Debates of June 8th, 2000

Treaties Act

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-214. I commend the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for his work on this private member's legislation. It is definitely a step in the right direction. We need more openness and transparency in the treaty negotiation and ratification process.

Over the last 12 years or so trade has become an increasingly important political and economic issue in Canada. As our trade and treaty process evolves, it is necessary that our domestic engagement policies with subnational governments involve the provincial and I would assert municipal governments. They need to be consulted and involved in discussing the impact of treaties and in discussions and engagement of members of parliament and senators, all parliamentarians. It is critically important.

With this legislation the hon. member would move Canada to something more similar to the Australian model for treaty negotiation. I had the opportunity to have dinner with Alexander Downer, Australia's foreign affairs minister, about two years ago. I used that opportunity to discuss with him the success of the Australian model for treaty negotiation. That has been by and large a successful experiment. We can move with a significant level of confidence in supporting the direction of this legislation because of the Australian example which has been well received and successful.

We need to consult with the provincial and territorial governments more seriously on these issues. On the MAI there was very little consultation or discussion with subnational governments in Canada. If there were discussions, they were typically between federal and provincial bureaucrats as opposed to being between ministers or members of federal and provincial governments. It is essential that the elected members have a role both provincially and federally in terms of the discussions and the process.

The national interest analysis is essential. We need to ensure the impact of treaties is considered not just nationally but also subnationally on the provincial, territorial and indeed municipal governments. Many of the treaties that are signed have a significant impact on the provincial and municipal governments.

I want to be clear that our support of this legislation is in no way an indication of our fear of trade or our opposition to trade or a change in our policy relative to trade. This type of transparent engagement process actually indicates our degree of support for trade. We recognize the importance of trade in the Canadian economy and the increasing level of importance that trade will play in the coming decades.

As such, it is important that our domestic policies evolve appropriately in terms of the democratic process of engagement which needs to grow commensurate with the increased level of sophistication of our treaty negotiation process externally. It is essential that this happen. It is important that this occur partly because of some of the misinformation and mistruths about trade agreements that are utilized by anti-trade individuals and organizations, for example with the MAI or previous to that the free trade agreement and NAFTA.

Solid information and a solid process of engagement and discussion will help to eliminate a lot of the incorrect and sensationalist arguments against these treaties. It is critical that we make policies and processes transparent such that those often incorrect analyses and arguments are exposed for the frauds that they are in a lot of cases. I see this very positively.

I commend the hon. member for his work in this area. Our party will be supporting this legislation. It is a step in the right direction and may be an important step forward for Canada. I would hope that we would have the same success here as the Australian model has had in that country.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-214, introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, whom I salute, is of great importance to this House, which is why I want to speak to it today.

An act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded, this bill would fill the democratic void in Canada, when it comes to negotiating and concluding treaties with our partners from other countries in the world.

I have been taking part in the work of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for nearly seven years. This is the committee where a few members from all parties study legislation to implement important international treaties to which Canada wishes to become a party.

However, there are significant differences between implementation legislation passed by parliament and what my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry is proposing. In other words, when Canada intends to ratify a treaty, it introduces a bill in the House to implement that treaty in Canada and to give effect to the obligations stemming from that treaty. However, and this is where the problem lies, the public has never heard about that treaty and its contents, not have members of parliament, even.

As we enter the 21st century, it is rather sad to see that international treaties, which will often have an impact on the life of people, cannot be subjected to public scrutiny beforehand. The overall objective of Bill C-214 is to allow for greater transparency so that people and their elected representatives can participate fully and democratically at each stage of the ratification of international treaties Canada intends to negotiate.

Bill C-214 has four specific objectives on which I would like to comment.

The first is to table treaties the government has signed so that the people and their elected representatives can have access to all the information pertaining to that treaty and know its scope.

We all remember the reactions negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment, or MAI, gave rise to and the general disapproval of the agreement in the civil society and in some countries. We also remember how difficult it was for the former international trade minister to answer questions from opposition members in the House because everything was being done behind closed doors.

With the systematic tabling of all important treaties to be published in the Canada Gazette and in the Canada Treaty Series or posted on the government Internet site, we would avoid this dysfunction of democracy.

Bill C-214 is really an exercise in openness and democratization. The publication and distribution of treaties are the second part in this bill.

Third, Bill C-214 provides that treaties will be submitted to Parliament before ratification. I pointed out before that the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade are participating in the study of the treaty implementation bill.

We should know that, at that stage, there is absolutely no debate on the content of treaties, their different parts, their impact on the life of Canadians, their institutions, and the relations between citizens and the government that could be affected.

Implementation bills simply make our legislation consistent with our treaty obligations. We are a very long way from a process that would give the treaties greater legitimacy by permitting parliamentarians to vet all of them before their ratification.

This government would have had an extraordinary opportunity to show its open-mindedness, the fact that it is the "best country in the world", had it proposed this bill. We had an example very recently in which parliamentarians could have expressed their opinion on the content of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court concerning genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This would have been a great victory for parliamentary democracy.

That said, in a context of globalization, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean pointed out so well, in which many decisions affecting us are made at the international level and are beyond our reach, parliamentary democracy obliges MPs to not abdicate any of their responsibilities in this area.

Parliamentary approval of treaties as proposed by Bill C-214 would include a debate of their content and in no way limits the government's manoeuvring room in negotiating and concluding them.

Finally, the fourth objective of the bill on treaties, as the short title provides, is to involve the provinces in the negotiation of treaties that come under their constitutional jurisdiction, thus obliging the federal government to consult them. Bill C-214 also proposes the conclusion of an agreement to formalize this requirement for consultation.

We would therefore have hoped such a bill that attempts to democratize the ratification of treaties and honour the spirit and letter of the Constitution would receive the unanimous support of all parliamentarians. Unfortunately, this was not the case. One after another, the Liberal members speaking on this private members' bill opposed its passage at second reading.

Such an attitude is hard to understand and totally indefensible. How can the Liberal members oppose making the treaty ratification process more transparent and democratic? Why are the Liberal members refusing to honour Canada's Constitution, which nevertheless defines provincial jurisdictions?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs may have given us part of the answer to explain such behaviour when he commented, on December 1, on the refusal of the U.S. Senate to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. He said, and I quote:

This show of disunity by our American neighbours is a clear illustration of what happens when sterile party politics find their way into the conduct of a country's foreign affairs.

Could it be that these same sterile party politics, to use the words of the Liberal parliamentary secretary, explain the Liberals partisan refusal to support Bill C-214?

In any case, it is certainly not the arguments put forward by the Liberal members in this House that justify their stubborn refusal. Since the debates began, they have relied on false pretences only to try to justify their opposition.

Allow me to say a few words on the importance of getting the provinces involved in the negotiation and ratification of treaties that fall under their constitutional jurisdiction.

The provisions of Bill C-214 seeks to recognize what is familiarly known in Quebec as the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine. It is, regardless of what Liberal members may say, a simple recognition of the provinces' prerogative at the international level when it comes to areas that fall under their jurisdiction.

Former Quebec minister Paul Gérin-Lajoie popularized that doctrine in the sixties. For the benefit of members opposite, Paul Gérin-Lajoie belongs to the Liberal political family and is not an advocate of Quebec sovereignty. He is, however, an honest man respectful of the fundamental law of the land, the Canadian constitution.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate and thank all the members from the four opposition parties who rose in support of this bill. They all had the insight and the democratic reflex that are so sorely lacking on the other side of the House.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about one part only of the bill presented by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. That part is not the most crystal clear one.

It is recognized in Canadian constitutional law, and has been for the past sixty years, that the power to conclude treaties rests exclusively with the federal government. However, hidden among the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is one that asks the members of this House to recognize that provinces have the power to conclude treaties.

That power of the provinces to conclude treaties simply does not exist. And a change of this scale to the Canadian constitutional order requires far more than merely a debate in this House: it requires profound, lasting changes to our constitution.

I am not surprised by that. It is true to the culture and the behavior of the Bloc to try to do indirectly what cannot be done directly, that is to nullify the Canadian constitution.

Canadian constitutional law clearly establishes that the negotiation and ratification of a treaty is strictly within the purview of the federal executive branch. I should not have to teach that to the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry who is a professor of law.

However, if a treaty requires changes to current laws or the enactment of new ones, parliamentarians need to take action and we have done so several times.

If parliamentarians do not legislate, the federal executive is not in a position to ratify such a treaty, as it cannot reasonably conclude that it could be implemented. Therefore the international commitment made by Canada under such a treaty could not be fulfilled.

On that specific point, I would ask the other members of the opposition—and I am not talking about the Bloc members because I do not expect them to recant their decision in the interest of clarity—to review their position, because if they support this bill, they will be changing the constitutional law that has existed in Canada for more than 60 years.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to respond to my colleague and to give her a short lesson in international law and Canadian constitutional law, we know there are several federal states in the world, Swiss cantons or German Länders, which are not sovereign states and which can conclude international treaties, as provided by the constitution.

We interpret our constitution. It is Mr. Gérin-Lajoie, a liberal and a federalist, as my colleague from Laval Centre said earlier, who promoted the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine whereby Quebec could conclude treaties within its areas of jurisdiction. I remind the hon. member that all successive Quebec governments, whether of the Liberal Party or the Parti Quebecois, maintained that this Gérin-Lajoie doctrine should prevail and that Quebec could conclude international treaties within its areas of jurisdiction.

In closing this debate, I want to thank members of the House who took part in the debate on Bill C-214. I appreciate and count on the support of oppositions members who have fully realized that this bill is aimed at democratizing the process of conclusion of treaties, at circulating treaties concluded by Canada but not properly circulated.

Even today, people will not be able to find the text of a Canadian treaty on the Government of Canada site, which is totally inappropriate, since they will find on sites of other countries, such as the United States and France, treaties they have concluded.

The purpose of this bill is therefore to ensure that parliament participates when treaties are concluded by approving the most important treaties, and that there is an obligation on the government to disseminate its treaties by tabling them in the House, or by publishing them either on an electronic site, in the Canada Gazette , or in the Canada Treaty Series .

In my opinion, this is essential because this parliament is lagging somewhat behind other parliaments in the world, such as those of Australia, New Zealand or the United Kingdom. These parliaments have, in recent years, amended their procedure and allowed members to debate treaties, which, as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean pointed out, are taking on increasing importance.

I noted objections from the government side resulting from a desire not to acknowledge that the royal prerogative with respect to the conclusion of treaties should be shared between the federal and provincial governments in application and respect of the federal principle. They also thought that this bill would have the effect of unduly limiting the prerogatives and discretion of the government with respect to the conclusion of treaties. That is not the case.

References to a republican system such as that of the United States ignore the development of practices in Commonwealth countries, where parliament is finally being given a voice when it comes to concluding treaties.

I will conclude by expressing the hope that this bill will receive significant support when it is voted on, on Monday. I also hope that the government realizes that this debate cannot be postponed any longer.

This is a debate that must take place. Let us hope that government members and ministers take the initiative, as other governments have done, and modify the existing practice, which is outmoded and unworthy of a country which claims to be democratic but which does not which to give a voice to the people's elected representatives when it comes to important treaties.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 6.16 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Monday, June 12, 2000 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 29 in the House, I raised the issue of the importation of MOX plutonium into Canada. Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources sidestepped my question.

In fact, I mentioned that 161 municipalities and MRCs in Quebec had written to the Minister of the Environment asking him to drop his plan to import plutonium. The parliamentary secretary said just the opposite.

On May 24, the Montreal urban community commission on the environment rejected the plan. In its recommendation to the city executive council, it recommended:

That the Council ask the Government of Canada to drop the plan for eliminating American and Russian military grade plutonium in Canadian CANDU reactors, as well as the research project to that effect by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and, consequently, to accept no more samples of MOX fuel.

No recommendation could be clearer. Moreover, 161 municipalities and MRCs in Quebec are making the same request.

The issue that I am raising today is not whether there is a danger with such importation. My request is totally justified because, whenever MOX is burned in Candu reactors, more than 50% of the initial plutonium mass persists in the form of waste and that waste has a chemical mean life of 24,000 years. We must not forget that, at this time, more than 23 million kilograms of uranium are stored in Canada and that there is no permanent solution to dispose of them.

The public must know that in February 1998, a panel chaired by Blair Seaborn presented a report, one of the recommendations of which was as follows:

Any plan for the permanent storage of nuclear fuel waste in Canada should aim to.

1) ensure that the public has an appropriate level of knowledge of and control over nuclear fuel waste management in Canada and that such management is in keeping with changing public priorities particularly in light of the dread factor about nuclear issue and:

2) achieve informed and collective acceptance at every stage of development.

It added, and I am still quoting:

Public participation must be incorporated in a comprehensive and credible manner throughout future steps. This implies that the public must accept the plan before it is implemented.

I am still waiting to hear the reasons for the Liberals' actions. But I am warning them, voters will not hesitate to punish them in the next election. We must give some form of power back to the people. Again, I cannot help deploring the dictatorial attitude of the government.

People want to know if they will be consulted with regard to the importation of MOX fuel before being forced to live with tens of tons of highly radioactive material for thousands of years.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel test project, which is, I point out, just a fuel test, is part of an international non-proliferation initiative to find a safe and secure manner to render surplus American and Russian weapons grade plutonium inaccessible for future use in nuclear weapons. The plutonium that is declared surplus by the U.S. and Russia already exists and will continue to present a real proliferation danger until it can be reduced to a form that cannot be readily used for weapons purposes.

The use of MOX fuel in a nuclear reactor is one of the methods by which the plutonium can be effectively rendered inaccessible for weapons.

Canada has agreed in principle to consider the use of MOX fuel as part of its contribution to international disarmament initiatives. The Government of Canada believes that Canadians share a common desire to create a safe and secure world for future generations and are prepared to take appropriate action provided that public health and safety and the environment are not compromised in the process.

With respect to the future import of MOX fuel test samples from Russia to Canada, I want to assure the House now that the shipment will comply with all Canadian legal and regulatory requirements. The shipment must comply with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the transportation packaging of radioactive materials regulations, and International requirements under the International Marine Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, as well as standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The MOX test sample shipments are safe. The trace amount of radiation is so small that it poses no significant risk to health, safety or the environment. The fuel is in a stable, solid, ceramic form inside a sealed zirconium alloy element and transported in a container, as I stated earlier, that meets Canadian and international standards.

It is not soluble and cannot spill, ignite or explode. It is not a powder that can be inhaled. The transport of the fuel samples is subject to all requirements of Canada's regulatory system which fully protect public health and safety and the environment.

I must stress that undertaking this test does not oblige Canada to agree to the large scale use of MOX fuel in Candu power plants in the future. Should any such program be proposed at some point in the future, stringent conditions will apply, including full public participation prior to entering into the program.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to a motion made earlier today, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will now proceed to the report stage of Bill S-10.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-10, an act to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the Criminal Code, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

National Defence Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the question for concurrence at report stage is deemed put and the motion is deemed carried on division.

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, for the Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government House leader for allowing me to go first. I told him I would be very brief and I will because my party supports the bill. We had a good debate at second reading and in committee, and appreciate that it has now come forward. We also like the fact that the commissioner of the RCMP will be reporting on the status of the DNA data bank on an annual basis and that parliament will review the operations of the data bank every five years.

We support the bill because it is a good step in utilizing a person's genetic fingerprint. It is an indispensable tool for the police and the military authorities to solve crimes.

Very often DNA is solely viewed as a tool to convict, but it also exonerates the innocent. I think that is so important. We only have to be reminded of Paul Morin and David Milgaard to appreciate the brilliance and the justice incorporated in DNA samples.

In just taking a short period of time, we want to say that we support the bill and look forward to its quick passage and, more important, to the implementation which will be to the benefit of all Canadians.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill S-10 which amends the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the Criminal Code. This bill builds on the national DNA data bank, legislation passed by this House in 1998 which created the DNA Identification Act.

As hon. members of the House will recall, the DNA Identification Act establishes a national DNA data bank that will contain DNA profiles from both crime scenes and people who are convicted of serious and violent offences. Each time a new DNA profile is entered into the data bank, a search will be made to find a match in the system to help police identify suspects.

DNA profiles stored in the national wide data bank will provide the police with valuable information that will also speed up criminal investigations. It will also offer hope to victims' families that long outstanding crimes may be solved.

The benefits of having a national DNA data bank are well recognized by the police community and the Canadian public. It will be a landmark public safety tool.

The overall purpose of Bill S-10 is simple and twofold: to establish a more complete data bank by including the DNA profiles from offenders convicted in the military justice system; and, to make sure that the legislation can be effectively implemented. Bill S-10 makes simple and straightforward refinements to the data bank legislation to ensure its smooth implementation.

The provinces and territories support the bill because it clearly responds to the practical issues that they have identified. It is now up to us to give Bill S-10 our full support.

I am pleased by the momentum that is building up to implement this landmark investigative tool. Plans are well under way. The RCMP has established a special unit to run the data bank. Regulations in support of the DNA Identification Act have been drafted and published. Law enforcement officials across the country are actively engaged in preparations to implement the data bank by June 30. A federal and provincial working group is finalizing guidelines to assist prosecutors in applying the law uniformly across the country, and police are being trained on sample collection procedures.

We have made great strides in ensuring that Canadian police have this modern technology available to them. All sectors of the criminal justice system have come together on this initiative to ensure that the national DNA data bank can soon become a reality.

In the interests of all Canadians, indeed for public safety, I encourage all members of the House—and I gather all members are supporting this—to support Bill S-10 so that we can proceed as planned to get this much needed public safety tool off the ground.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-10, which amends mainly the National Defence Act.

This bill will authorize military judges to issue DNA warrants to take bodily substances for the purpose of deriving the DNA profile of the military suspected or convicted of designated offences.

Bill S-10 is an addition to the existing legislation providing similar authorities to be exercised by a provincial court judge under the Criminal Code to allow the taking of bodily substances for DNA analysis.

Under this bill, a military judge will be able to order the taking of bodily substances in cases of offences under the Criminal Code and specific military offences like striking a superior officer or striking a subordinate.

DNA profiles of the military will be included in the DNA bank just as those of civilians. This bank will also include the profiles of human cells found at the scene of a crime, and they will be compared to the profile of suspected or convicted offenders. Thus, it will be possible to find the criminal as quickly as possible and with great accuracy. The Canadian DNA bank should be operational by the end of June, as mentioned a moment ago by the parliamentary secretary.

Canada is not the first country enacting legislation to take bodily substances for DNA analysis and create a bank of DNA profiles. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium already have legislation authorizing the taking and storing of DNA data.

Some American States have also enacted such legislation. The French are presently studying legislation to authorize the taking and storing of such data.

Let me describe briefly the overriding legislation in these countries and compare it with the legislation that will soon come into force in Canada.

The United Kingdom pioneered in this regard when it passed legislation to authorize the taking of bodily substances and the storing of the DNA profiles derived from them. The United Kingdom DNA data bank has been operational since April 1995 and it is operated by the Forensic Science Service.

Contrary to the Canadian legislation, where a police officer must obtain a warrant from a judge for the taking of bodily substances, the British legislation empowers police officers to make the decision as to whether to take a sample from suspects. The police officer must obtain the consent of the person before taking an “intimate” sample of substances. “Intimate” refers to a sample of blood, sperm or urine, a dental impression or a sample from a bodily orifice other than the mouth.

The police officer does not have to obtain the consent of the person before taking a “non intimate” sample. Such a sample could be a fingernail clipping, a sample from the mouth or from any other part of the body, or a foot impression.

These samples are taken from anyone suspected of having committed a criminal act. Under the British legislation, a criminal act includes all crimes, with violence or not, which are punishable by a term of imprisonment.

The Canadian legislation is very different. In Canada, a judge will be able to order offenders suspected of a designated offence to provide samples of bodily substances. Whenever someone is convicted of an offence, the Canadian parliament has decided that giving samples of bodily substances will be mandatory but only in the case of the most severe crimes, such as sexual assault, murder and other such crimes.

However, in the case of summary convictions for lesser offences, a Canadian judge will have the authority to order the taking of samples of bodily substances if he is convinced that the infringement on the offender's privacy is not excessive compared to public interest.

In the United Kingdom, bodily substances are used to prove or disprove the involvement of a person in a specific offence. It is possible to keep the data in a data bank when the person is convicted of the offence. The data are destroyed whenever the suspect is acquitted or dies.

The United Kingdom goes further than Canada and other countries where there is a legislation on the taking of bodily substances. A British policeman can collect a non intimate specimen on a person accused of an offence even if that specimen is not related to the crime committed.

In that case, the specimen is not collected to prove or disprove the involvement of the person in the offence but simply because the person is accused and that it may be possible to link that individual to other offences.

Before the British law regulating the taking of DNA samples was passed, the United Kingdom systematically conducted DNA analyses among the population in order to find the authors of crimes. Indeed, in the Pitchford case, in order to solve the rape and murder of two teenage girls, the police had taken over 3,600 DNA samples from men in the area where the crimes had been committed. After the case was solved, the police used the 3,600 samples to establish cross-references with other crimes.

It is obvious that the British justice system gives more power to the police and puts less emphasis on civil liberties. Canadian law is less permissive and states clearly under which circumstances the police can take a sample. I believe our DNA legislation strikes the right balance between the need to find and punish the guilty party and individual freedoms.

Following the Dutroux tragedy, Belgium passed legislation dealing with tidentification through DNA analysis within its criminal justice system. This legislation is similar to ours.

First of all, the Belgian penal code was adapted to allow the analysis of human cells found at a crime scene and to allow the taking of DNA samples from individuals suspected of being involved in a crime.

And then, two databanks were set up. The first one consists of a crime scene index containing DNA profiles derived from bodily substances found on the crime scenes. The other one is the convicted offenders index containing DNA profiles obtained from convicted offenders.

The Belgian national institute of forensic sciences and criminology manages the genetic index. This state institution also has the mandate to carry out expert analyses on samples collected at the scene, to do research and development in the DNA field and to oversee the training and regulation of technical and scientific police services. It also deals with the laboratory for the technical and scientific police services and the reference laboratory for forensic sciences.

I have also found some information about the legislation in force in the Netherlands. It stipulates that suspects in a serious crime have to provide samples of bodily substances for forensic purposes. That country is the only one to allow the accused to request an independent second assessment by a laboratory other than the national criminal justice laboratory.

Although the United States have carried out DNA analyses in more than 24,000 cases since 1986, they still do not have a DNA databank. In fact, most of the American States have legislation providing for the collection and analysis of samples of bodily substances. Pursuant to these acts, samples are taken from persons convicted of serious crimes like sexual assaults.

DNA samples are sent to the state forensic laboratory where they are entered in a registry and stored in the state DNA databank. Various DNA data are stored in different databanks across the country.

The FBI recently initiated a movement to create a national DNA data bank which would group together all the data recorded in each state. Studies are being implemented to check the feasibility of the project.

On April 4, 2000, France introduced a piece of legislation to create a national data bank of gene prints and imprints. This national automated data bank would centralize the gene prints found on the scene of a crime as well as the gene imprints of inmates. A judge at trial will be able to order a comparison between the gene prints in the national data bank and the DNA profile of an individual under investigation for an offence punishable by imprisonment. In principle, that national automated data bank of gene imprints should be operational by the end of May of this year.

Science today makes it possible to determine, from a tiny amount of bodily substances, an individual's DNA profile. This has allowed many police agencies around the world to resolve vicious crimes for which no culprit had yet been found.

In spite of the sure benefits of genetics for criminal justice, I feel continued caution is in order with regard to potential manipulation of genetic information. That is why passing legislation entails, in my opinion, many benefits both for fighting efficiently against crime and for protecting justiciables against potential abuses from the state.

First of all, the passing of an act provides a framework for the power of seizure exercised by police officers. Then, its passage permits conservation of genetic information in a single location, thus making the search for the perpetrator more effective.

Finally, passage of a law makes it possible to sanction individuals who would use the law for purposes other than those it was intended for. Despite all these advantages, few countries have complete legislation governing the sampling, conservation and use of bodily substances obtained for forensic analyses.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands, will have proper legislation permitting the collection and conservation of genetic information. As we have seen, there are significant differences between Canada's legislation and the others'. Bill S-10, at issue here, improves a number of measures passed by the House of Commons in this area and will give the law its own particular cachet.

First, let us mention that Bill S-10 gives military judges the same powers as provincial court justices in the collection of bodily substances. It appears that Canada will be the only country to subject the military to the same regime as civilians. The Bloc Quebecois sees no reason to exclude the military from the application of this legislation.

Bill S-10 provides that DNA profiles and substances taken must be used only to apply the law, to the exclusion of all other unauthorized uses. Offences and sentences are provided in the law for those who fail to comply with it.

According to my information, Canada is the only country, besides Belgium, to provide for protection against the abuse of genetic information. These provisions are very important and the Bloc Quebecois fully supports them. They meet the concerns expressed by Canada's privacy commissioner.

Indeed, the privacy commissioner had reservations about the creation of a DNA data bank and the way that information might be used. While recognizing the usefulness of that technique, the commissioner was opposed to letting the state develop a DNA public registry. The information contained in the DNA data bank should not, according to the commissioner, be used to determine other characteristics that can be genetically related, such as one's personality, or be used for medical research. Bill S-10 provides protection against such practices.

The RCMP will administer the DNA data bank, which should be in operation by the end of June of this year. The Solicitor General of Canada announced that the RCMP will receive $18 million to operate this data bank. If properly administered by the RCMP, this tool will allow the police to quickly and accurately solve many crimes. By using DNA profiles during their investigations, police officers will save time and money, which can be reallocated.

The newspapers recently revealed that the RCMP was not properly managed by its senior officers. Moreover, in his report released last April, the auditor general reported that the RCMP had a major backlog with regard to the DNA analyses that are currently authorized. According to the auditor general's report, the RCMP laboratories take an average of 82 days to do a preliminary DNA analysis.

That work should only take two days. The average time for a complete analysis is 101 days. These timeframes far exceed the recommendation made by Justice Campbell, who conducted the investigation in the Bernardo case and who recommended a 30 day turnaround time for DNA analysis. The RCMP takes a total of 183 days to do a DNA analysis.

The RCMP will have to establish its priorities, because the success of the national DNA data bank depends on it. Given this disturbing information concerning the management of the RCMP, the Bloc Quebecois will carefully scrutinize its activities.

The annual report to be submitted to parliament by the commissioner of the RCMP responsible for administrating the DNA data bank will allow to determine whether the functioning and the administration of the DNA data bank respond to people's expectations.

This obligation on the part of the commissioner to submit an annual report is an addition in Bill S-10, since the current legislation provides for a Senate or a House committee, or a joint committee, to examine the implementation of the legislation in the five years following its coming into effect.

I did not believe this change was essential. However, in the light of huge management problems within the RCMP, I think an annual report is not too much to ask, to allow parliamentarians to examine the work of the RCMP in this field. I believe a five year period is too long and might have jeopardized the functioning of the DNA data bank.

Available data concerning the performance of the British DNA data bank can be used to assess the performance of the RCMP. In fact, in 1995, during the implementation of the DNA databank in the United Kingdom, the 43 police services of that country provided over 94,000 samples taken from people and over 2,500 samples gathered at crime scenes. Almost 1,000 samples were used to provide sufficient DNA evidence.

In 196 cases, police officers were able to cross-reference the samples with the DNA profiles stored in the national DNA databank. The United Kingdom authorities found these preliminary results very encouraging, since the DNA databank had just been set up. With these 1,000 samples gathered at the crime scenes, the identification rate was 19.2%, a lot better than with the fingerprints.

As of April 10, 2000, the British databank had been in existence for five years. Since its creation, it has gathered some 750,000 profiles of suspects and over 73,000 samples of substances found at the crime scenes. In five years, the United Kingdom has linked 68,000 suspects to crimes thanks to the DNA databank.

The Bloc Quebecois supports Bill S-10 and the creation of a DNA databank, but given the RCMP's current problems, we will want to ensure that the money for this project is spent appropriately.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague of the Bloc Quebecois on her speech.

I want to thank my hon. friend and colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for Sydney—Victoria, for allowing me to pre-empt his remarks with my own. I also commend the parliamentary secretary for a very titillating speech. I know he takes a great deal of pride in bills and his knowledge of the technical aspect of bills such as this.

As has been said, these amendments pertain to the National Defence Act and the DNA Identification Act, as well as the criminal code. Obviously, there is very much a spirit of non-partisan support for the bill and its practical implications.

I was once told by a good friend and colleague in Nova Scotia, Kenneth Fiske, who is a lawyer, that when appearing before the court of appeal a person should be brief, be concise and be gone. That is what I intend to do with this speech.

The purpose of the bill is to include the genetic profiles of offenders, which will allow law enforcement officials to collect genetic fingerprints, which are very much useful in the investigation of serious crimes.

The bill is set up to mirror existing legislation which came before the House in recent times. It is there to enhance and equalize the system with regard to the military and ensure that those who are involved in serious offences involving violence will be held to equal account. As well, it provides that the evidence, which is necessary to prosecute and hold individuals to account, be available to the military.

This legislation, in essence, helps to achieve that goal and helps to bring about equality and fairness in the military justice system.

In recent years the courts have seen many high profile convictions, such as that of Paul Bernardo, and the eventual acquittal of Guy Paul Morin due to the use of DNA evidence. This demonstrates the usefulness of this latest tool of law enforcement in the protection of Canadian society.

We know that it is used for both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, which is an important nuance to understand. It enhances the accuracy and the truth of our justice system.

The DNA data bank, while being useful and careful not to trample on individual privacy rights, is a very good piece of legislation. It has been brought about by the hard work of individuals in this House, as well as those in the other place. It is very interesting and telling that it was brought forward as a Senate bill, and I commend and applaud the efforts of those in the other place.

I have recently spoken with regard to the tragically flawed conviction of Stephen Truscott. If DNA had been available in 1959 there is certainly reason to believe that it is quite possible his conviction could have been avoided. He would have been exonerated and spared a very horrible fate.

Also, the similar types of injustices suffered by Marshall, Milgaard and Morin may likely have been spared with the timely use of DNA evidence. Therefore, we should do everything possible to expedite its implementation.

This could be a very powerful legislative tool in the conduct of criminal investigations. My friend and colleague from Sydney—Victoria, who is a defence lawyer, would be quick to agree that it could often avoid a case even appearing before the courts. If there is evidence that exonerates, the prosecution may decide in its wisdom not to proceed. Or, if there is evidence which categorically places the individual at the scene of the crime, it may result in an earlier guilty plea.

Warrants for the taking of DNA samples provide a safeguard on the evidence that exists and meet some of the privacy concerns that were raised during the course of the debate.

It should be noted that the data bank itself, according to the government, will be operational by June 2000. We are into that month and we have had no word yet as to whether the government will fulfil that commitment. We have seen it in the past with health reform. We have seen it with the youth criminal justice act and environment legislation. Many times Canadians are led to believe that they will get a piece of legislation or a program, and sadly that does not come to fruition until months and sometimes years pass. Because of the importance of this type of bill and this very useful tool for criminal investigations, we are hoping that this will be the exception to the Liberal record in that regard.

We can only hope that the federal government will come through with adequate funding as well. We have known all along that this would very much enhance the present CPIC system and would allow police to be armed with the DNA strand and evidence which could be used to both convict and exonerate, and they are very much in need of a system that will accommodate that.

We know from earlier reports that the CPIC system, which would house this information, is at a point in its history where it is about to collapse. Money has been allotted for that. There was an announcement of $115 million for the data bank. At the same time, RCMP experts have estimated that they would need double that amount, $280 million for the data bank, for it to be really state of the art for the 21st century.

I must say that the reactions of the Liberals, when it comes to problems and cries for help from people like the law enforcement community, are nowhere near their rhetoric in terms of delivery. Law enforcement has been given short shrift in the past. We hope that will not be repeated. We are encouraged that this bill will certainly move in that direction.

This bill came about as a result of Senate hearings. It began back in 1998 with a report that was drafted to amend the National Defence Act and it was meant to reform the military justice system. The defence minister, I believe, was enlightened by this report, which contained a great deal of useful information in this regard.

For cases of sexual offence involving members of the military, the RCMP would not have had the jurisdiction they needed to do the job of taking and storing DNA samples. This bill, in essence, reacts to that perverse anomaly in the law and is very much, as I said earlier, about backfilling that inadequacy in the current legislation. The report of the committee was very useful and pointed out some of these inaccuracies and injustices under the current system.

The report also recommended that the federal government strengthen legislation concerning the administration of the bank itself and the security of that information, along with the ability and necessity of strict monitoring to ensure that there was a process whereby that information was not released into other government agencies.

We also know from the past number of weeks that this is very much a concern when it comes to cross-referencing Canadians' information. Again, this government has had a very dismal record to defend in recent weeks.

The commissioner of the RCMP would have final authority to make a report on the DNA data bank and he is required under law to make an annual report to parliament. We see this as a good safeguard.

This type of legislation is very much a technical and time-sensitive type of justice strategy that we are very encouraged will enhance the ability of our law enforcement agents to do their very important and sometimes under-recognized work in Canada.

Under this bill the DNA profiles of offenders subject to the code of service discipline who are convicted of serious and violent offences will be included in the national data bank, which again will allow for greater cross-referencing to solve, in many instances, unsolved crimes in the country. This is very much on par with the entire purpose of the DNA data bank and provides a standard of evidence that should be applied equally for all Canadians.

This new bill provides provisions that are included in the National Defence Act. It very much mirrors the existing legislation in our criminal code. It is there to contain a list of designated offences that would apply when it comes to the use of DNA. Again, it is the mirror image of what we see in the criminal code.

In cases of primary offences, it is mandatory for samples to be taken at the time of conviction, except in exceptional circumstances. This was an issue that was hotly debated at the justice committee in the Commons. It was one on which there was a great deal of disappointment in the law enforcement community, which was pushing for the legislation to very much reflect the same type of evidence gathering that exists for fingerprints, and that is that the officers would have at their discretion the ability to take DNA at the time of arrest when reasonable and probable grounds, the other standard that is always applied, existed.

It is an important point to note that they would be permitted to gather that evidence at the earliest possible point to prevent individuals being released on bail, knowing that they have outstanding offences or have been involved in other criminal activity that, upon the taking of the DNA at the time of conviction, would very much link them to those outstanding crimes.

I know that is a bit of an antiquated way of explaining it, but it would be very crucial for the Canadian Police Association, for example, to have this guarantee, which unfortunately did not come about.

For secondary offences, it is not the case that there would be mandatory convictions for a sample to be taken, so there is some solace to be taken.

Under Bill S-10 the list of scheduled offences limits the situations in which DNA samples can be taken and now applies to members of the military who have been convicted of those same said offences.

Within five years after the act comes into effect there will be an opportunity to review it. We feel that is consistent with transparency. I mention transparency because this government does not really possess a strong record on transparency and openness, irrespective of what was said in the red book. Sadly, that is a book in which Canadians cannot put a lot of faith.

There is a clear statement in the DNA profiles and samples that come from those convicted of crimes that establishes DNA profiles that can be used and held and cross-referenced for future investigations.

The implementation of this bill will enable police officers to be more effective in gathering evidence and using it to obtain convictions where justified and also address some of the backlog of cases where DNA evidence could be used to exonerate those who are awaiting trial.

This legislation is a positive move. I see it as a very powerful tool with important implications and repercussions for our justice system and for society generally. The provisions of the bill will ensure greater respect for the privacy of Canadians by setting clearer guidelines for the use of DNA by the police, the courts and others in our justice system.

The Progressive Conservative Party unequivocally supports this bill as it will help bring our society closer to achieving a sense of public safety. Anything that moves our justice system in that direction is something that we in the House certainly embrace.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments of my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I too know Butch Fiske. He gave me the same advice just before an appeal. He was brief and concise; I was longer and I won. I think it is good advice.

The New Democratic Party will be supporting this legislation. It is good legislation and we welcome it. As has been said, it mirrors the legislation that was introduced in the House dealing with the DNA identification data bank in the civil courts.

It is important to note that many witnesses came before the justice committee and gave of their time and their ideas to help us craft the right legislation. When that is done properly we see what happens, a government bill that is supported by the Canadian Alliance, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc.

My colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough spoke about how he and certain police associations hoped that the legislation would go further in terms of allowing the taking of DNA at the time of arrest. I appreciate that. When we craft laws, and this law is important for public safety, we always have to balance what we know to be fundamental rights. The difference between taking DNA samples and taking a fingerprint is the difference between taking bodily fluids and taking a photograph. That is the way the courts have viewed it and I think that is the way ethicists have looked at it.

I was one of the individuals who raised these issues at the justice committee. We sought opinions from some retired supreme court justices. They concurred that it would be detrimental to the legislation to allow the taking of DNA samples at the time of arrest. Nobody in the House wanted to craft a bill that would not withstand a legal challenge. From my way of thinking it was better to get a piece of sound legislation passed as quickly as possible that would provide for public safety and give the police the tools they need.

A great deal has been said in the House about this legislation. It provides the military with the same tools that the civilian police force have. Because the RCMP would not have jurisdiction in the taking of the samples, it extends powers to the military courts and it extends the power to issue the warrants to the military justices.

There is consensus on the bill. The NDP will be supporting this important piece of legislation. It uses today's technology in a way to prevent crime and also to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual. It is interesting that the bill comes on the day when the Minister of Justice talked about enhancing support mechanisms for investigation of wrongfully convicted individuals. DNA will form an important part of that in the same way that it provides a useful tool for those who have committed a crime in determining their guilt.

We always have to bear in mind the presumption of innocence. DNA is but a tool in the same way that fingerprints are and other evidence is in determining the construction of a case against an accused. We always have to bear in mind at the beginning that the accused is presumed innocent and this is but one investigative tool, albeit an important one.

I get a little nervous when people start to think that science is foolproof, that technology has all the answers, but this is an important piece of legislation for evidence gathering and we will support the legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today the question on the motion at third reading stage is deemed put and the motion is deemed carried on division.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-3, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols between Canada and Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Japan and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1999

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the question on the motion for concurrence at report stage is deemed put and the motion is deemed carried on division.

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today at third reading of Bill S-3.

This legislation implements nine tax treaties. All of them are important to Canada's trade and investment with the countries involved and to the elimination of double taxation for businesses and individuals with operations and investments in those countries. Among these treaties are seven new ones that have been concluded with Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan and Jordan. Bill S-3 also amends Canada's tax treaty with Japan and replaces our existing convention with Luxembourg.

These treaties were designed with two primary objectives in mind—the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. The potential for double taxation arises when a taxpayer resides in one country and earns income in another. Without a tax treaty, both countries can tax this income.

Tax treaties are therefore essential in helping to ensure that income is not taxed twice. This can be achieved in several ways. The most important method requires the country of residence to either exempt the income from tax or give credit for the tax paid to the source country under a tax treaty. Another is to allocate taxation rights between a taxpayer's country of residence and the source country of the income. One of the ways of achieving this is for tax treaties to provide for reciprocal rate reductions.

The treaties contained in Bill S-3 meet this objective through reduced withholding taxes for individuals and businesses. Withholding taxes, as hon. members know, are the taxes that countries usually impose on income paid to non-residents. Let me provide some examples.

The treaty with Kyrgyzstan limits the maximum withholding tax on dividends and interest to 15% and to 10% on royalties. Some exemptions exist for interest and royalties on copyrights, computer software, patents and know-how.

The convention with Lebanon provides for a maximum 5% withholding tax on dividends paid to a company controlling at least 10% of the voting power in the company paying the dividends, and 15% in all other cases.

Copyright, computer software, patent and know-how royalties will be taxed at 5%; other royalties as well as interest at 10%.

I could cite the other treaties with Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Luxembourg and Japan, but the bill lays out the measures very clearly. They are in a similar fashion to the one I cited earlier so I will not belabour the House with that information.

I would be remiss in my remarks if I did not mention the second main objective of tax treaties, the prevention of fiscal evasion. The treaties contained in this bill encourage the exchange of information between revenue authorities to prevent tax evasion or tax avoidance. Sharing information helps revenue authorities in both countries identify and act on cases of tax evasion or avoidance.

There is one remaining issue I want to highlight before closing, and that is the taxpayer migration rules as proposed by the Minister of Finance.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act will be introduced under separate legislation with respect to Canada's right to tax emigrants on gains that accrue while they are in Canada.

With this in mind, Canada has been negotiating its tax treaties to ensure that double taxation will not happen when emigrants' pre-departure gains are taxed. However, this provision is included in only four of the treaties covered in the bill, the ones with Luxembourg, Portugal, Lebanon and Jordan. I will explain why.

The treaties with Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Algeria and Kyrgyzstan were all negotiated before the new rules were announced. Because of this, there is a provision in the proposed taxpayer migration rules for Canada to give a unilateral foreign tax credit to emigrants until the year 2007. This time frame guarantees that there will be no double taxation of pre-departure gains before these treaties have been negotiated to take the new rules into account. Japan has asked to review taxpayer migration in future negotiations.

In summary, I want to assure hon. members that the tax treaties contained in this bill only hold positive benefits for Canadian businesses and individuals with operations and investments in these countries.

The fact that our exports now account for over 40% of Canada's annual GDP is testament to the importance of tax treaties to both international trade and to Canada's domestic economic performance.

Once these treaties come into force, the number of tax treaties Canada has in place with other countries will increase to 75.

I therefore urge all hon. members to pass this legislation without delay.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-3, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols between Canada and Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Japan and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees with this bill, especially since the bill is inspired by relatively standard models developed by the OECD.

The member opposite said that such protocols have been signed with 75 countries. I think that is wonderful but some of these countries have old protocols of agreement that are deplorable because they do not prevent fiscal evasion, which is the second objective of the bill. This is very important. We must not lose sight of this.

Certain corporations have head offices outside Canada and pay practically no taxes on income. When these Canadian companies bring their money back into Canada, the law tells them that they have already paid taxes in the country where they do business. The money is therefore allowed into Canada without any taxes on income. There are many companies operating abroad who are paying little or no income tax there and, when they bring their money into Canada, they do not pay a cent in taxes.

I would like to give an example that members will understand. There are three countries with whom we have duly signed conventions—old models, relics—and they are Liberia, Bermuda and Barbados. These are tax havens.

In Liberia, there are no income taxes. A company doing business in Liberia with a head office there pays one amount, $350 US a year. Whether its profits are $100, $1,000 or in the billions, it pays income taxes of only $350 US.

Let us take another example: Bermuda. Under an agreement with Canada, companies will pay no income taxes until 2016.

In Barbados, companies are subject to decreasing local taxation. In other words, the more money one makes, the less income tax one pays. The maximum tax rate is 2.5 % and the minimum rate is 1%.

Why do I mention these examples? Because the Minister of Finance owns Canada Steamship Lines. I have in front of me the organization chart of Canada Steamship Lines, which I would be willing to table in the House. I see that all the subsidiary companies are located in Bermuda, in Lebanon or in Barbados. There is practically no company any more that has its head office in Canada.

What does it mean? That Canada Steamship Lines, with its head office in Bermuda and its subsidiary in Lebanon, pays almost no income tax. Profits are imported into Canada. Here we tell them “Since you already paid income tax in the countries where you are doing business, you do not have to pay any here”.

When we see that Canada has such a great need of money to invest in health care and give back to the provinces in social transfers, I think the tens of millions of dollars that our Minister of Finance is saving through his company, Canada Steamship Lines, would really be welcome in the consolidated revenue fund. You and I, Madam Speaker, with only a simple T4, are paying a lot of income tax.

Once again, I wish to point out that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill S-3, because it complies with the model proposed by the OECD. The Bloc Quebecois does, however, beg the government to do some serious housecleaning of all the old tax conventions it has signed with certain countries, especially those that are tax havens.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, the motion for third reading of Bill S-3 is deemed to have been put and carried on division.

(Bill read the third time and passed)