Art Hanger

[Identification Of Criminals Act, June 20th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-322, an act to amend the Identification of Criminals Act (forensic DNA analysis).

Mr. Speaker, the private members' bill which I introduce today is legislation desperately needed in our criminal justice system. In effect, this bill authorizes police to seize for the purposes of DNA analysis, individual hairs, buccal mouth swabs and blood samples of any person taken into lawful custody by the appropriate authority.

If passed, this law would allow the DNA information obtained through seized bodily substances to be recorded, retained and made available to police officers and other personnel engaged in the execution and administration of the law.

This law would allow such material to be retained and used for the prescribed purposes for 10 years. The justice system would benefit to a great extent from this legislation. I urge all members of this House to give it their full consideration.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened to the parliamentary secretary's comments regarding the wheat board. He spoke so eloquently of this board and all the things that were accomplished through it that I wonder if we are even talking about the same board that our supply motion refers to.

I would like to list some facts. The member stated clearly that the board could guarantee large scale delivery to all its customers. Then the member also pointed out that farmers would get the best possible prices through the board.

If the member recalls correctly, and he should since he is parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister, he would look at the first point here, the wheat board's ability to guarantee large scale delivery. I do not believe that is quite true.

Last fall the board had to apologize to Japan for its inability to deliver contracted barley. In April the wheat board then reneged on half of the future barley purchases promised to farmers. Without that sale to Japan, the grain was no longer needed. There was a slap in the face to the farmers as well as an inability to deliver to Japan.

Another inaccuracy from the parliamentary secretary is to deliver the best prices to farmers. Barley prices in the United States are American $4.85. The same barley through the board in Canada is $2.35. For durum the Canadian price offered stateside is $8.50 and the board is offering between $4 and $4.50.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to address those discrepancies as he points out that the board is delivering when in fact it is not.

[Dangerous Offenders, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let this House remember it is this government and a previous government that have set the platform for Clifford Olson and other killers and that will never be shut down.

The justice minister refers to section 745 of the Criminal Code as the faint hope clause. He tells Canadians that section 745 is necessary because killers need a glimmer of hope. What the justice minister is reluctant to say is that 80 per cent of the killers who apply for release under section 745 receive some type of early parole. So much for faint hope. Section 745 is a sure bet clause.

Each time a killer makes an application under section 745, the families of the victims are forced to relive their tragedy. I ask the minister, will he or will he not give the families of murder victims a glimmer of hope called closure? Will the justice minister scrap, abolish, repeal section 745?

[Dangerous Offenders, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I and several other MPs received sneering personal notes from child killer Clifford Olson to which he attached his new line of serial killer cards, a collection of police photographs taken of him at different stages in his criminal life.

In his letter Olson brags about his prospect for early release this August using section 745 of the Criminal Code. He claims it is his democratic right within the charter of rights and freedoms and common law.

Why will the justice minister not immediately repeal section 745 to wipe the smirk off of Clifford Olson's face and send the message that early release is not a democratic right or even an option for cold blooded killers?

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the motions in group 2, in order for Reform Party members to support Bill C-30 fully, we seek a substantive amendment which would ensure continued statutory protection of RCMP officers under the Canada Labour Code. I do not believe the motion by the member for Bellechasse really satisfies our concern.

Motion No. 4 which states that Bill C-30 be amended by deleting clause 4, cannot be support by members of the Reform Party.

Motion No. 5 asks that Bill C-30 be amended by adding directly following "for greater certainty", the words "with the exception of part II", which refers to the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-30 was originally introduced as a housekeeping bill, but it became evident that the effect of this legislation could have serious implications on the rights of RCMP members.

Some concern exists that Bill C-30 in its present form would completely eliminate the application of the labour code to RCMP members. At present the RCMP has the protection of part II of the code concerning health and safety. There is no valid reason to justify the exclusion of the RCMP from the health and safety regulations listed in part II of the Canada Labour Code.

This amendment, if adopted, would maintain the health and safety protection of the Canada Labour Code for RCMP personnel. It would still exempt the RCMP from the Canada Labour Code overall, with the exception of part II, and it deals strictly with health and safety. Those are my comments in reference to Motion No. 5.

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-30, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 4, on page 2, with the following:

"47.6(1) For greater certainty, with the exception of Part II, the Canada".

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first group of motions for Bill C-30, the Reform Party is guided by the following principles and policies found in our official policy document, the blue Book.

The blue book policy on the RCMP states:

The Reform Party supports the traditional role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) as a police force representative of and responsive to the populations it serves in Canada's regions.

The blue book policy on official languages states:

The Reform Party supports official bilingualism in key federal institutions, such as Parliament and the Supreme Court, and critical federal services where need is sufficient to warrant provision of minority services on a cost effective basis. The Reform Party supports the removal of bilingual bonuses to civil servants as federal cost reduction measures.

Bill C-30 contains provisions identical to Bill C-58, which died on the Order Paper as a result of the government's decision to prorogue Parliament this year.

Bill C-30 removes RCMP officers from the definition of employee and therefore as members of the public service under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, essentially separate employer status. Only civilian members of the RCMP are to be governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The staff relations for police officers of the RCMP are to be governed by the RCMP Act.

Bill C-30 was originally introduced as housekeeping in nature; however, it became evident that the effect of the legislation would have serious implications for the rights of RCMP members. There exists concern that Bill C-30 in its present form would completely eliminate the application of the Canada Labour Code to RCMP members. At present RCMP members have the protection of part II of the code concerning health and safety.

In order for the Reform Party to support Bill C-30, it would require a substantive amendment which would ensure the continued statutory protection of RCMP officers under the Canada Labour Code. In my assessment, none of the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Bellechasse would satisfy this requirement. Therefore, the Reform Party will not support Motion No. 1 which would amend Bill C-30 by deleting clause 1. The Reform Party will not support Motion No. 2 which would amend Bill C-30 by deleting clause 2. The Reform Party will not support Motion No. 3 which would amend Bill C-30 by deleting clause 3.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the timing of the introduction of this bill.

Reflecting back to just prior to the rising of the House last summer, the government presented legislation that dealt with DNA. It gave police departments another tool to track and determine the guilt or innocence of rapists and murderers. It certainly was an advantage for law enforcement.

At the time the bill came forward, it was rushed through during the dying days of the session before the summer. It fell short of doing a complete job. Police departments could not bank any of the evidence. To this day, they still cannot and it has been a year since the legislation came in. The justice minister never consulted with the solicitors general and justice ministers of the provinces. As a result of that, the considerable costs were downloaded on to the shoulders of municipal police departments as well as provincial attorneys general and solicitors general.

I would like to ask the member, given the process as it was last year with the DNA bill, how he views this legislation which again is being introduced in the dying days of Parliament. Was there justice done in debate? What is the feeling he is getting from his constituents? It is important that members of the House, and members of the Liberal government, in particular, hear what is going on out there. They seem to have their heads buried in the sand so that these bills can be rushed through all their stages.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

No free votes either.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it would absolutely be beneficial to have more opportunity to debate the bill.

Let us turn it around and put the blame on the shoulders of the people who should have the blame placed on them. That is government ministers introducing legislation 10 days before the House rises for the summer. They are the ones who are responsible for cutting short this debate. The minister, the solicitor general and the Prime Minister know full well that no time was offered to have a proper debate on this bill. They have rammed it through. They have forced an inflexible situation.

I know the member is in favour of this bill. Be that as it may, she may not be reflecting the viewpoint of her constituents. I do not know. The majority of people to whom I talk want to see this bill scrapped. That is why we are voting against it as a party.