John McKay

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to speak on this debate.

Recently a constituent of mine forwarded a column by Diane Francis contained in the May 18 issue of Maclean's magazine. The constituent was commenting favourably upon the article and requested a detailed response. I thought I should respond with some detail.

The column unfortunately betrays a woeful lack of understanding of Canadian history and an appalling ignorance of government finances, which is what we are debating tonight.

I could forgive Ms. Francis for her lack of Canadian historical knowledge, as she was originally an American citizen, however, I am unable to forgive her for her limited grasp of the federal government's finances and the role of the federal government vis-à-vis its citizens in this country.

She states “The federal government is in need of serious downsizing. It need not be involved in health, education, welfare, mining, forestry, culture or the fisheries. They are adequately handled by the provinces and the federal role should only be one of co-ordination. On the other hand, Ottawa should remain in charge of justice, economic management, international diplomacy, defence, internal security and communications policy”.

Ms. Francis seems not to understand that the government is not involved in health, education, welfare and has entered into management agreements with the provinces in the areas of mining and forestry.

For a nationally syndicated columnist this is a woeful misunderstanding of the jurisdictions involved in this country. The federal government is still involved in culture and fisheries because those endeavours do not recognize provincial boundaries.

Ottawa still remains in other areas of government approved by Ms. Francis, although its role in the daily delivery of justice services is quite limited. All in all Ottawa is pretty well out of everything that Ms. Francis thinks it should be out of and is in everything that Ms. Francis thinks it should be in. Never one to let facts get in the way of a fixed religious belief, Ms. Francis goes on to chastise the government for its enormous duplication and says that downsizing is not in the lexicon of the Liberal government.

Ms. Francis is the editor of the Financial Post . As such, she should have a working familiarity with the budget of the federal government. For hon. members present and for Ms. Francis I will go over some fundamentals of the federal budget.

The federal government has a budget of approximately $150 billion to $160 billion annually. In fiscal year 1996-97, 30% of that money went to service the national debt. The next 15% was transferred to the provinces and a further 23% was transferred to other organizations, such as the OAS, ET, et cetera. That amounts to 68% before Ottawa spends a dime on its own programs.

I am assuming that Ms. Francis does not want the federal government to default on its debts. That is possibly not true in the province which I come from, however, I am assuming that Ms. Francis wants that. I am also assuming that she does not want the amount of moneys allocated under the CHST to be reduced, especially to her favourite little buddy Mike Harris, and does not feel that the old age benefits or employment insurers are overly generous.

Ms. Francis approves of the federal government having a role in defence. That accounts for $9 billion to $10 billion. In gross numbers on a budget of $161 billion, the federal government transferred $41.6 billion to persons, $22 billion to provinces and paid $44.9 billion in interest on the national debt. That leaves approximately $50 billion or 33% on which to run all the federal programs which Ms. Francis finds so burdensome. This is essentially the only money over which the federal government has any real control.

Ms. Francis apparently approves of Ottawa being involved in defence and apparently approves that this is—

[Immigration, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this might be entitled a tale of two résumés.

Canada continues to welcome to its shores in excess of 200,000 people annually. Unfortunately when they arrive they cannot always find jobs commensurate with their skills.

I recently received two résumés from one individual. It discloses a Ph.D. in history of international relations and foreign policy from Kiev State University and an MA in international relations. He lectured at Kabul University, faculty of law and political science, and speaks at least three languages.

The second résumé is for an entry level position in hotel management. He has a certificate in sanitation, safety and hygiene.

In Canada he does pizza deliveries twice a week and organizes chairs in hotel rooms. Canada cannot continue to waste its human capital.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to speak on this legislation. I have been privileged to sit on the justice committee throughout the deliberations and to examine the legislation as it has made its way through the committee stage.

I do support the bill. It is an excellent piece of legislation. I also support my friend's motion which I consider to be a point of philosophical divergence.

There are three points at which a DNA sample could be taken, point of arrest, point of charge, point of conviction. The purpose of this legislation is to give the police access to DNA profiles for the purposes of identifying individuals so they can be linked or not linked as the case may be to crime scenes. It is not conclusive proof but taken with other evidence adds to the weight of evidence against an accused. It also works the other way to eliminate suspects.

We were told at committee stage that a properly gathered sample creates a 1 in 94 billion probability sample. Notwithstanding this high level probability, it is not in and of itself conclusive as to the issue of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The crown would still have to adduce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. Defence counsel will still attack reliability, credibility, means of gathering the sample, the integrity of the sample, the errors in collection, et cetera. Nevertheless, it is of significant use to police investigation. Canadians have only to witness the Morin inquiry to understand the powerful input of DNA evidence.

If this is such a great tool, then why can the Parliament of Canada not make it readily available to the police? What could be the possible justification for withholding a tool that is readily accessible, surrounded by safeguards for abuse and would be of great assistance in solving outstanding crimes? The issues revolve around the point at which the sample is taken and the means by which the sample is taken. There are three points at which a sample of blood, hair or saliva could be taken, at arrest, charge or conviction.

It was not seriously argued before us that samples should be taken a point of arrest. This would simply create a fishing expedition on the part of the police and imperil the liberty of the citizen. The argument came down to a choice between point of charge and point of conviction. If truth were known many if not all members of the committee would have been content with a charge regime. To lay the charge the police must have reasonable and probable grounds that a crime has been committed. At that time, as a matter of routine, fingerprints and mugshots are taken; similarly, so could DNA samples. The police want to be able to take DNA samples at that point and enter the results in a DNA bank for cross-reference purposes and for identification.

The technology has become so advanced that the taking of a sample is minimally intrusive. Logically if the taking of DNA samples is less intrusive than fingerprinting why should the justice system be deprived of that tool? If it is constitutionally okay to take a fingerprint and a mugshot, why is it not constitutionally okay to take DNA?

Here is where legal theory becomes so arcane and obscure as to lose even the most diligent of students. The core of the argument is that the state is absolutely prohibited from intruding on the sanctity of the person without consent. The person has an absolute right to the integrity of his or her personhood. Therefore the taking of a cell by any means, however intrusive or non-intrusive, is a breach of that person's privacy. The state is absolutely forbidden from doing it.

In addition, the depth and range of material revealed by DNA samples provides to the state a marker of that individual which is not only a complete profile but could be used for other purposes. In other words, the legal wall between the person and the state has been breached and the state knows far more about that individual than it has any right to know.

The argument is of dubious merit for two reasons. The first is the fear of using the profile for purposes other than identification. I believe the committee was not concerned about that issue as the procedures and safeguards were such a series of Chinese walls that it would be virtually impossible to breach those walls.

The second is the issue of invading the privacy of a person. The charter gives protection to the undue invasion of privacy. However, it can be statutorily sanctioned as it is with fingerprinting. If one can invade privacy by statute on fingerprinting, one can also surely do it by DNA sample simultaneously. We are after all legislators and our business is that of creating law. If statute sanctions fingerprinting as not unduly invasive, why cannot DNA sampling by statute, such as this this bill, also be considered to be not unduly invasive? Nice question with no neat answer. The advice of justice lawyers was that if we move the sample from point of conviction down to point of charge the bill would not withstand a charter challenge.

I have been in and around law for about 28 years and consider the views of justice lawyers to be excellent. When you retain lawyers you do not stand up and contradict them easily.

When the matter came to a clause by clause stage the minister and his lawyers from the justice department were quite adamant that the charge regime would not survive a charter challenge. To their credit, their arguments were strong. If we go to a charge regime the bill would not survive a charter challenge.

One week after the bill was taken back to the House justice lawyers were quoted, however, in the front pages of The Globe and Mail as saying every time they go to the supreme court they do not have a clue what will happen. Flip a coin. The supreme court is adrift in a sea of confusion.

The additions of Justices Binnie and Bastarach do not help in predicting the outcome. When this was brought to the attention of the justice minister she stated in committee that she was obtaining three more outside opinions from retired justices. To no one's great surprise, the opinions support the government's position.

This resembles the theatre of the absurd. The Parliament of Canada stands on the sidelines while justice lawyers and their surrogates argue out a position based on established precedent; hardly the point. The motion says in effect we have read your opinions, we have heard your arguments and we are not persuaded.

We believe there are adequate safeguards to protect privacy and sanctity of the person and that search and seizure is warranted in this instance. The tabling of the opinions could amount to the subtle use of a notwithstanding clause.

The bill has a huge hole in it. If Paul Bernardo were sitting in a police station this morning charged with a sexual offence he would not be DNA banked until he was convicted and if not convicted he would never be banked. The police could say to themselves with legitimacy they do not have the resources to do this. He is a blond, blue eyed boy with a job and a home in beautiful downtown Guildwood, which happens to be my riding. They could also state they have a lot more pressing problems than to get a justice warrant. The police in Fredericton who are conducting other investigations would never know about it. Nor would the police in Edmonton. So this is quite a large gap in the legislation.

Members may have detected a bit of skepticism on my part with respect to the efficacy of the bill but I am ultimately persuaded that the good qualities in the bill might be lost to charter challenge. However, I do support this motion and I do wish that the government had exercised a more subtle approach in excising out a charge regime be it on one conviction or on two convictions so that the bill could have a charter challenge at the point where we could try to advance the law in this area.

This brings me to my final point, the doctrine of supremacy of parliament. I was greatly intrigued by the comments of Mr. Justice Cory in the Brin decision. He said that courts use the charter to dialogue with the legislature. Dialogue as experienced by this legislator is more like a monologue. We speak, you listen.

Courts develop legal theory, charter theory about trees and branches and living documents to arrive at conclusions which look suspiciously like ex post facto reasoning, you legislators sit down.

I have been in and around the justice system in Ontario for quite a number of years and consider it to be one of the finest in the world. Ultimately, however, it is a very crude means of resolving disputes. Lawsuits have winners and losers, unevenly resourced litigants and narrow views of relevance materiality.

Legislation such as this is a product of years of analysis, drafting, study and witnesses. The committee spent months looking at this legislation and it went through an extensive consultation process prior to being introduced.

The members of the committee represent in excess of one million people who come from a variety of backgrounds, both philosophical and political. I would argue with little fear of contradiction that if we as a committee had our choice absent charter arguments that we would be presenting a regime based on charge.

In my view judicial attitudes are not consistent with Canadian values on this issue and judges need to know that after extensive debate and analysis parliamentarians are only presenting this bill due to limited and narrow thinking by judicial activists.

[Extradition, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada regards itself as a humanitarian nation. It brings into this country in excess of 200,000 people on an annual basis. Regrettably among them are a small number of war criminals and fugitives from justice. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice just how Bill C-40 will address this problem?

[Holidays Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the hon. member for Oak Ridges and his bill. It is an excellent bill and one which is worthy of support by the House.

Canada is one of the world's oldest democracies. It was conceived in 1841 by LaFontaine and Baldwin in the context of some competing visions. Canada is a great idea and sustains itself as a great idea by virtue of its visionaries. It was conceived at the time when the competing visions were very strong indeed.

There was a competing vision of being closer to the British Empire which my ancestors frankly supported. People from British ancestry, British stock said that we needed a relationship that was closer to the British Empire.

On the other hand there was the emergent empire of the United States. It was quite a force in terms of its ability to attract people to populate the country and clearly was a force to be reckoned with and one of great attraction to many Canadians.

Then there was a third vision which was centred in Quebec. It wanted its relationship to be much closer to the mother country on a colonial tie basis.

In this maelstrom of visions emerged the vision of LaFontaine and Baldwin which led to the creation of Canada. Canada, being Upper Canada and Lower Canada, attracted in turn other provinces primarily from the Atlantic region and emerged from that in 1867 as a nation.

What has kept Canada together over these great number of years has been the visions of its leaders, particularly with Macdonald who brought the country together by virtue of a railway. The railway made absolutely no sense from an economic standpoint. It should have gone down through the United States and come back up into Canada. The point of the railway was not to make an economic livelihood for people but was to unite the country.

Similarly Laurier had visions such as that, visions which made for a country, nation building visions. One of the strongest ones was with respect to immigration to the west, the population of the west. It was an idea which allowed Canada to bring to its territory huge numbers of immigrants to populate the west, largely in response to the encroachments of people from the United States.

Around 1917 and 1918 over 400,000 people came to this country of six million at the time, something in the order of 7% or 8% of the population. It is an incredible thought when we think of it in the context of our own immigration policy which strives to do 1% of the population.

Similarly, Laurier resisted the encroachments of the British Empire, the attraction of being part of the trading agreement. He stuck out his political neck, shall we say, and tried to make distance between Canada and the British Empire.

I support the hon. member's bill. One of Laurier's speeches says “Although Caesar once said that he would rather be first in a village than second in Rome, I say that it is my ambition to be a citizen of a great country. I look forward to the day when Canada will have a population of 30 million to 40 million perhaps, and when its voice will weigh in the destinies of the world”.

That day has arrived. Therefore I support the recognition of that day.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward this important motion to the House. I hope that he has as much success in influencing the agenda for change as he did with respect to the land mines issue.

This is a serious motion which deserves a serious and thoughtful response. The essence of the motion links rising crime among young offenders with dysfunctional family dynamics.

Do we put resources in at the front end of a child's life or do we pay for it later on through involvement in the justice system? Are the resources to go to programs to help families or do we build bigger jails? Either way, we are going to spend resources. What is the best way to spend them?

Stating the question is easy. The answer, however, is far more problematic. Unfortunately influence in society is not like physics. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction in physics, but the same cannot be said of the sociology of social programs.

In his support material the hon. member makes reference to programs in Hawaii and New Brunswick. I am not so pretentious as to dispute the efficacy of the programs or their research. However, those results may not necessarily play out in a larger, less controlled societal environment. In other words, the larger the target community, the less measurable will be the results.

There does seem to be a correlation between a drop in juvenile crime and meeting the basic needs of children. However, it is not as neat as we would like it to be. There appears to be a correlation but it is not neat.

I draw attention to an article by Cathy Campbell in Child Health , winter issue 1998, volume 20, quoting Dr. Clyde Hertzman, professor of health care and epidemiology at UBC: “Lower income children who get good early childhood education are healthier, go further in school, get better jobs and rely less on the social welfare system”.

The National Crime Prevention Council estimates that crime costs Canada $46 billion annually. If we took $1 million and invested it in prison space for career criminals this would prevent 60 crimes annually. If we took the same amount and used it to monitor 12 and 13 year old delinquents it would prevent 72 crimes a year. Further, if that $1 million were invested in incentives for young people to graduate from high school it could be estimated that we would save 258 crimes annually.

In some manner we visit this dilemma every time there is a major crime involving a juvenile which generates media attention or when there is government initiated legislation in the field. If and when the government tables its response to the justice committee's report and recommendations on young offenders this debate will be played out again.

Canada incarcerates children at the rate of four times that of the United States and 15 times that of the average European nation. So much for being a kinder and gentler version of the United States. We are world class incarcerators of juveniles.

I do not think that is something to be proud of. It certainly gives one pause to consider one's very sense of who we are as Canadians.

Canadians believe that juvenile crime is out of control, that they are at risk every time they go to the store to pick up a bag of milk or a carton of cigarettes. Yet arguably the young offenders legislation is tough enough and puts away far more children than any other civilized nation.

There is a discrepancy between what Canadians believe and what is the reality of the legislation. The hon. member proposes a long term solution which has some merit. Some members of his party could easily be described as people who feel that the government is not tough enough on crime, that the government is made up of a bunch of wimps, that the young offenders legislation is not tough enough.

The government responds, as it did through the minister of state for children and youth, by saying look at all the things it is doing. There was the Speech from the Throne, the aboriginal head start programs, the Canada prenatal nutrition program, the $850 million in the budget and a further $850 million promised for a child benefit system. The debate goes on and on.

One side firmly believes that we should toughen up all legislation affecting youth and youth crime and the other is saying we need more head start programs.

I do not find myself seriously disagreeing with the hon. member's motion. I might quibble with the wording to ensure that children are seen as part of the family and that programs should be tailored to support the family. Beyond that, I would see his motion as something that supports government initiatives and the general direction of this government. Only it urges a more coherent view on the government.

I support the thrust of this motion. However, I am concerned that there is not an easy correlation between head start programs and crime reduction. The government should continue to monitor its initiatives in light of the tests set out in this motion.

[Access To Information Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am indebted the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for his assistance.

I commence by commending my colleague for Brampton West—Mississauga for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and for her continued commitment to safeguarding the rights of Canadian citizens.

I am also pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-208. It proposes to add to the Access to Information Act an infraction for destroying documents subject to the act with intent to deny access. Before talking about the specific of the bill I will provide some background for my comments.

Canadians have had the benefit of the federal Access to Information Act since 1983. The federal government can uniquely invoke certain exceptional, specific and limited measures to refuse access to information. It is in these cases, when the government refuses to grant access to information, that the law confers on individuals the right to make a complaint to the access to information commission to review the decision made by the government in the federal court.

The laws of access to information of the federal government are a fundamental right in a democratic system. Under a declaration of the supreme court made earlier this year the primary goal of the legislative measures is concerning the access to information to facilitate democracy.

The laws of access to information that the government possesses in order to facilitate the functioning of the federal government are to render more simple, more receptive and more responsible government. States with repressive laws consequently are missing a tool that allows them to behave responsibly as governments. This is not to say that access to information could not be improved or brought up to date.

The hon. member is trying to improve the act with the amendment proposed in the legislation. One can argue that there is a gap in the protection currently offered by the act since it does not contain a penalty for the deliberate alteration or destruction of a record. The act does contain a penalty but it is a penalty for obstructing the work of the information commissioner.

The act also authorizes the commissioner to disclose to the Attorney General of Canada information relating to the commission of an offence against any law of Canada by any officer or employee of a federal government institution.

The bill would add an offence for actions that one can legitimately see as actions that intend to defeat the purpose of the act.

For that reason I agree with the hon. member that the Access to Information Act should include a penalty for deliberately destroying documents subject to the act. I believe that such action is unacceptable and therefore should be punished. For this reason I support the general goal of Bill C-208. I do not, however, support the specifics of the bill.

We could maintain that article 126 of the Criminal Code applies to a situation where a person voluntarily destroys a document with the goal to revoke access to information under the Access to Information Act.

Under article 126 of the Criminal Code whoever without legitimate excuse contravenes the federal law by voluntarily accomplishing is guilty of a criminal act and is liable for imprisonment for a maximum of two years.

The severity of the penalty seen in article 126 can bring us to ask if we can foresee the penalty under the access to information law in the case where voluntary destruction of documents is applied to.

We envision a penalty specific that would not be as severe as that in article 126 for the act of this crime and to receive imprisonment for a maximum of two years.

I am of the opinion that the penalty as described in the Criminal Code is probably far too severe. Consequently, if we add a penalty specific to the access to information law it should be less severe than the penalty currently listed in article 126.

What is proposed in Bill C-208? It is to create an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of five years in prison, which is heavier than the penalty provided for in section 126. For this reason I cannot support the bill.

I understand the hon. member wants to make the point that the destruction or alteration of the document is serious. We all agree to this. It should also be put into perspective. In my view a maximum of five years is far too heavy a penalty for destroying documents.

This penalty would be more severely punished than the offence of assault causing bodily harm, a hybrid offence with a maximum penalty of 18 months when prosecuted under summary conviction. Destroying documents, while undoubtedly serious, cannot be compared to assault causing bodily harm.

I believe the need to create an offence for the deliberate destruction of records in order to thwart the Access to Information Act is an issue that should be considered within the context of the reform of this act and should be examined by the House.

I believe that a case can be made that an addition to such an offence would strengthen the principles of openness and accountability inherent in the access to information legislation.

I also believe that particular attention should be paid to determining the appropriate sentence to be attached to the offence, which should be proportional to penalties provided for comparable offences.

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

Madam Speaker, I was more worried that the hon. member might ask me something about the proposed DNA legislation.

I would point out to the hon. member that all of the people who are serving in Bosnia and Haiti are in fact volunteers. I am assuming that in the course of both budgeting and deploying resources the concept of their volunteerism is taken into consideration with their superior officers.

I would not argue that any diminution of ability or resources locally is in any way affected because of the approach to volunteering for this service. These people do a wonderful job. We should be proud of them. We need to support them and this bill goes a long way toward doing just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It must be a rare occasion when two members with the same name on opposite sides of the House support the same bill. I intend to split my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

This is a very straightforward bill which will correct the inequalities that exist today between two groups of very noble Canadians, namely our peacekeepers and members of the RCMP. In particular, it will extend protection provided to RCMP members in the event of an injury, illness or even death connected to such service.

First let me explain the amendment and its importance to Canada and its international peacekeepers. Our Canadian peacekeepers serve 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 civil strife. While doing so Canadian peacekeepers live in danger 24 hours a day.

Canadians are justifiably proud of their peacekeepers and expect that they will receive the same kind of protection and benefits that properly reflect the conditions in which they work and live. The special duty area pension order recognizes the environment in which our peacekeepers serve.

Members of the Canadian forces are considered on duty 24 hours a day while serving in special duty areas. That means that should a member of the Canadian forces suffer an injury or illness or even die while serving in such an area, he or she automatically becomes entitled to the benefit under the Pension Act.

Unfortunately such cannot be said for members of the RCMP. At present 44 of their members are serving abroad in Bosnia or Haiti. They are only entitled to benefits under the Pension Act if the injury, illness or death occurs during their normally scheduled work shift. We had an anomaly with regard to two members serving in the same area, one an RCMP officer and the other an off duty soldier. If injured, one receives compensation and the other does not. It is not fair and it is not equitable.

Under the terms of the present act the onus is on the employee to prove the disability attributable to the employment or service. Since Canada first participated in international peacekeeping missions by sending members of the armed forces to areas of armed conflict, it was acknowledged that it would be unfair to oblige these individuals or their beneficiaries to prove that injury or death was attributable to their work. Whereas a member of the Canadian forces benefits from the presumption that the injury or loss of life occurred while serving in a special duty area and is attributable to his or her service, the onus unfortunately shifts to the member of the RCMP to prove his or her case.

The bill corrects that inequity. It solves the problem of the differences in treatment between members of the Canadian forces and the RCMP. It acknowledges that Canadian peacekeepers never stop serving and running a risk even when their shift is over. As I indicated earlier, we would have two individuals leaving the service area, going off duty, and in the same accident one member would be covered and the other would not be.

At the present time, for instance, members of both forces are on a mission in Bosnia, which has been declared a special duty area. In accordance with special duty area pension orders, members of the Canadian Armed Forces are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day with respect to injury, illness or death. Members of the RCMP, however, are considered to be on duty only during their shift and therefore are treated differently from military personnel participating in the same mission, even though they are enduring the same conditions and are exposed to the same dangers.

These special benefits take into account the increased risk associated with peacekeeping duties. The amendment will extend the same kind of program to disabled RCMP peacekeepers. The amendment reflects the changing role of peacekeeping and how Canada as a country, respected worldwide for its commitment to peacekeeping, has provided what many countries need most to sustain peace, a respect for the rule of law and a method of fairly enforcing the law.

We must remember that RCMP members participating in these peacekeeping missions are volunteers. They are highly dedicated individuals and highly skilled individuals who bring to their mission a great deal of talent and dedication. They are all volunteers and they all experience some level of risk. Their job is not an easy one. It is not without significant personal risk.

Therefore it is very important that RCMP members serving as peacekeepers be treated fairly and that their families can be confident in the adequacy of benefits to which they are entitled. The bill strives to do just that. It seeks equity for all Canadian peacekeepers, whether they are military or RCMP personnel.

In supporting this bill parliamentarians from all sides of the House will acknowledge the contributions of the RCMP as equal in value to that of their colleagues in the Canadian forces. It is good law. It corrects inequity and I hope all parties from all sides of the House will see fit to support it.

I am hoping this House will act quickly. There are at present 44 members of the RCMP serving abroad in areas of risk. We need to address that, and I am hoping all members will see fit to pass the legislation quickly.

Members of the RCMP currently serving their country in peacekeeping missions must be assured that they will be protected in the event of injury, illness or death. I hope that all hon. members understand the fairness of the amendments proposed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and that they will join me in the passage of Bill C-12.

For all of those reason, as the hon. member opposite said, I support the legislation. I hope that in supporting the legislation it will see speedy passage.

[House Committees, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 4, 1997, your committee has considered Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts. Your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

May I add that this was an all-party committee and that all members of the House worked very hard on the report.