Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm quite disappointed by the response from Mr. Rodriguez. Hopefully, he's taking his bill seriously. We have some serious concerns with Bill C-288. That's why we've been opposing it to this point.

But it's a legitimate question. I'm sure he is not intending this as a meaningless bill. That is a legitimate question--what is his intent?--and this clause deals with that. Is part of this plan with Bill C-288 to provide increased taxation to support his plan?

Marriage

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, like a number of my colleagues in this House, I would like to take part in the debate on the following motion:

—That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

Many Canadians must be wondering why it is important to consult this House again on this issue. After all, less than two years ago, this issue was debated and voted on in this House, in the form of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. At that time, Parliament passed a law defining marriage as follows:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

This definition of marriage includes same-sex unions. As I had not yet been elected at that point, I can express my opinion on this issue today.

First, I would like to say a few words about the motion itself. It is important to point out that the motion will not change the definition of marriage. It seeks simply to ask members whether they want to reopen the debate in order to develop a bill to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

The members of this House have two choices when they vote this week on this motion. For those who support the traditional definition of marriage—the union between a man and a woman, which excludes all same-sex couples—the choice is to vote for the motion. For those who believe that the definition of marriage goes beyond the traditional definition and includes same-sex couples, the choice is to respect the existing law on civil marriage and vote against this motion.

I want to respect the current law, which is in line with my personal values and protects the fundamental rights of Canadians.

I am convinced that we do not have to amend this law, because it still respects the traditional definition of marriage.

I, myself, have been married for more than 25 years. I am the mother of three children and I believe that this act in no way undermines the importance of my union and the solidity of my family. I sincerely believe that the Civil Marriage Act continues to enable all heterosexual couples to marry, as they have done for a long time. The current legislation enables same sex couples to benefit from the same right.

The real question that needs to be asked is this: does the government have the moral authority to decide whether two people, a man and a woman, or same sex partners, can be legally united? In my opinion, the answer is clear and simple: two people who want to live together within a civil marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation, must be able to do so without the interference of the State.

I am one of those who firmly believe in the separation of church and state. In my view, one person’s religion must not become another person’s law.

While the debate deals with a motion that was tabled by the government, I want to emphasize that the government has taken no position on this question. Unlike the previous government, all members on this side of the House, including ministers, are free to vote according to their conscience. In that regard, I must severely criticize the Liberal government for having presented that legislation to the House without allowing a truly free vote on such a sensitive issue.

I am proud to belong to a government that believes that matters of personal conviction should be decided by a truly free vote. As a minister in this government, I feel privileged to be able to express my views on this issue and to vote freely on the motion tabled by this same government.

In closing, I congratulate the government for allowing members of this House to express their points of view of in a spirit of mutual respect.

I take this opportunity to inform the House that I do not wish to reopen the debate, that I intend to respect the current legislation on civil marriage and, consequently, I will be voting against this motion.

[Tina Marie Bradford]

I had better speed up then.

The statutory declaration is a form prescribed by the Canada Evidence Act. It is similar in nature to what people know as an affidavit, something that you would submit to court, but because it is not going to court, it is called a statutory declaration.

The statutory declaration contains the person's name, their residence, their signature, the three requirements that are set out by the current act, and then the person swears the statutory declaration in front of the lawyer, because in B.C. lawyers are able to act as commissioners for taking oaths.

In the last two federal elections we have sworn approximately 350 to 400 statutory declarations for each election. So we've allowed approximately 350 to 400 people to vote who might otherwise be turned away from the polls.

Bill C-31 removes the ability to rely on only one piece of identification, such as the statutory declaration, and now creates a requirement that you have two forms of identification. So the work we've been doing helping these people would no longer work. They would be turned away if they showed up to the polling station with only the statutory declaration.

The effect of this is that, of course, a large number of these people would be turned away. When we swear the statutory declarations, we do a precursory investigation to confirm that they are who they say they are. We'll ask them to go through their pockets to see what kind of identification they have, such as a rent receipt, a court document, a promise to appear if they have been released on bail, or a prescription in their pocket with their name on it. So we would confirm their eligibility before we took their oath and swear the statutory declaration for them.

Now, if these people have anything at all, they would take that to the polling station, and it is not likely that this form of identification would be accepted.

Canada Elections Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

This is a bill that the committee has studied exhaustively. When there are things that are not working, the role of the opposition is to point them out. However, when things have worked well, then as a matter of intellectual honesty they should also be pointed out. This is called not engaging in shamelessly partisan politics. Here in the House of Commons there is of course adversarial debate, by definition. It must be noted that if a lot more discussion and a lot more collaboration among the various political parties were sought, by all sides, we would be able to produce better bills, bills that were an improvement on what was initially proposed.

Bill C-31 is a good example of what comes of excellent collaboration among the political parties. I will explain what I mean by this.

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the government responded to a report. To summarize the sequence of events for the benefit of the people listening to us, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, has to submit a report after an election campaign. The report is submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That report was studied in committee and all parties are represented on that committee. Our report was tabled in the House. On October 20, the government responded to the report. The response was in writing, in the form of a formal response. There was also a legislative response. Bill C-31 represents that legislative response, which reflects a majority of the points raised in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, when the bill goes back to committee, we will have an opportunity to suggest amendments to our colleagues in the other parties, to improve the bill once again.

The reality of a minority government means that there should be a lot more collaboration and consultation with the other parties, as I said earlier. In my view, the government should follow the example of Bill C-31 to amend the Elections Act and follow the same course for other bills.

For example, instead of insisting on pushing its law and order agenda, its right-wing agenda, the Conservative minority government should listen to the Bloc Québécois, which is calling for more emphasis to be put on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Instead of digging its heels in on its right-wing agenda, it should do the same thing with the opposition parties that are calling for the Kyoto objectives to be upheld. The Conservative government should also do the same thing for the gun registry, when it is bent on dismantling it.

I wanted to explain this point during my introduction in order to illustrate how it is possible to come up with better legislation by consulting the opposition. Why are we of the opinion that Bill C-31 is appropriate? The Bloc is in favour of it in principle. We are in favour of it because there is a whole aspect where the possibilities of fraud and error are reduced. Now, thanks to this bill, voters will have to present government issued photo ID, with the bearer’s name and address.

At home, in Quebec, the basic document could be the driver’s licence, which contains this information.

It seems to me that colleagues from New Brunswick mentioned that their driver’s licences do not have photos. I am not sure, but I think that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst drew attention to this. The goal is to have a document that is issued by the government and bears personal information making it possible to identify the person. It is true, unfortunately, that when voter identification procedures are inadequate, some situations may arise in which people are tempted, often in exchange for money, to go and vote for other people.

There was the classic case that occurred in the Quebec riding of Anjou. I think that someone voted 34 times in the Quebec elections in Anjou. If I recall correctly, the candidate, Pierre Bélanger, lost by fewer than 50 votes. Since then, this flaw in the Quebec electoral system has been corrected.

Voters who do not have photo ID will have to provide two acceptable pieces of ID so as to establish their identity and address. The Chief Electoral Officer will publish the list of acceptable ID. In a recent election, in 2004 or 2006, someone came to a polling station to vote, armed with a pile of magazines like L'Actualité, Macleans, Femmes d'Aujourdhui and 50Plus. These magazines can be purchased every week at the supermarket. In this case, this person received them at home because she was a subscriber. On the covers was the Canada Post seal. This person managed to vote, thanks to her pile of magazines.

When people live in an apartment building, they have no guarantees that no one will go through their mail. In multiple dwelling structures, the mail is not always protected. Anyone can take the mail. So we can understand the absurd example that I gave. This person wanted to vote using this process.

Under Bill C-31, each voter's date of birth will be added to the official list of electors used in polling stations.

For example, a person might know the Speaker's name. I know the Speaker is young; I believe he is not yet 30. A person could try to pass himself off as the Speaker. At the polling station, he says he is that person. The list of electors makes it clear that that person was born in 1918. Perhaps the Speaker remained young thanks to a fountain of youth or an elixir of youth even though he was born in 1918. The birth date provides some indication that there might be a problem. This raises a flag, perhaps not a red flag, but a warning flag nonetheless. The bill includes this improvement.

Given that we believe Bill C-31 can be improved upon, I wish to announce that, subject to consultation, we intend to amend it to ensure that voters lists provided to political parties also contain date of birth information, as is the case in Quebec.

Bill C-31 will also improve the accuracy of the voters list because the chief electoral officer will assign a unique, randomly generated identifier to each voter.

This is a continuing demand of the Bloc Québécois, which has been calling for a unique permanent identification number for each voter for a long time. We would have preferred that the bill was more binding on the Chief Electoral Officer and clearer on this subject. We give notice that we will also have some suggestions for amendments on that point.

Bill C-31 also seeks to remove the deadline after which voters who have a functional limitation can no longer request a transfer certificate to a polling station offering level access. In our opinion, voters in wheelchairs or with a physical disability should have an equal opportunity to democratically express their choices. Unfortunately, when voting places are located in facilities that do not have full and free access or that involve stairs, by definition, they do not in any way promote access by voters in wheelchairs.

It is our view that Bill C-31 will improve communications between election officials, candidates, parties and voters.

Bill C-31 will give candidates a right of access to common areas of public places for election campaign purposes.

I believe that all of our colleagues here today have encountered situations where the owners of some shopping centres have refused permission for us to meet and introduce ourselves to members of the public. An election campaign is a special opportunity to call attention to ideas, to talk about our record as a member or as a party, regardless of which party is campaigning. The government can speak about its record. In the present case, the record of the Conservative government includes the torpedoing of the Kyoto protocol and a disposition in favour of war, similar to the Americans. We will have the chance to return to that record at the proper time—in an election campaign.

Bill C-31 will also provide election officials with a right of access to multiple residence dwellings and to gated communities to revise the voters list. Gated communities are dwellings to which access is controlled by a gate. How can voters be enumerated if no one is able to enter, or barely so? The accuracy of the lists then poses a problem.

Other provisions deal with certain operational and technical improvements, but I cannot list them in detail since my time has almost expired. In any case, we will have an opportunity to return to this topic. I wish simply to remind members that the Bloc Québécois will re-examine some aspects in committee or at third reading.

[Bernard Shapiro]

I think the issue I was trying to raise was that there is--and this would be something, incidentally, dealt with by Bill C-2, at least in its current form--a certain difficulty in the sense that, normally speaking, the people in my office would not have access to job opportunities in other parts of the civil service because they're part of the parliamentary system. They would have access, for example, to Library of Parliament, House of Commons, or Senate positions. That was the issue I think I was referring to. But at the moment, it is not a problem for us.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

As we're waiting for the clerk to share some guidance with us from the procedure manual, I do have a question. Again, in the spirit of wanting to cooperate with Mr. Rodriguez' motion, we were talking about the amendment, and we'll go back to that. I do have a question.

Mr. Rodriguez' original motion said we would begin studying his bill, Bill C-288, no later than Thursday, November 2, which is this week--two days from now--and that we would proceed to clause-by-clause no later than Thursday, November 21. I'm looking at the calendar and see that this would leave us, with a break week in between, only two meetings. I am ensuring I understand the original motion and why I have raised an amendment. What the work plan would do would allow for two meetings for witnesses. Am I interpreting that right? If I am, that's why I have great concern.

The original work plan presented by Mr. Godfrey had seven meetings; what you're proposing has only two. There are only two scheduled meetings, which would be November 7 and November 9, and Mr. Cullen's motion was to invite the minister before she went on her trip to Kenya, and that could be on November 7 or November 9 as well.

We have a lot of pressure on the committee. I think your original motion is not realistic. It does not provide adequate debate, adequate witnesses, adequate meetings. That's where I think we're having a huge problem, in that Bill C-288 needs to be done properly.

If we vote on my amendment, which we will do--when, I'm not sure--and then go back to your original motion.... If the amendment doesn't pass--hopefully, it will pass--but if it doesn't and we go back to the original motion, what are you proposing? That's my question to you.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I think Mr. Pacetti is right. I'm kind of puzzled that anybody would be resisting having a.... It seems to me the way you do things is that you have witnesses, then you have amendments, and then you go to clause-by-clause. I thought that was the way you did legislation. We had the first cut at Bill C-25 this morning. I thought a lot of members on both sides of the House raised legitimate questions. Even the Conservatives raised legitimate questions, which was novel in and of itself.

I think we should just proceed on this bill in the normal fashion, which is that you hear witnesses, and then we'll schedule clause-by-clause.

Criminal Code

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to participate in the second reading debate of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

There are many reasons that Bill C-22 is so welcome. It realizes an important component of this government's tackling crime commitment to safeguard Canadian families against sexual predators. This commitment in turn reflects the importance that Canadians ascribe to the protection of children and youth against sexual exploitation. Most important, Bill C-22's reforms will finally provide 14 and 15 year olds with much needed additional protection against adult sexual predators.

Bill C-22 proposes to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. Age of consent, or age of protection as Bill C-22 now calls it, refers to the age at which the criminal law recognizes the capacity of a young person to engage in sexual activity. All sexual activity with a young person below the age of protection is prohibited, and of course any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is prohibited.

It is not unusual for the law to prescribe lawful conduct based upon chronological age. For example, in the criminal law context, the age of criminal responsibility is 12 years. In other contexts, conduct is regulated by age for various purposes, including for example, attaining the age of majority, driving a motor vehicle, consuming alcohol and tobacco, mandatory attendance at school, and working.

Such legislation clearly recognizes that children and youth need to be protected. This is the framework within which the existing Criminal Code prohibitions against sexual activity with children and Bill C-22 operate.

Currently, the age of protection is 18 years where the sexual activity involves prostitution, pornography, or it occurs within a relationship of authority, trust, dependency, or one that is otherwise exploitative of the young person. For example, sexual activity between a teacher and his 17-year-old student, even if she purported to consent, is prohibited and has been since 1988. I am glad that Bill C-22 will maintain this age of protection.

The present age of protection for other sexual activity is 14 years. The Criminal Code currently has an exception for 12 and 13 year olds. They can consent to engage in sexual activity with another person who is less than two years older but under 16 years and with whom there is no relationship of authority, trust, dependency, and it is not otherwise exploitative of the young person.

Bill C-22 will not change this close in age exception for 12 and 13 year olds, but will increase it from 14 to 16 years of age so that 14 and 15 year olds will benefit from the same protection that 12 and 13 year olds have now.

Bill C-22 also proposes to create a new close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds. Under this proposed new exception, 14 and 15 year olds could still consent to sexual activity with another person, provided that the other person was less than five years older and that the relationship did not involve authority, trust, dependency and was not otherwise exploitative of the young person.

I am very pleased to see this proposed close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds. It reflects an appreciation of the basic realities, namely that, like it or not, young persons, specifically 14 and 15 year olds, are sexually active.

In February 2006 the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health and Ipsos released the results of a national survey of 14 to 17 year olds on their sexual behaviour and knowledge. The survey revealed that 27% of youth between 14 and 17 years of age reported being sexually active and 20% of youth age 15 reported being sexually active. It found that on average, teens have had three partners since becoming sexually active.

While some may find these statistics startling, the government has clearly said that the objective of Bill C-22 is to criminalize adults who sexually exploit youth and not to criminalize teenagers who engage in consensual sexual activity with their peers. Bill C-22's proposed close in age exceptions ensure that this is the case.

Bill C-22 also proposes another time limited exception for defined relationships that already exist when the new age of protection act comes into effect, relationships that would otherwise become illegal by virtue of the fact that the partner is five years or more older than the 14 or 15 year old.

Specifically, Bill C-22 proposes that existing marriages involving a 14 or 15 year old and a spouse who is five years or more older be excepted from the new age of protection. Similarly, if it is an existing common law relationship as defined and it is not a relationship of authority, trust, dependency or one that is otherwise exploitative of the young person, it will benefit from a time limited or transitional exception.

This means, if the couple had already been cohabitating in a conjugal relationship for the period of at least one year or for a period of less than one year but the relationship had already produce a child, whether born or is expected, when the new age of protection comes into effect, the relationship will have an exception that is otherwise illegal. I want to reiterate, though, that these exceptions would be transitional or time limited and would not apply to such a couple, for example that seeks to marry or establish a common law relationship after the new age of protection comes into force. Clearly, to allow such a relationship would be contrary to the objective of Bill C-22.

I have gone into some detail in describing the exceptions proposed by Bill C-22 because it is very important that they be fully appreciated and understood. During the previous debates on private members' bills and motions that sought to increase the age of consent, a major criticism of those efforts was always that they had not adequately addressed what is clearly the objective of Bill C-22: how to prohibit adults from sexually exploiting teens without criminalizing teens themselves for engaging in sexual activity with other teens.

Bill C-22 does exactly that. It builds upon the existing Criminal Code framework for age of protection and it provides the necessary safeguards to prevent the criminalization of teenagers who engage in consensual sexual activity with other teens.

The message in Bill C-22 is very clear. It is directed at adults, not at youth, and it is this. If one is five years or more older than a young person, one is prohibited from engaging in any form of sexual activity with that young person. Under Bill C-22 there is no more uncertainty about whether 14 or 15 year olds consented or purported to consent to sexual activity. Their consent becomes irrelevant. The focus and onus is on the adult as it should be.

I believe it is in the interest of all hon. members to support Bill C-22. It sends a clear message now to adult sexual predators, namely that Canada protects its children and will deal sternly with those who threaten them.

I would like to move on to another big reason why I am so supportive of Bill C-22. The bill is good for the people of my riding. Residents from all over my riding, be they from Peterborough, Havelock, Norwood, Ennismore, Bridgenorth, Curve Lake or anywhere else, have been telling me that they want their children protected from sexual predators. They are frustrated with laws enacted by the previous governments, which fail to keep their children safe, which fail to recognize exploitation for what it is and which undermine one of the key building blocks of our communities, the family.

Bill C-22 is in line with what our government has promised to do, namely to restore balance in the justice system and crack down on crime. Getting tough on crime involves protecting our children and citizens from those who threaten them. This is a two-pronged approach. The first is to ensure that imprisonment is imposed on those who commit serious crimes. The second is to ensure that what constitutes a crime is properly defined by the lawmakers of our country.

It is the duty of the lawmakers of Canada work in line with the sentiment and demands of the Canadian public. I happen to be one of those lawmakers. I would be remiss in my duties, as a representative of all people, including those in Peterborough, if I did not support the legislation.

As I have indicated, a provision of Bill C-22 provides a close in age exemption for teenagers who engage in sexual activity with other teens. This is a very worthwhile thing to consider. Governments cannot absolutely regulate human behaviour, in this case the sexual activity of minors.

While not speaking from personal experience, some teenagers are not always the most well behaved when dealing with authority regardless of the issue. Bill C-22 recognizes that teenagers will be teenagers and without explicitly sanctioning sexual activity, keeps the government out of their private lives. This is the correct approach. Young people are not likely to read any government legislation before deciding whether to engage in sexual activity with a partner. This is why our government has taken the lead on this issue, providing protection for young teenagers, not seeking to criminalize them.

Keeping the streets of Peterborough and the country safe has always been and remains a very high priority for me. The people of my riding deserve to walk the streets without fear. Bill C-22 is part of a wider initiative to provide safe streets and communities in Canada. The idea that everyone can walk down George Street in Peterborough and feel as safe as if they were in their backyard is something that is very important to me. Knowing that proper laws are in place to keep sexual predators off their streets will go a long way in Peterborough by showing constituents that their government is governing with their well-being as its primary focus.

A couple of weeks ago I had the honour to attend the 17th annual CSC Chaplaincy Conference held at Sir Sanford Fleming College in my riding. The guest speaker that evening was Jim Stephenson, the father of Christopher Stephenson, a young boy whose tragic and preventable death provided the motivation for Christopher's law. Christopher's law was revolutionary in Ontario as it established a sex offender registry. Christopher's law works to protect our children from sexual predators, and so does Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 has been a long time coming. It recognizes the concerns of Canadians, including those in the Peterborough riding who want to see their children protected from sexual predators by raising the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. The bill should be unanimously supported by all members of this House, and I call on all members to do just that.

Age of Consent

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from hundreds of my constituents asking that the age of consent be raised from 14 to 16. As timing is everything in politics, it is certainly apropos today with the debate on Bill C-22, the age of protection, which would see exactly that happen.

I ask all members to support this petition and to support that bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

I believe the committee is ready for the question. It's proposed that Bill C-16, in clause 1, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 1 the following:

(3) Despite subsection (2), if the third Monday of October is a holiday, the general election must be held on the following Tuesday.

(Amendment negatived)

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from Hull—Aylmer wanted to ensure that I had a good audience for my speech. Then again, perhaps he asked for a quorum call because I was talking about the Liberal Party, which claimed to be the great defender of citizens' interests because of its fight to protect personal information even though it failed at the task when it was in power.

Under that party's mandate, more personal information than ever ended up in foreign hands, largely because Canadian banks were allowed to do business with affiliates in the United States. Laws protecting personal information are not the same in the United States as they are in Canada.

Honest citizens were sometimes harassed by foreign parties trying to sell them all kinds of products, especially banking services. Canadian banks allowed their American affiliates to make personal information available. This all happened on the Liberals' watch. I hope that the member for Hull—Aylmer wanted more people to hear my speech. I hope it was not because of the part where I said how poorly the Liberal government performed when it was in power.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 in order to protect personal information and privacy. Quebeckers and Canadians can count on members of the Bloc Québécois to defend and protect their interests in committee by having the Privacy Commissioner and the Access to Information Commissioner appear before the committee to explain what is good about the bill and what should be added in order to protect personal information. It is all very well to take action against money laundering, terrorist activities and organized crime, but we must also protect honest citizens who could end up under investigation for nothing.

I will provide some background, since Bill C-25 did not come out of nowhere. Despite the Conservative government's good faith, it did not invent the wheel. One thing is for certain, the Conservatives did not invent Kyoto. Everyone agrees on that.

Bill C-25 is a successor to Bill C-22, which was introduced by the Liberal government and broadened the coverage of the act. Bill C-25 amends Bill C-22. In other words, Bill C-22 made it mandatory for federally regulated financial institutions, currency exchange businesses, casinos and other intermediaries to report suspicious financial transactions. Suspicious financial transactions are cash deposits exceeding $7,500.

The former government's Bill C-22 applied to financial institutions, currency exchange businesses, casinos and other financial intermediaries. The Conservative government is broadening this coverage and therefore increasing the responsibility of all agencies which, in addition to dealing in securities, also deal in other financial instruments, and of all persons and entities engaged in the business of remitting funds or transmitting funds by any means or through any person, entity or electronic funds transfer network, or of issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller’s cheques or other similar negotiable instruments.

We can offer our congratulations to the Conservative government for having extended monitoring activities to include not only banks and institutions that transfer money regularly, but also to other entities that are often not openly included. This applies to electronic funds transfers and businesses that sell or purchase money orders, travellers' cheques and other negotiable items. Thus, monitoring activities have been extended. We do not want these organizations used for money laundering. I think we can support this.

It also extends to government departments and agents that sell precious metals under regulation. Members of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that there is some degree of illegal trade in diamonds and gold, among others, which are not necessarily liquid assets, but are precious metals that can be used as currency in money laundering.

I believe that the Conservative government listened closely and covered these potential complaints from various stakeholders.

Previously, all the entities targeted by the legislation had to contact the centre, under section 83(1) of the Criminal Code, which sets out the obligation to inform the RCMP or CSIS of any property that belongs to a terrorist group. The new bill adds section 8 of the United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations. Those entities must therefore contact the RCMP and CSIS.

The new bill prohibits all entities from opening an account for an individual if that person's identity cannot be established. Not only is there no obligation, entities are in fact prohibited from opening a bank account. The bank must then contact the RCMP or CSIS directly to launch an investigation.

Furthermore, the bill states that prior to doing business with a politically exposed foreign person—a judge, head of state, minister or other individual who has held a specific office—the institution must obtain the approval of senior management before entering into any transaction with the individual.

Thus, one cannot do business with exposed persons from another country or who would be likely to carry out types of transfers or financing for terrorist activities. They are required to obtain specific authorizations from senior management of banks.

In addition, if a Canadian organization does business with a foreign bank, it is required to take measures to ensure that the foreign bank is not a shell bank, to obtain senior management approval, and to set out in writing all transactions.

In short, there is an obligation not only to know with whom one is doing business but also to scrutinize the banks with which one is doing business. Consequently, when a client wants to conduct transactions with foreign financial institutions, the bank is obliged to verify the credentials and to ensure that the sales, transactions or other operations are not fictitious. Its responsibility has been increased.

In the case of electronic funds transfers, the bank or other business must include the name, address, and the client's account number or other reference number, whether sending or receiving such transfers.

Electronic funds transfers are very popular now. The old bill was implemented in 2001 by the former government, which, once again, did not do its job. The new bill has been introduced for a reason. The Liberal government did nothing for five years. It did not manage to bring a bill into being. Obviously, things have changed since then, and significant numbers of financial transactions take place through electronic funds transfers. That is why the government introduced this new bill, which covers electronic funds transfers.

This new bill follows the United States' lead by requiring entities to establish a program to evaluate their ability to detect transactions that involve laundering the proceeds of crime and financing terrorist activities.

That is what the Bloc Québécois has trouble accepting. If we want to do what the Americans do, we should not only do what they do right, but avoid doing what they do wrong. That is why the Bloc Québécois is being so careful. This is about the ability to detect transactions that involve laundering the proceeds of crime. It would be nice to have that ability and to intervene, but we have to make sure we protect personal information.

Obviously, we will not be investigating. As we saw with the Maher Arar affair, we have to be careful with our investigations. Even with bank investigations, we have to be sure we have a situation that requires it. We cannot investigate just for the fun of it. We would risk arresting honest citizens who might find themselves under the microscope because we want to be just like the Americans, who figure that while they are at it, they might as well investigate a whole bunch of people. We must also avoid American-style mistakes, like casting too wide a net. They often proceed on the basis of race, religion, gender and so on. We are better off using a case-by-case approach and having really good reasons for investigating. Otherwise it is too easy to make mistakes.

The members of the Bloc Québécois will continue to defend the interests of Quebeckers and ensure that the Canadian government does not make the same mistakes as the American government. Any investigations with respect to detection must be justified, not conducted without good reason. Any evaluation of certain bank transactions cannot be done carelessly, because this could lead to honest citizens being investigated without cause.

Furthermore, we must ensure that no information on citizens who should not even have been investigated is shared with the United States, or any other country. In short, we must ensure that the Canadian government does not make the same mistakes as the Americans. Once again, only the Bloc Québécois can guarantee this to Quebeckers.

Bill C-25 subjects Canadian banks' foreign subsidiaries to the same rules as the Canadian banks themselves. It was high time, because the Liberals made the mistake of allowing our Canadian banks with foreign subsidiaries to share information, even though foreign laws often do not have the same respect for privacy. This is true of American laws.

To that end, Revenue Canada agents will now have the authority to give the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre any information they receive from another agent, under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act. The aim of this new authority is to better fight against the financing of terrorist groups through charitable organizations and through businesses that perform electronic funds transfers. Once again, I would like to point out that the registration of charities must be carefully monitored, although charities are normally made up of honest citizens.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will fight tooth and nail for privacy and personal information protection. One may be open to the idea of all categories of organizations being monitored for money laundering, but efforts have to be made to ensure that charities, which bring together law-abiding citizens, not be subject, as they are in the United States, to a systematic analysis of their data bases or have their members subjected to money laundering analyses.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25, as long as honest citizens, honest Quebeckers are free from undue monitoring by government organizations eager to copy the Americans, who seem to think that, while they are at it, they might as well monitor or investigate just about everyone. We do not want that. That is not consistent with the philosophy of life and values that the citizens of Quebec have chosen for themselves. We want the privacy and personal information of honest citizens to be protected. Once again, they can count on the Bloc Québécois.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I want to take your comments a little further. This bill was sent to this committee after second reading. That means that we can't introduce another concept into the way the paragraph...because it's a one-paragraph bill affecting some 160-odd parts of the code.

But in Bill C-70, we did. I want to make sure that you're clear that this was affecting criminal organization offences, which would capture some large drug operations, the serious personal injury offences in section 752 of the Criminal Code, and terrorist activity.

I know you've answered directly to Bill C-70, but I'm asking you about the limitation on a smaller group. It effectively takes out the property crimes and some of the other lesser crimes. It drastically drops this list. Would you think those are the right areas? If there were a wish by Parliament to take away some of the things the probation officers are telling us about, would this be the place you would go?

[Christiane Théberge, Vice-President, Public Affairs and GM Eastern Canada for the Association of Canadian Travel agencies (ACTA) , Travellers' Protection Initiative]

The second concern we would like to address is with respect to airfare advertising transparency. We were here earlier on and heard a great deal about the matter. We believe that the proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will only give the minister power to prescribe regulations sometimes in the future. TPI does not believe that the airlines will willingly change their advertising practices. We see every indication that they increasingly tend to break up their airfares and announce one way fares when these are not even available. We have seen cases where consumers, upon completing the transaction, had paid 25%, 50% or even 90% more the amount initially advertised by the airline.

In the past, the airline industry has promised to take voluntary measures, but they never delivered the goods. We are therefore skeptical of arguments put forward by the airlines, in other words that the airline industry can be self-regulating with respect to consumers' interests. Despite years of discussions with the airline industry and a series of false starts, the airline industry has not moved voluntary on this issue.

We believe that the requirement to full disclosure, with details, should be firmly entrenched in the legislation and apply to all airlines which advertise in Canada. After all, air carriers providing services in United States are already subject to these requirements. There is indeed American legislation requiring that air carriers disclose their fares in full. It is stipulated that any advertising or solicitation by an air carrier or by one of its agents or middlemen will be considered an unfair or deceptive practice, unless the price stated is entire price to be paid by the customer to the air carrier, or the agent. In subsequent interpretations of this requirement, the US DOT has issued notices to clarify that the intent of the rule is to ensure that members of the public are given proper fare information on which to base their airline travel purchasing decisions.

It should also be noted that the US DOT just recently refused to change its rule and enforcement policy that have been in place for 21 years. The Department concluded that the current practice protects consumers and helps them compare prices. It also found that the current rule promotes healthy competition while leaving airlines with freedom to innovate.

Because Canadian airlines are not covered by any provincial regulations, they perpetuate a situation where consumers often experience “sticker shock” when they see the final travel bill. As was mentioned earlier by Michael Pepper, several provincial jurisdictions including Quebec and Ontario, already require that travel agents and wholesalers be fully transparent when it comes to their advertising, something which air carriers are not subjected too, I might add. In Ontario, there is the requirement that the advertised price indicates clearly and in an obvious manner to the consumer all additional fees , with the exception of provincial sales taxes and GST. The same applies in Quebec.

It is important to remember, when we refer the healthy competition within this industry that the current situation gives airlines an unfair advantage over , in many cases, largely small businesses, creating an uneven playing field at the expense of travel agents and wholesalers and also consumers.

TPI is therefore of the view that transparency in advertising needs to be entwined in the legislation and not left to the discretion of the Minister of Transport and the agency.

One other issue is with respect to the air travel Complaints Commissioner. TPI members certainly supported the position and role of the airline Complaints Commissioner when it was created. While we believe that the Commissioner was hampered in his/her position by a lack of powers to take substantive action, having a visible place for consumers to voice their concerns and issues, and having the Commissioner annual report, added an element of transparency to the system, that cannot be replaced by the officials at the Canada Transportation Agency. While we have confidence that the CTA can adequately carry out this function, we are concerned that the issues will loose their public focus., through what was referred to earlier as the “embarrassment” that such an annual report could bring about. We do believe that this balance is important to the consumer, in a way, finally giving consumers some power.

For these reasons, we are prepared to take a “wait and see” approach with respect to this new way of dealing with complaints. However, we expect that the CTA will take a proactive role in ensuring that passenger complaints are appropriately addressed, and that this role is well-known to airline passengers,so that they may know where to lodge their complaints.

In closing, we recognize that this bill addresses many important transportation issues. TPI believes that it is in the public interest that these consumers' concerns about air travel have a proper hearing and debate. By adopting our recommendations and amendments to Bill C-11, we believe that it is possible to adopt measures that would booster consumer confidence and promote competition by ensuring a stable market with transparent and measurable standards applicable across the board. We have all seen the statistics with respect to our main air carriers and that the numbers have been rising from month to month. So this is a stable industry, at the moment.

We thank you for your attention.

[Gilles Dufault]

The minister decided to appoint a certain number of members in order to comply with the Official Languages Act.

[Patrick Altimas, Director General, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this invitation and the opportunity to share our thoughts with you.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss Bill C-9 with you. Thank you again for the invitation.

The Association des services de rehabilitation sociale du Québec represents over 50 community organizations actively involved in crime prevention and working with adult offenders in most regions of Quebec.

We want to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the needs of victims in our communities and those of offenders. The association has been in existence for over 40 years, as have some of our organizations. Over fifteen organizations are currently involved in monitoring conditional sentences in the community. We therefore have direct experience with this particular clientele.

The ASRSQ is working with the Elizabeth Fry Society of Québec and Canada as well as defence counsel associations in Montreal and Quebec City to consider the issues raised by Bill C-9. We are pleased to share with you the fruit of our considerations. You have them before you. I will not read the brief in full, but I would like to draw your attention to a few points.

Our brief focuses on the fact that Bill C-9 wants to limit eligibility to conditional sentences despite the fact that there is no evidence today to show that that is needed. Conditional sentences seem to work. Judges seem to respect the provisions of the Criminal Code and the limits imposed therein.

Second, access to conditional sentences is being limited based on one sole criteria, in other words maximum sentences provided by the Criminal Code. Very different type of crimes would be treated in the same way. For instance, the possession of counterfeit currency and incest would be treated identically. This would involve one sole criteria, and the use of only one criteria goes against the very principles of sentencing within our justice system.

Third, we believe that conditional sentences are severe. Fourth, they are safe. Fifth, we consider them to be consistent and preventative, and so does the Canadian public in general.

No evidence has been put forward to suggest that the problem the bill aims to correct is widespread. There are no serious studies to show that conditional sentences are a problem today nor that there has been an increase in crime and recidivism.

Sentencing judges must consider the relative seriousness of an offence. They must also consider the dangerousness of the individual. Even though some offences may seem violent, judges must consider both the offence and the offender.

Bill C-9 strays from fundamental Canadian sentencing principles such as the use of incarceration as a last resort, proportionality of sentencing based on the seriousness of the offence, the degree of responsibility and the need to tailor sentences to individuals.

The bill could reduce the period of time during which offenders are being monitored. Some studies show that, in some cases, conditional sentences lead to longer prison terms than if the judge had decided to impose a custodial sentence.

Take, for instance, a person who is in prison for one year. Under the law they are released without being monitored after having served two thirds of their sentences.

Conditional sentencees, however, must complete the entire year of their sentence and the monitoring period lasts twelve months.

By providing identical treatment for offences like the possession of counterfeit currency and incest, as I stated it earlier, the bill contributes to a growing sense of confusion about the notions of seriousness and dangerousness. We do not believe that reducing access to conditional sentences will make our communities safer. On the contrary, over the medium and longer term, the safety of our communities could be jeopardized.

Allow me to explain. Some people today could be entitled to a conditional sentence, but would not be under Bill C-9. The economic and social impact of that would be significant. Jobs could be lost, families could be shattered, etc.

We therefore believe that this bill is unnecessary. We do however believe more studies should be undertaken on conditional sentences since their inception. This will allow for better understanding of the issue and an accurate assessment of the effect of conditional sentences over the last few years.

According to the experience of workers within our community network, the conditional sentencees they work with are not necessarily violent people. They successfully complete their conditional sentences and, when they do not, it is because of breach of conditions rather than recidivism.

So, what is the problem? That is the question we have been asking ourselves. We believe that further study, or even larger studies than those we currently have access to, should be carried out before any changes are made to the system.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for having given me this opportunity to speak to you.