue that privatization can result in significant cost savings, fewer problems with inmates and better rehabilitation and education programs. Opponents, on the other hand, contend that privatization benefits a handful of large companies at the expense of long term public safety. They argue that the private sector has an incentive to keep prisons full to gain maximum profit, reducing the incentive to reform offenders, seek alternatives to jail or support crime prevention programs.

There have been some studies done in this area and it is interesting to note that some evaluations indicate that private prisons can yield savings of between 5% and 30% largely through smaller payroll costs. However, other studies, including a 1996 report by the United States general accounting office, found conflicting evidence on what to expect from privatization in the way of costs and quality of service.

All this means that privatization is a contentious issue. It clearly needs to be weighed out carefully before proceeding. The pros and cons must be carefully considered prior to any move to privatize prisons and/or correctional facilities.

My question to the solicitor general is quite simple. Is privatization worth trying or are prisons best left in the hands of the public sector?

[Access To Information Act, April 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

In 1981 when the bill which led to our existing Access to Information Act was passed, it was clear the legislators of the day had a strong desire to create a new era of government openness and accountability. Today there is no question that government is open, transparent and accountable to Canadians, thanks to the Access to Information Act.

While the legislators of 1981 saw fit to exclude a number of crown corporations, since making their information accessible would possibly harm the public interests, these excluded institutions nevertheless have managed to become open, transparent and accountable themselves through means other than the Access to Information Act. Our Access to Information Act deserves credit for creating a culture of openness which permeates the public sector regardless of whether this or that public corporation is subject to access laws.

All branches of government are aware of how highly valued openness and accountability have become. Their daily operations are guided by that awareness. Given the kind of public sector we have today, the proposed amendment looks like an excessive, unnecessary and possibly even hazardous venture.

Let us discuss Canada Post for the next few minutes, especially since the member opposite thinks it makes such a compelling argument for revising the act.

What do Canadians need to know about Canada Post? Do they need to know, for example, how federal assets are managed? Of course they do. However they already receive that information from sources such as the corporation's annual report and the corporate plan summary. They also receive this information when corporate officials are questioned by members of parliament from both sides of the House at their regular appearances before parliamentary committees.

The members who took part in the February 17 meeting of the natural resources and government operations committee can attest to the frankness of the discussion when the minister responsible for Canada Post and the president of Canada Post answered questions on a broad range of subjects.

Do they need to know whether Canada Post cross-subsidizes? Yes, but Canadians already have that answer after several independent audits have investigated the allegation. Most important, Canadians can count on getting an annual answer to that question not by virtue of new federal legislation but rather by virtue of Canada Post's decision to begin reporting its financial results on a segmented basis, product line by product line, beginning with its 1996-97 annual report.

Do they need to know if Canada Post is open about the handling of their complaints or concerns? Absolutely and certainly. It was for that very reason that the first Canada Post ombudsman was named last August. Thanks to this impartial public advocate Canadians will now have new recourse if they feel their complaints have not been adequately dealt with.

If the ombudsman's investigations find that further recourse is possible the individual will get a fair treatment, and rightly so, which he or she would deserve. If the opposite is found then the individual will be able to resist and rest assured that Canada Post did its utmost to accommodate them. I fail to see what the member's sweeping amendment would add to that process.

Frankly, I find it surprising that a party which has always proclaimed itself as wanting less rather than more should embark on a campaign now to create bureaucrat obstacles to the successful management of crown corporations. It is all the more surprising given the Reform Party's platform which advocates the privatization of Canada Post. Clearly, Reform thinks Canada Post should become less and not more of a concern to Canadians. So which is it? We have become used to hearing contradictions from the other side of the House and we have yet another example before us today on this matter.

When he spoke of Bill C-216 during the earlier debate my hon. colleague from Mississauga South warned us of the unintended consequences of the bill. I agree with him that we have to be very, very careful of there not being such consequences. Let me remind the member, as well as all members who may be enticed by the bill, that where Canada Post and other crown corporations are concerned Bill C-216 is a solution in search of a problem. We all know that a certain road to a certain place is paved with good intentions, but I would caution all members in the House against travelling down that road.

By enacting this sweeping amendment to the Access to Information Act I believe big business would profit long before ordinary Canadians. In Canada Post's case the corporation would be placed at an obvious disadvantage while its competitors would be able to collect the information which would allow them to devise tailor-made competitive strategics against it.

Under the disclosure environment the member is proposing these competitors would be under no obligation and certainly no encouragement to release the same information about themselves. With this kind of inequality in the marketplace the demise of Canada Post would not be very far behind.

I wonder what favour the member thinks he would be doing Canadians by removing a key competitor in the area of message and parcel conveyance. I wonder how the member could explain to Canadians how less competition is a good thing, especially when no Canada Post competitor provides service from coast to coast to coast.

Canadians have a committed public corporation in Canada Post, a corporation dedicated to providing all Canadians with basic service whether they live in Tofino or Port Alberni. The member's bill does nothing but threaten the very foundation of that commitment.

What about the expense of managing the flood of requests that would confront any crown corporation operating in a competitive environment should the bill become law? Did the hon. member think about that when drafting his proposals? Is it true that Canadians have a vested interest in crown corporations since the government is the sole shareholder? That is true.

The time and expense of processing access to information requests and defending the application of exemptions to corporate records cannot be justified.

To amend a piece of legislation you need better reasons than to say that some crown corporations must comply with the Access to Information Act while others are exempt. Before considering such a drastic measure, the public interest would have to be in jeopardy.

I do not see any proof of that with regard to Canada Post and other crown corporations exempt from the Access to Information Act. I have heard no compelling argument to apply the act to corporations that are already open and transparent.

For these reasons I cannot support a bill that would cause more harm than good to these institutions and the Canadians they serve. I would ask that all members do likewise.

[Canadian Flag, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Pierre Roy, Joe Bilocq and Raymond Carrier, who have persisted in ensuring that the Canadian flag is flown at city hall in Quebec.

For almost two and a half years these three people would arrive early each morning to raise the Canadian flag. Finally on April 7 of this year Quebec City council agreed to officially fly the Canadian flag once again outside city hall.

I along with the residents of Waterloo—Wellington and all Canadians who believe in our great flag salute these great Canadians for their loyalty, commitment and dedication to their country. They are heroes. They set an example for us all. Merci beaucoup.

[National Head Start Program, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House today on Motion No. 261, advocating a national head start program for Canadian children.

In the last decade we have learned a tremendous amount about early child development. What happens in the first few years of life, indeed as early as the prenatal period, can have a lasting effect on the development of a child. A child's earliest experiences often affect his or her capacity to learn, to be healthy and to be productive throughout life. We now know, for example, that the brain develops more rapidly in the first year of life than had previously been believed.

While most children go through the early years of life getting everything they need to develop to their full potential, some children are not as fortunate. Unfortunately poverty is the largest single factor affecting young Canadians today. Many children who live in poverty have inadequate housing or do not get enough to eat. Other Canadian children live in families who are isolated without adequate social support or who face barriers to accessing quality health care and social services. Still other children experience neglect or abuse. It is estimated that one in five children are living in conditions of risk.

The hon. member will be pleased to know that early investments in healthy child development are a priority for this government. The government is taking a preventative approach to physical and mental health by optimizing early child development for all children and intervening early for at risk and marginalized children. The government recognizes the importance of supporting families, which have undoubtedly the most important influence on a child's development. Also recognized is the need to support parents in their role as children's teachers and their protectors.

The Government of Canada has developed three programs that provide long term funding to community groups to design and deliver programs to address the needs of pregnant women, young children and families living in conditions of risk. The first program is the Canada prenatal nutrition program, CPMP; the second is the community action program for children, CAPC; and the aboriginal head start program is the third.

The Canadian prenatal nutrition program, or CPMP, funds 264 projects in 751 communities. These projects offer food supplements, nutrition counselling and support, education and counselling on issues such as alcohol abuse, stress and family violence. These projects also make referrals to other services; 8,500 in their first six months of operation.

CPMP participants are pregnant teens, women living in isolation, women who abuse alcohol or other substances, women living in violent situations and women diagnosed with other problems including diabetes, et cetera. This program is successfully reaching pregnant women who are at risk of low birth. In fact the number of participants in 1997 and 1998 is 30% higher than was anticipated.

The community action program for children, or CAPC, funds over 450 projects across Canada so that children get a better start in life and are ready to start school and improve their chances of growing into healthy and productive adults. Activities include home visiting, parenting classes, play groups, discussion groups and counselling. Over 30,000 parents and children are involved each week in CAPC activities.

In addition, these projects have created 1,000 jobs with 20% of them filled by CAPC parents. The projects also account for 30,000 hours of volunteer time every month. I can speak from experience regarding the CAPC. It is an exceptional program and certainly one which is valued by the residents of my riding Waterloo—Wellington.

Children at aboriginal head start spend an average of three hours per day and four days per week in classroom activities. Approximately 30,000 children are enrolled in the program with an average of 30 to 40 children at any given site. Approximately 400 aboriginal people are employed in head start centres and aboriginal communities are involved in the planning, development and operation of all aboriginal head start projects.

Aboriginal head start, CAPC and CPNP have all proven successful in working within broad based community partnerships channelling resources into areas where they have the most positive impact on at risk and marginalized children. The success of these programs speaks volumes to the value of co-operative community based interventions for children.

This community based approach is paying back dividends by getting more children off to a better start in life, increasing their school readiness and improving their chances of growing into healthy and productive adults who will participate fully in Canadian society.

There are some key issues raised by the motion in the context of the national children's agenda which I would like to highlight at this time.

First, the motion represents a major emerging theme in the national children's agenda but is only one part of that agenda. Early child development while a central theme to NCA is only one piece of the overall agenda and discussions are still in an early stage. No decisions have been made regarding the specific areas of action. The national children's agenda is a more comprehensive approach to child development than the present motion covering children throughout their entire childhood. For example, other areas of interest include supporting families around work, family balance and effective safe communities. It is important to support children in early years but that support must continue throughout development.

Second, further consideration is needed on how to strategically focus our efforts on the early years of childhood. The exact development years which would be included in early child development remains under discussion. The motion does not consider the prenatal period which is crucial to child development. For example, low birth weight babies are more at risk for later developmental problems. As well, though the motion refers to children ages zero to eight, it may be more appropriate to start with children in their early preschool years, for example under age four or five where no formal system currently exists. Then as the system develops the program could be expanded to include children ages six to eight when school transition issues begin.

Third, the motion misses the importance of citizen engagement in plans to improve the well-being of Canada's children. The motion speaks to the need to work with the provinces and territories on children's issues. However no mention is made of the importance of engaging the public. The national children's agenda is intended to be more than a product of governments talking to governments and other partners will be engaged as the agenda moves forward. All Canadians will have the opportunity to contribute their views regarding possible areas for action and to define how we improve the well-being of all Canadian children.

Fourth, full implementation by the year 2000 is overly optimistic. Though the programs listed in the motion in the federal government's CAPC provide good models on which to build, full implementation of the national head start program by the year 2000 is too optimistic. Given the overlapping areas of jurisdiction and the cross sectorial approach needed to properly address children's issues, negotiations for a national head start will take some time, not to mention the time required for broader consultations to engage citizens.

In light of the growing body of research demonstrating the window of opportunity which exists in early childhood, and in view of the growing political and public interest in the area of child development, a system to enhance early child development is critical and should be an early priority.

Clearly children's issues, particularly those relating to early child development, are a priority as indicated in the September 23, 1997 Speech from the Throne, the recent first ministers' meeting of December 12, 1997, and the commitment to federal-provincial territorial development of the national children's agenda. This is apparent.

Motion No. 261 is consistent with this emphasis on enhancing children's well-being. However, given the status of the national children's agenda it would be inappropriate for the motion to go forward.

Early in 1997 federal, provincial and territorial governments began working together to develop the national children's agenda. It would be inconsistent to now be advancing on another front on a private member's motion and what it suggests.

Most recently at the December 12, 1997 meeting, first ministers reaffirmed their commitment to new co-operative approaches to ensure child well-being. Noting the progress of the national children's agenda, first ministers agreed to fast track work on that agenda. Until that work in progress has been outlined and discussed Motion No. 261 is premature.

Therefore I ask all members of the House to vote accordingly.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to address the proposed legislative change to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. I fully support this bill which will balance the benefits given to our peacekeepers whether they belong to the Canadian forces or to the RCMP.

Currently there are inconsistencies in the work related health and death benefits offered to peacekeepers working in these two groups. The amendment would allow RCMP officers to be covered 24 hours a day for illness, disability and death while working overseas in special duty areas in the same way officers in the Canadian forces receive their benefits.

I will outline the importance of this bill to all Canadians.

Our peacekeepers are sent to represent our country as well as to provide security and stability to the people living in some of the most war torn areas of the world. They are highly skilled individuals who work to bring law and order to nations experiencing strife. While doing this, Canadian peacekeepers are effectively on duty 24 hours a day whether they are on a formal shift or not.

While at home RCMP members, like all other Canadians, are entitled to government sponsored benefits for work related illness, disability and death. The system makes a distinction between work and non-work situations. In Canada this distinction is clear. A work related incident occurs during a work shift. However, in the case of peacekeepers serving outside Canada in hazardous areas, the line between being on duty and off duty is less clear. This bill will recognize that our Canadian peacekeepers while serving overseas can never truly go off duty or be away from danger.

Canadians are proud of their peacekeepers and expect them to receive the protection and benefits they deserve. I know this to be true. My constituents in Waterloo—Wellington are very proud of those who do so much for all of us as Canadians.

Since the Canadian Armed Forces first participated in international peacekeeping missions, soldiers or their beneficiaries were not required to prove that injury or death had occurred while the individual was on duty. This acknowledgement continues today.

Members of the Canadian forces are on duty 24 hours a day while they serve in special duty areas such as Bosnia and Haiti. This means that if a member of the Canadian forces suffers an injury, becomes ill or even dies while serving in these areas, the benefits under the Pension Act automatically apply. This is not so for the RCMP. These officers are only entitled to benefits under the Pension Act if the illness, injury or death occurs during a normally scheduled shift. Under the terms of the act, the onus is on the employee to prove the disability is attributed to on-duty service.

Presently members of both forces are on a mission in Bosnia, a region declared as a special duty area. According to the special duty pension order, members of the Canadian forces are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day with respect to the risk of illness, injury or death. However, members of the RCMP are considered to be on duty only during scheduled shift hours. Although both forces are participating in the same mission under the same conditions and exposed to the same dangers, RCMP members are treated differently than military personnel. This bill addresses this double standard.

It solves the problem of the differing treatment between members of the Canadian forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police doing the same jobs. It acknowledges that Canadian peacekeeping forces never really stop serving and running risks even when their shifts are over. This special pension benefit takes into account the increased risk associated with peacekeeping duties.

Bill C-12 reflects the changing role of peacekeeping and how Canada, a country respected worldwide for its peacekeeping commitments, has assisted many countries in stabilizing law and order. This bill strives for equality for all peacekeepers whether they are military or RCMP personnel. By supporting this bill we will acknowledge that the RCMP's contribution to peacekeeping is as important as that of the Canadian forces. I hope all hon. members understand the fairness of the amendments proposed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and that they will join with me and others in passing this bill.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Maple Syrup Festival, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to rise and advise the House of a special occasion which will occur this Saturday, April 4, in Elmira, Ontario.

As the dreary days of winter draw to a close, each year residents of the Waterloo—Wellington riding and visitors from around the world converge on Elmira to celebrate the tapping of maple trees and the promise of spring.

This year our riding celebrates the 34th annual maple syrup festival. On behalf of my constituents I would like to invite hon. members and all Canadians to attend this wonderful Canadian event.

I would also like to acknowledge the many volunteers whose tireless efforts each year ensure the continued success of the festival. All residents of Waterloo—Wellington thank them for their dedication.

[Criminal Code, April 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as the former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I was disturbed by recent reports which suggested that some police officers and prosecutors have backed away from investigating motorcycle members fearing for the safety of their families. I do not know if this is accurate or not. What I do know is that threats, harassment and intimidation have long been used as favourite weapons of bikers.

It is understandable how this can have an impact and a chilling effect on police officers and prosecutors. It is especially understandable because of the pressure it places on their spouses and their children.

There is a lot at stake here. This is not about bikers riding around on their motorcycles. This is about money. This is about big business which is illegal. This is about the sale of illicit drugs.

As a society and as a country we need to ensure that our police officers and our prosecutors can continue to carry out their duties without fear of threats, harassment or intimidation.

I again ask the solicitor general to fully outline what exactly the federal government is doing to protect our police officers and our prosecutors from these kinds of threats, harassment and intimidation by motorcycle gang members. We owe them our full protection.