Nick Discepola

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am also glad to participate in the debate on Bill C-262 presented by the member for Kootenay—Columbia. Criminal justice issues such as this one are of much concern to all Canadians and to myself.

The proposed bill would amend the Criminal Code. More specifically it would amend it such that it would allow a court to direct that a federal offender, that is to say any offender serving two years or more, comply with a probation order. Currently as it stands, the court's authority to impose a probation order is limited to provincial offenders. That is the way it should remain.

If the hon. member's proposal were carried through, there would be potential for conflict with the role and understanding of parole and other forms of conditional release for federal offenders. Frankly what would be the point if it is going to confuse the issues?

Federal sentences already incorporate an appropriate range of supervised releases which have been carefully put in place for the safe and controlled reintegration of offenders into the community.

As recently as last August the government introduced a new sentencing category to the Criminal Code called long term offender. A court which designates an offender as a long term offender will sentence the offender to a penitentiary sentence and a period of long supervision of up to a maximum of 10 years which begins when the period of incarceration, including parole, expires.

This is only one example of the measures that have been implemented to ensure the protection of society. There are many more I could give. To illustrate, there is work release, escorted and unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole, statutory release, and long term supervision as I have just mentioned. Let me take a moment to describe these supervised releases in more detail so that members of the House can appreciate the comprehensive range of release mechanisms that are in place for the safe reintegration of federal offenders into society.

First there is work release, which is a release program allowing a penitentiary inmate to work for a specified duration in the community on a paid or voluntary basis while under supervision. Generally an inmate is eligible for work release when he or she has served one-sixth of the sentence or six months, whichever is greater. The institutional head has the authority to grant a work release of up to a maximum period of 60 days under specified conditions which always include supervision.

Correctional authorities grant work release to carefully selected inmates who perform work and services of benefit to the community. Work release is one of the first steps in the safe gradual reintegration of offenders into society.

An escorted temporary absence is short term release to the community under escort. Most inmates are eligible for such an absence at any time during their sentence. The duration of an escorted temporary absence varies from an unlimited period for medical reasons for example to not more than 15 days for any other specified reason. Again the institutional head may authorize escorted temporary absences at his discretion. In certain instances involving lifers, National Parole Board approval is required.

For example, escorted temporary absences are granted to allow inmates to obtain treatment that is unavailable in the penitentiary, to attend critically ill family members and to prepare for other types of conditional release. An inmate may be granted an escorted temporary absence to meet with the staff of a community residential centre where he or she wishes to reside or to confirm employment as part of his or her release plan.

An unescorted temporary absence is another form of short term release but without an escort. Most inmates in the penitentiary system are eligible for unescorted temporary absences at one-sixth of the sentence or six months into the sentence, again whichever is later. Lifers and inmates with indeterminate sentences are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences until three years before their full parole eligibility date. Maximum security inmates are not eligible for this type of release.

An unescorted temporary absence can be for an unlimited period for medical reasons and for a maximum of 60 days for specified personal development programs. Unescorted temporary absences for community service or personal development can be for a maximum of 15 days, up to three times per year for a medium security inmate, or four times per year for a minimum security inmate. The duration of other types of unescorted temporary absences ranges from a maximum of 48 hours per month for a medium security inmate to 72 hours for a minimum security inmate.

Then there is parole. Parole is a form of conditional release which allows some offenders to serve part of their sentence in the community, provided they abide by certain conditions imposed. Because most offenders will ultimately be released into their communities, I believe the best way to protect the public is to help offenders reintegrate into society through a gradual and controlled supervised release.

Parole is a privilege rather than a right and the National Parole Board has discretion whether to grant that parole. In determining whether to grant parole board members carefully review information provided by victims, the courts, correctional authorities and the offender. In arriving at a decision the board considers a number of factors, above all the protection of society.

There are two types of parole, day parole and full parole. Day parole requires the offender to return to the institution or halfway house each evening unless otherwise specified by the National Parole Board. Most federal inmates can apply for a day parole at either six months into their sentence or six months before the full eligibility date, again whichever is later.

Day parole is normally granted up to a maximum of six months. Lifers, those serving for first and second degree murder, and inmates serving indeterminate sentences are eligible three years prior to full parole eligibility date. Day parole therefore provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in community based activities to prepare for full parole or eventual statutory release.

Full parole is a conditional release which allows an offender to serve the remainder of a sentence in the community. It is the culmination of an offender's gradual structured and controlled release program. Under this form of release an offender may live with his or her family and continue to work and contribute to society.

Next there is statutory release. As a general rule an inmate is legally entitled to be released into the community at two-thirds of the sentence. Similar to parole, offenders on statutory release serve the remaining third of their sentence in the community, again under supervision provided they abide by certain conditions. However, not all inmates are entitled to statutory release.

As I mentioned, there is a new sentencing category recently added to the criminal code called long term offender. This procedure is similar to the dangerous offender category process in place and applies to offenders convicted of sexual offences such as sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, exposure, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm. The procedure is also applicable to an offender who committed another offence with a sexual component.

An offender designated as a long term offender at a special sentencing hearing will be sentenced to a penitentiary sentence and a period of long term supervision for up to a maximum of 10 years which starts when the period of incarceration, including any parole, expires. A court can impose long term supervision where in its judgment the risk presented by the offender can be managed in the community through appropriate supervision.

Every long term offender is subject to standard conditions such as keeping the peace. Special conditions can also be added to ensure close supervision of offenders such as electronic monitoring and mandatory participation in counselling. Correctional Service Canada provides the supervision in these cases.

The hon. member's proposal is well intentioned but falls short of the impact intended by the recent changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act added to the Criminal Code brought by the government to enhance the protection of the public. At the risk of repeating myself, federal probation would create a potential conflict with the role of parole and other forms of release appropriate for federal offenders.

Federal sentences already incorporate a comprehensive range of supervised releases for the safe and gradual integration of federal offenders into the community. Probation is a part of a variety of supervised releases which are suitable for provincial offenders and that is where the probation should remain in my opinion.

[Labelling Of Toys, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is aware of the profound impact of the closure of the fishery on provinces, communities and individuals especially in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

It is now evident that fish stocks are not returning to their previous levels and we must help people adjust to an economy with a very reduced fishery.

The government is also committed to helping the people and the communities affected by the closure of the groundfishery and is prepared to deal with the situation with the same compassion and responsibility that motivated the government to implement TAGS initially in 1994. The government committed back then $1.9 billion in benefits to help fishers and plant workers affected by the crisis in the fishery.

While the government announced that TAGS would essentially continue until the end of August this year, it recognized that action was still required. That is why Mr. Eugene Harrigan was appointed by the government to lead a review of the impact of the end of TAGS. That is also why the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertook an investigation of the situation.

I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of both reports. They provide us with assessments of the post-TAGS situation and have given us important information which will prove useful as we continue working on the development of sensitive, forward looking approaches to a post-TAGS program.

In closing, I wish to assure the hon. member and the House that the government remains committed to ensuring that the transition to the post-TAGS environment is managed in a fair and sensitive way. We recognize this is a very stressful time for fishers and plants workers and will make an announcement as soon as we can.

[Labelling Of Toys, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Health I am pleased to respond to the hon. member. I would like to remind him that we are talking about people, not statistics, not numbers. We are talking about people's lives who have been affected as a result of infection through the blood system.

I would also like to remind the House that we have been guided by the desire to help these people, help them as quickly as possible and to do so on the basis of compassion and sound public policy.

We have listened to those who were affected by the blood tragedy and we listened to Justice Krever. We heard about the urgency of the situation. We heard that assistance should come and come soon and be tailored to the needs. We have since moved very quickly. We have taken action. Thirteen ministers of health have had to act and they have had to do so in a responsible manner.

I would like to take a moment to address Mr. Krever's approach to the issue. He had a very particular mandate which he fulfilled but to which he was also bound. His final report is a comprehensive and exhaustive examination of evidence and various facts. The report provides the best historical look at why the events of the past occurred, what was done and more importantly, what should be done in the future in order that we can learn from the errors of the past and learn about ways in which we should improve the blood system in the future.

The Minister of Health has an important mandate and set of responsibilities that he must take very seriously also. His provincial and territorial colleagues have mandates of their own. They have worked together to address the past. We have also worked together to build the future. We anticipate how our decisions have very serious consequences now and for the future. We are not just talking about the injuries sustained through the blood system, we are talking about all health care, medical interventions and health services.

On March 27 Canada's health ministers announced that governments were offering $1.1 billion in assistance to Canadians infected by the hepatitis C virus.

I have run out of time, Mr. Speaker. I will discuss this with the hon. member personally.

[Labelling Of Toys, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in response to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst regarding phthalates contained in plastic toys.

The hon. member's motion states that the government should enact legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label toys containing phthalates in order to allow parents to make an informed decision when buying products for their children.

It seems to me that this no doubt well-intentioned motion is somewhat premature. The fact is that there is no conclusive evidence linking all phthalates in toys to health risks for children. In fact, my predecessor already inquired about this, and there has never been a reported case of a child experiencing ill effects from phthalates in this country or anywhere else. That is why the government is not supporting this motion at this time, which does not mean that the government is taking the matter lightly. Quite the contrary.

Health Canada officials are currently investigating the potential health risks of phthalates in polyvinyl chloride or PVC plastic toys.

If at any time clear evidence of health risks from phthalates are established, appropriate action will immediately be taken to protect the health of Canadian children.

Health Canada's investigation of potential health risks from phthalates includes ongoing information exchange with the department's counterparts in the United States and in Europe, with industry, advocacy groups and health associations, as well as a comprehensive literature assessment on the potential toxicity of phthalates.

As part of this investigation, Health Canada officials have undertaken a scientific risk assessment on phthalates in various PVC plastic products. Specifically, they are trying to determine the presence of potentially toxic substances and conducting tests to see if these substances can in fact be absorbed by children.

The department has developed a test protocol and is currently assessing polyvinyl chloride products to validate test procedures. Test results should soon be available to help determine the risks represented by phthalates.

Two of the most valuable tools at the government's disposal are the Hazardous Products Act and the Hazardous Products (Toys) Regulations, which are both administered by the Products Safety Bureau of Health Canada. The legislation in effect totally bans the sale of certain toys while others are not allowed on the market until they meet certain very precise safety standards.

The mission of Health Canada's Product Safety Bureau is to prevent deaths and injuries linked to the use of products. In order to reduce the potential dangers of products intended for children and to promote their safe use, the Bureau operates on a number of levels, particularly by enacting legislation, setting standards and informing consumers.

The Bureau's activities dovetail with those of Health Canada's national information and education program. Child safety and the prevention of injuries linked to the use of consumer products constitute one of the program's key objectives.

I am certain that Health Canada's sound research, coupled with dialogue and consultation with governments, industry and NGOs, will make it possible to clarify the issue and constitute a solid and informed basis for measures the Government of Canada might take in future in this connection.

This well thought out approach reflects Health Canada's decision to have a solid and informed assessment of the risks in order to gain an understanding of the complex health issues,.and to act accordingly, especially where children are concerned.

In reacting in a rigorous and thorough manner to this potential health hazard, we are following up on an ongoing government commitment to ensure the health and safety of all Canadian children.

The Health Protection Branch of Health Canada is making every effort to reduce health risks associated with the natural or artificial environment which can lead to injury or death.

The main responsibilities of this branch are, first, to assess and control the nutritional value, quality and safety of food products; second, to assess and control the safety and effectiveness of drugs, cosmetics, medical instruments, radiation emitting devices and other consumer products; third, to identify and assess environmental risks, and to monitor, prevent and fight diseases; and fourth, to provide laboratory services such as those required for the analysis and evaluation of plastic products containing potentially dangerous phthalates.

At the Health Protection Branch, these various programs are bound together by the government's desire to ensure the health and safety of Canadian children. Of course, this concern is shared by parents and other caregivers, public health workers, product manufacturers and retailers.

By mobilizing all available resources, knowledge and expertise and by co-operating with partners from various sectors, the government has effectively reduced potential risks to our children's safety.

I will conclude by saying that I find this to be a worthy motion, but in light of the efforts already undertaken by Health Canada and because of the lack of information, as mentioned by the member of the Reform Party, I think it is a little premature at this time.

[International Earth Day, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Earth Day represents an important time for all societies in the world, as we direct our planet toward an enhanced quality of life, free of wars, injustice and violence.

We all share values of peace and sharing, although these remain dreams rather than realities for many countries in the world.

If we can contribute, even in the most modest of ways, to raising the awareness of all societies in the world to the need to show tolerance, unity and generosity, Canada will be shouldering at least some of its responsibilities.

Canada is involved on an ongoing basis with bringing peoples together. Through its presence in international institutions and through its embassies, the Canadian government has historically shown its desire for peace and its confidence in humankind.

We must wish collectively for Canada to continue this mission it has undertaken in partnership with all the other countries that share our values of compassion, openness, and generosity toward—

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Waterloo—Wellington. I have been parliamentary secretary for a little over two years and I have never had to replace the minister in the late show as often as I have in the past session. Both times have been because of the member's interest and I know he is very tenacious and I compliment him on this.

The member has made a very clear case and a lot of the concerns he has expressed I share and I know the minister shares. I want to reassure the member for Waterloo—Wellington that the ministry of the solicitor general is in no way considering privatizing correctional services. We have to date almost 12% of certain aspects of corrections being privatized. I do not think the hon. member would argue that maybe laundry facilities or fire protection equipment, services of that nature, might be privatized.

The examples he has cited, especially in the United States, of privatizing certain facilities have certainly not demonstrated that they are successful in actually reducing costs. I agree with him that we have to be very prudent.

There is one other point that has not been addressed. I would be very concerned if we are going to move and transfer the power to actually punish citizens in the hands of the private sector. That to me is a very serious concern, more than the actual cost factor.

I want to reassure the hon. member that there is no interest on behalf of the solicitor general to privatize correctional services facilities. If we were to do such a thing, I am sure there would be a full debate and an inquiry into the pros and cons of it. That would have to be done.

[Criminal Records Act, April 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-284 introduced by the member for Calgary Centre.

The bill deals with sentencing, release on parole, and Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms, all topics familiar to us in the House.

Over the last 10 years, various justice ministers have presented a variety of legislative initiatives, some of which were specifically intended to introduce stiffer penalties and delay the release of those convicted of crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.

In 1992, for instance, the House considered and passed an important bill introduced by the then solicitor general and intended to replace the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I must point out that, after a few years, even this act was constructively amended.

With all due respect for the member who introduced this bill, I cannot understand why the House is devoting time to issues that have recently been extensively debated here and in committee, especially when we know that the time allocated to private members' business is limited.

The proposals have been made, however, and I will take the opportunity available to me for comment.

All Canadians know of examples of terrible crimes and what happened to the victims of these criminal acts. From the comments sent to riding offices, mail received and reports in the media, we know that some of our fellow citizens are living in fear of crime and feel that the government has not been successful at protecting society at a time when people's perception is that the law is being flouted.

I would emphasize that this is not a view held by all Canadians. Far be it from me, however to ignore the concerns of individuals and groups wanting us to take a stronger stand against criminals.

Not long ago, the crime rate rose every year. More crimes and different types of crimes were being reported, because victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment were less stigmatized and less afraid to speak out and help in the efforts to bring their aggressors to justice.

However, in recent years, violent crime has declined. Despite the vast media coverage of sensational crimes, the general public must be better informed about the way the justice system works and about the measures taken to reduce crime.

Clearly an informed public is more likely to see the gaps in the system it knows only superficially. Those directly responsible for the security of Canadian communities, from the police through prosecutors, judges and, at the end of the line, the federal and provincial criminal law systems, must respond to the criticisms that arise from increased awareness and greater surveillance. This is the least we can do as legislators.

When we look at the statistics, we can see many factors affecting individuals' vulnerability to crime. For example, geographical location is a factor. More violent crime occurs in urban centres than in the country.

What I want to point out is that crime is not endemic everywhere in the country. I agree that many Canadians have no choice but to live where they are and they never know who they will run into one day.

However, it is also reasonable to think that, for many other Canadians, the only violence they will witness will be what they see on their televisions in the evening.

We must respond to these concerns and we must do so in a very effective manner. In the case of individuals, problems may often be dealt with directly by referring them to community and victim support groups that are available within the Ministry of the Solicitor General, from the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board regional offices throughout the country.

In addition, most police forces assign officers to community service duties and many courts are monitored by representatives of victims service organizations. This direct intervention by our staff members and constituency offices to provide information and assistance is the most satisfactory and personalized solution to constituents who are feeling baffled or neglected by the criminal justice system.

When protests are prompted by system faults, the system must be changed from within, or if necessary, must be altered through the legislative process.

As is sometimes the case in isolated and regrettable instances, the correctional system's failures can be traced to human error where established policies and procedures that would protect the public are ignored or often misapplied. Extraordinary incidents occur with some tragic unfortunate results.

We must do everything in our power to reduce the number of these incidents, but an ineffective response can be worse than no response at all. Piecemeal legislation change is not a solution to the problems perceived.

I believe Bill C-284 is too narrow in its focus and too punitive. The law must be fashioned to accommodate a range of offenders in any given category. That is not to say that there are good people who commit violent and deplorable acts and bad people who are convicted of the same type of offences. There are however levels within each class of offender that lead us to believe that some may more readily resume a law-abiding lifestyle than would offenders who are serving sentences for similar offences.

This bill would reject the guiding principle of correctional services, which is that the public is best served if “the criminal is put back on the straight and narrow”. Inmates who react well to the opportunities for treatment, training and education offered by our system can return to society one day as law-abiding citizens.

Regardless of what we do for, or to, them, these individuals will be back in the community one day. Consequently, those who no longer constitute a threat must benefit from all reasonable opportunities, so that they may again be part of society as soon as possible.

Not only would the present bill restrict those opportunities for too many criminals, but it would also lengthen sentences without taking court deliberations into consideration, as well as punishing criminals for what they might do after serving the entire sentence for what they have done.

Now that I have mentioned some of my reservations concerning this bill, I will use the rest of the time allocated to me to remind my colleagues of a related initiative carried out during the last session of Parliament on behalf of the Minister of Justice and the departmental portfolio of the Solicitor General.

Bill C-55, a cohesive and complete set of reforms which came into effect last August, enables the courts to order the surveillance of certain criminals for up to 10 years after the end of their prison sentence.

In earlier initiatives we also revised the Criminal Code in order to allow the courts to ban persons found guilty of sexual offences involving children from the vicinity of schools, community centres and playgrounds.

In parallel, criminal harassment and stalking have become offences on which it is now easier to act because of certain clauses in the Criminal Code. The efforts expended to tighten up the legislation relating to these categories of criminals may have escaped the notice of the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

That is surprising, because I know that he is greatly interested in this and other related issues. Nevertheless, provisions and proposals of this nature constitute opportunities for frank discussions, in my opinion.

I will be satisfied if, as a result of this debate, the public acquires more knowledge of this part of our correctional system. The hon. member who introduced Bill C-284 obviously shares my opinion, and I congratulate him for his perseverance in bringing criminal justice into the public eye and thus helping to make Canadians better informed.

[Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I am calling upon all the sovereignists to dissociate themselves as quickly as possible from the words used by one of their group, the president of the Montreal Saint-Jean-Baptiste society. Guy Bouthillier is calling for the creation of a media monitoring agency to ensure fair coverage of the views expressed during the next referendum campaign.

Words like this are not only evidence of a form of total intolerance, they are also a perfect example of undemocratic behaviour that is both threatening and worrisome to the quality of life of citizens in a sovereign Quebec.

This sovereignist notion was also in the air during the 1970s. The Parti Quebecois government of the day had to move quickly to dissociate itself from it.

One might have expected the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to stand up at the first opportunity in order to speak out against such remarks coming from a sovereignist with whom he has crossed paths on numerous occasions, but there has not been so much as a peep out of him since these shocking words by Guy Bouthillier.

The silence from the sovereignists is a source of concern.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise in this House in support of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

This bill provides RCMP members serving abroad as peackeepers in special duty areas with medicare benefits and death benefits. This means they will be covered 24 hours a day in case of work-related disease, invalidity or death.

We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.

Like any other government employees, RCMP members are eligible for government benefits if they suffer from a work-related disability or injury or if they die as a result of a work-related accident.

Pursuant to existing agreements, there is a difference between work-related incidents and those that are not and that difference is usually easy to make: the work-related incidents are defined as occurring only during work shifts.

However, in some cases, the distinction we need to make between “during working hours” and “outside working hours” is not so clear.

Take, for instance, the RCMP members who are currently serving abroad as peacekeepers.

Pursuant to the Special Duty Area Pension Order, the governor in council can designate as special duty areas any geographic area outside Canada where peacekeepers may be exposed to hazardous conditions not normally associated with service in peacetime. These dangerous areas are called “special duty areas”.

The bill acknowledges that when RCMP peacekeepers are posted in special duty areas, they never really stop serving and running risks, even when their shift is over.

Under the current act, RCMP members who are injured while posted in a special duty area must prove their disability is directly related to their service or the performance of their duties.

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 department 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, any injury, disease or disability sustained by a member of the Canadian Forces while on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area is presumed to be directly related to the performance of his or her duties. In case of death, benefits are transferred to the victim's family.

Therefore, under this order, military personnel are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day for the purpose of employment- or service-related benefits. The order also acknowledges that the security of these people is always threatened.

However, in dangerous areas, even when serving side by side with Canadian Forces personnel, RCMP members are eligible for benefits only if the injury or disease occurs during a normally scheduled work shift.

RCMP personnel posted as peacekeepers in special duty areas are treated differently from their counterparts in the Canadian Forces, even though they face the same risks and circumstances.

At the present time, for instance, members of both forces are deployed in Haiti and the former Yugoslavia , which have both been declared special duty areas.

Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the Canadian Forces are considered to be on duty around the clock, if injuries, illness or fatalities occur.

On the other hand, RCMP personnel are considered to be on duty only during their shift. In keeping with the purest tradition of the RCMP, its members sought out this type of mission and volunteered for it. In so doing, they are perpetuating a tradition of which Canadians are proud, and one which has earned them their international reputation as major contributors to world peace and security.

Canada has an obligation to ensure that these courageous women and men, as well as their family members, are eligible for the same benefits as their Canadian Forces counterparts.

The purpose of today's bill is to remedy this abnormal situation.

I also wish to note that in addition to disability benefits, Canadian forces peacekeepers who are injured or taken ill while serving in special duty areas are entitled to the benefits provided under the veterans independence program. This program provides funds for services necessary to maintain a member in his or her own home as an alternative to institutional care. This includes housekeeping services and modifications to accommodate wheelchair access in a member's residence.

These special pension benefits take into account the increased risk associated with peacekeeping duties. The amended legislation will extend the same kind of program benefits to disabled RCMP peacekeepers.

This legislation reflects the changing role of peacekeeping in general. Adding to their traditional role as an arbiter of conflict, peacekeepers are now contributing to the broader reconstruction of society, the peace building phase that follows a peaceful settlement.

Through the volunteered services of RCMP peacekeepers, Canada has provided what many countries need most to sustain peace: respect for democratic tradition and a method for enforcing the rule of law. A troubled country may be able to build on the traditions and expertise demonstrated by the RCMP and Canadian forces peacekeepers to establish a new respect for law enforcement and respect for the law itself.

Passing this bill is the best and fairest action we can take. I am sure I speak for all members of this House in wishing that no Canadian peacekeeper, whether a member of the RCMP or a member of the armed forces, will ever need to use health insurance benefits, disability insurance or death benefits as the result of a mission to a special service area.

If such a need should ever arise, however, it would be only fair for RCMP members to benefit from the same extra protection, as provided in this bill for themselves and their family members.

I believe all members of this House recognize the importance, as far as equity is concerned, of the amendments being proposed to the RCMP pension plan.

I trust that I shall be able to count on the support of all the political parties in this House to ensure that this important bill is passed promptly.

[Member For Sherbrooke, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party made an important decision that changes the political landscape in both Canada and Quebec. If he becomes leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, the work that lies ahead will have a definite impact on the future of Quebec.

The member for Sherbrooke will have to deal more closely with a government that wants to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. We have no doubt that this leadership candidate will be able to convince Quebeckers of the benefits of being part of Canada.

As he was saying, he is well aware of the reality of both Canada and Quebec. His expertise will be a major asset in defending Quebec's interests within Canadian federalism.

We wish him and his family good luck and we will support him in his efforts and his commitment to make Quebec a society that is determined to protect and promote its culture and its language and to take its place within the Canadian federation.

Good luck, Jean!