Nick Discepola

[The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to the act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

This bill will extend the protection provided for RCMP members in the event of disease or death connected with employment, so as to cover any death, disease or injury suffered by RCMP members assigned to a special duty area.

I would like to take a few minutes to explain how this amendment meets an urgent need.

Members of the RCMP, like other Canadian employees, are entitled, under a government program, to benefits in the event of disease, disability or death attributable to their employment. A distinction is made, depending on whether or not the disease, disability or death is connected with employment.

In Canada, it is usually very easy to determine whether or not this is the case: it is connected with employment if it takes place in the work place, for example in a workshop, on a construction site or in an office. Injuries attributable to employment are those suffered during a work shift.

When a shift is over, the worker leaves his or her place of work and returns to private life.

In the case of those taking part in peacekeeping missions in dangerous zones outside Canada, however, the distinction between the periods during which they are on duty and those when they are not becomes blurred.

The bill acknowledges this fact: Canadian peacekeeping forces never really stop serving and running risks, even when their shift is over.

Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, certain geographic areas outside Canada may be designated by the governor in council as areas where the members of Canada's armed forces are exposed to risks not generally associated with peacetime military service. These areas are known as special duty areas.

Under the terms of the present act, the onus is on the employee to prove disability is attributable to his employment or service.

When Canada started taking part in international peacekeeping missions and 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 and occurred while the individual was on duty.

Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the Canadian armed forces injured or taken ill in special duty areas on peacekeeping missions, or their beneficiaries if they are killed, can count on the presumption that any injury or disease incurred while serving on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area is work related. This means that military personnel are considered to be on duty around the clock where benefits relating to employment or service are concerned, since they may be in danger at any time.

However, RCMP personnel taking part in peacekeeping missions in dangerous areas, termed special duty areas, even when serving side by side with Canadian forces personnel, are eligible for benefits only if their injury or disease occurs during a normally scheduled period of service.

Whereas a member of the Canadian forces benefits from the presumption that an injury, disease or loss of life incurred while serving in a special duty area occurred while he was on duty and is attributable to his service, the onus is on a member of the RCMP to prove that this is the case.

The proposed amendments will solve the problem of the differences in treatment between members of the Canadian forces and members of the RCMP. At the present time, for instance, members of both forces are on a mission to Haiti, which has been declared a special duty area.

In accordance with the Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the Canadian armed forces are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day with respect to the risk of injury, disease or death.

Members of the RCMP, however, are considered to be on duty only during their shift, and are therefore treated differently than military personnel participating in the same mission, under the same conditions, and exposed to the same dangers.

In addition to disability benefits, Canadian forces members injured or taken ill while serving in special duty areas on peacekeeping missions are also entitled to the benefits provided under the veterans independence program. This program funds such services as are necessary to maintain a member in his or her home as an alternative to institutional care. For example, housekeeping services or modifications to a house to accommodate wheelchair access are paid for through this program.

These special pension benefits take into account the increased risk associated with peacekeeping duties. The amendment will extend the same kind of program to disabled RCMP peacekeepers. This amendment reflects the changing role of peacekeeping and how Canada, 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 that law.

With the RCMP's help, a troubled country may be able to build on the traditions and expertise of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to create a new respect for law enforcement and the law itself.

This bill is inspired by a desire for equity. It deserves to be passed. It deserves to be passed because it ensures equality of treatment for all those taking part in peacekeeping missions, whether they are military or RCMP personnel. It deserves to be passed because it clearly acknowledges that the RCMP's contribution to peacekeeping has the same value as that of the Canadian Forces.

Finally, it deserves to be passed because a member of the RCMP who serves his or her country in a peacekeeping mission ought never to have to worry about protection in the event of illness, disability or death.

Our fondest hope, of course, is that not one member of either the RCMP or the Canadian Forces taking part in a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area will be injured, disabled, or even killed. Should this happen, however, it would be no more than fair for the additional protection available under this bill to apply to RCMP personnel and their families.

I am sure that all hon. members acknowledge the importance and the fairness of the amendments proposed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and that we can count on the support of all political parties to get this bill passed quickly. I thank them in advance.

[Dna Identification Act, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have seven or eight minutes left. I will try to conclude my remarks by 5.30 p.m.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3 today. It is entitled the DNA Identification Act. It concerns an issue never before dealt with in Canadian legislation.>

The registration of DNA profiles in a bank and the storage of samples and bodily substances raises many ethical and legal questions and warrants thorough consideration in an open discussion. Rest assured that the Government of Canada is taking these questions seriously. That is why the Department of the Solicitor General last year consulted widely on the creation of a DNA data bank.

In January 1996, the solicitor general at the time made public a consultation paper on a national DNA data bank. This document was used as the basis for consultation across the country, in which a number of questions were asked, including: what genetic material should be included in the bank; when should samples be taken and who should do so; should we keep biological specimens and DNA profiles; and how should the DNA data bank be funded?

The document was given to provincial and territorial governments, to police departments, to national police organizations, to those responsible for privacy, to lawyers, to representatives of correctional services, to women's groups, to victims' groups and to experts in the field of forensic medicine. You can see a broad cross section was consulted.

The number of participants in consultations and the number of briefs received raised considerable interest in the creation of a national DNA data bank.

On the whole, the consultation also showed that there was strong support for such a bank, particularly from the police. On the other hand, those concerned with privacy issues and jurists stressed the necessity of adopting balanced legislation which would include the necessary guarantees, limits and protections to ensure that privacy is respected.

The Department of the Solicitor General summarized the results of the consultation process in another document titled “Summary of consultations”. This report stated that there was no true consensus among respondents on such questions as preservation of biological samples of bodily substances and the range of offences involved.

Given the complexity of this matter, and the diversity of views on this aspect of how the data bank would operate, I must take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the Solicitor General of Canada for introducing legislative provisions which reflect both the necessity to improve protection of the public and the obligation to respect the individual's right to privacy.

The national DNA data bank will offer police forces an invaluable tool to assist them in their battle against violent crime. Police investigations will be facilitated by the use of DNA analysis and by the possibility of comparing genetic data from biological samples from convicted criminals with those found at the scene of unsolved crimes.

It will help ensure that those guilty of serious crimes, such as repeat violent sexual offenders, are identified and apprehended much more quickly. At the same time, the bill contains strict rules governing the collection, the use, the retention of DNA profiles and biological samples in order to ensure that privacy interests are protected.

Building on the success of the DNA warrant legislation passed in July 1995, the current bill includes similar safeguards and processes related to the collection of the samples. To date, we all know that the DNA warrant scheme has withstood charter challenges and thus provides a solid foundation on which to build the DNA data bank scheme.

The legislation includes numerous safeguards. For example, as has already been stated, the RCMP will be responsible for safely and securely storing all biological samples. In addition, the legislation limits access to DNA profiles contained in the convicted offenders index and access to the samples themselves will be limited to only those directly involved in the operation and maintenance of the data bank.

In order to ensure the appropriate use of information contained in the data bank, the bill states clearly that only the name attached to the profile may be transmitted to the authorities responsible for implementing the legislation in the course of criminal investigations.

The bill also provides for prison terms of up to two years less a day for infractions. Infractions involving unauthorized use of the data bank will also be included in Canada's Criminal Code and in the legislation on identification by fingerprints.

This is an extremely important bill that will be invaluable to the police in combatting violent crime. As my esteemed colleague, the Solicitor General of Canada, has already said, however, the complexity and innovative nature of the bill require the full attention of members and of experts with the necessary experience and knowledge to advise us on issues relating to technology, privacy, law and ethics.

In conclusion, therefore, I support the motion of the Solicitor General of Canada to refer Bill C-3 to committee before second reading, and I urge all my colleagues in the House to do the same.

[Quebec Premier, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the Quebec premier said that he would not hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause to restore the referendum act in its entirety.

As the House may remember, the Liberal government in Quebec City used this clause in language matters. In 1996, the current premier of Quebec disapproved of this option, saying that he believed in democracy and that, by honouring all the obligations, he would be able to face himself in the mirror in the morning knowing he had not suspended the application of fundamental rights.

Rather an odd message from the premier of Quebec. This approach seems acceptable to him only when his own government is contemplating it. Are we to understand that the premier of Quebec advocates a two-tier democracy? Is he really facing himself in the mirror or is he looking in the rear view mirror?

[Bloc Quebecois, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois' decision to force the BQ member for Drummond to pay back corporate donations accepted during the last election campaign is, to say the least, questionable.

How can the Bloc justify demanding that this MP pay back donations received from corporations when the Bloc never applied the same rule to itself? What difference do the righteous separatists from the Bloc Quebecois make between corporate donations and the $153,048 received from the Parti Quebecois in 1993-94?

Would they have us believe that the Bloc Quebecois is less likely to be influenced by the PQ than by a small business in Drummondville?

The Bloc Quebecois is so obsessed with saving face in this fundraising issue that it is losing its mind.

[Petitions, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition regarding Canadian unity.

The petitioners call for the indivisibility of Canada. They say that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, its territories and waters may be modified only through a free vote of all Canadian citizens, as guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms or through an amending formula, as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

[Petitions, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present three petitions, two of which deal with the upgrading of the national highway system.

[Kingston Penitentiary, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of doing it now, it is a question of an ongoing commitment to the employees who work diligently. We will take a look at each incident.

We have advisory committees that work with the inmate committees. We look at the individual situations and we take the necessary measures.

[Kingston Penitentiary, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general's office and the correctional service staff are constantly monitoring inmates. We often have searches where we do find such weapons made by hand. Fortunately we deal with them at that time.

[Edmonton Institution For Women, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked. This member has already prejudged the warden of the Edmonton institution before she had a fair hearing.

I would like to quote a member of the prison advisory committee in the Edmonton Journal this morning: “It feels to me like there is a witch hunt going on”. I would also like to quote from the president of that same advisory committee who said: “Why are we looking for one person to blame? It seems to me that the member of the committee has agreed to work with him”. I am wondering who is really on the witch hunt here. Let the investigation take its course. Let the RCMP do their job.

[Edmonton Institution For Women, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that Correctional Service Canada is co-operating fully with this investigation. It seems to me ironic that when we have similar incidents in men's prisons, the member does not call for the suspension of the warden.