House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was flag.

Topics

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the following new clause:

“3.1 The persons and entities to which this Act applies shall not transfer to their clients, either directly or indirectly, any costs incurred by them in carrying out their obligations under this Act.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-22 which seeks to deter money laundering.

Most people agree with the objective of this bill. Indeed, who could support regulations and laws that are too lax in the area of money laundering?

That being said, we think some amendments are required not to change the bill's thrust but rather to improve the bill. It is in that spirit of co-operation and with a view to improving the legislation that we participated in all the various stages.

I want to mention that the time allocated to us between the end of the testimonies at the Standing Committee on Finance and the beginning of the review, particularly the clause by clause review, was much too short.

I ask that this House and all its committees ensure that, next time, more time be provided between the end of the testimonies and the beginning of the clause by clause review of a bill. Otherwise, what is the use of these testimonies, of all the efforts, money and time expended by witnesses to come and express their views, if we do not have time afterwards to digest this new information?

I want to explain what Motion No. 1 is all about. Bill C-22 imposes new obligations to various organizations and entities, such as banks, casinos and caisses populaires. We know that bank charges for most Quebec and Canadian consumers are already very high.

The bill imposes new obligations to these entities to help fight money laundering. The purpose of Motion No. 1 is to ensure that the costs resulting from the new obligations imposed by Bill C-22 on these various institutions are not passed on to clients.

In the fight against money laundering, this amendment obliges these institutions to be good corporate citizens. In the battle that all elements of society must wage against money laundering, we want to ensure that financial institutions become good corporate citizens and do not transfer to their clients the costs incurred in carrying out these new obligations. Finally, they must do their part so that everyone helps carry the load in the fight against money laundering; these institutions will have to absorb these costs, which are minor for them.

We know that the banks make profits in the billions. The idea is to prevent them from passing on the costs of these obligations to their clients. In my view, this would be a big improvement to the bill.

People say “Another obligation for the banks. They will pass on the bill to us. Our fees will go up again. This is crazy, we are already paying plenty”. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid all this and ensure that clients do not suffer because of these obligations.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support we have had from all members of the House on this important money laundering bill which went straight to committee on division. We are trying to see if we can agree on some arrangements with respect to one of the motions that the member from the Bloc has submitted.

I would like to speak very briefly about the process. Members know the way standing committees work. Many of them have set up a separate steering committee or planning committee. That committee meets and charts out the plan of the committee for a period of time.

I should say in the case of the House of Commons finance committee there is a steering committee. It met and there was a work plan established. Within that work plan there were two or three days of hearings and consultations with respect to the money laundering bill. Also within the plan there was a period the next day or the following day when there would be a clause by clause debate of the money laundering bill.

Admittedly it was tight program, but given the importance of the money laundering bill and the support in principle for the bill that schedule was agreed to by all parties on the steering committee and presented to the full committee for approval where it was approved.

When we make these commitments we know that the schedule is tight but we all try within our very busy schedules to deal with that timetable the very best way we can.

I would like to turn to Motion No. 1 by the Bloc. In principle we can understand why the hon. member might propose motion. Basically the proposition is that financial institutions will be required to report suspicious transactions. If they are required to report certain amounts to the centre that will be defined by regulation and through the guidelines, this will put some burden on financial institutions to report these transactions to the centre.

I should point out that there is already a voluntary regime in place. Many of the financial institutions are already complying. Not as many as we would like, and in fact that is why the bill calls for mandatory reporting.

The motion calls for the government to regulate the prices that institutions and professionals charge for their services. That is the bottom line. If a financial institution is burdened with some additional costs of reporting then the hon. member is saying that those costs should be borne by the financial institution or the financial intermediary and not by Canadian consumers. That is a laudable goal, but generally the government does not regulate the prices that federally regulated financial institutions charge for their services.

The motion would have to go beyond these institutions by regulating the prices of provincially regulated institutions, unregulated companies, casinos, and professionals covered by the bill. Even if we thought that it would be a good idea to regulate these prices, the task of monitoring compliance would be monumental, if not impossible.

As the government indicated at committee, the provisions in the bill will be implemented after close consultation with the institutions and professionals affected. Every attempt will be made to minimize the cost of complying with the bill. I do not think the compliance costs will be that significant. It will be up to every business and profession to determine how best to deal with the modest compliance costs that may result. I cannot support the motion and I would encourage hon. members not to support it.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be the third speaker to mention the whole issue of the compression of time. As I pointed out at second reading, the bill is long overdue. The government has been dragging its feet on it, and all of a sudden we are going at warp speed to try to get it through the procedure of the House of Commons.

I resent that very deeply on behalf of Canadian people because it is a vitally important bill. It has the potential to impact many hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in their financial transactions not only with respect to costs but also with respect to privacy issues and with respect to enforcement issues.

For that reason I have to concur with the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, although I do acknowledge on the part of the Liberal speaker before me that there had been an all party agreement to a work schedule When the work schedule became unworkable it was incumbent in my judgment on the government to revisit that work schedule.

I will be raising this issue in some depth when we get to third reading. Even as we speak there are ongoing negotiations on a bill and on clauses to a bill that have international ramifications, if not individual and national ramifications. I find the process to be completely unacceptable. It is a bill that is vital. Because of the urgency to get the bill through, in part because of the delay of the Liberals in bringing it to the House of Commons, we will support it. However I want the people of Canada to know that this is a seriously flawed process.

With respect to Motion No. 1, as has been noted by the government there is a problem which very simply is how in the world would we ever get institutions, individuals, professionals or casinos to comply with the particular bill. I believe it is in Never-Never Land. It is kind of a fairy tale, something like the tooth fairy, that the costs to institutions or individuals providing services to people will not somehow find their way into the service charges. Of course they will.

To try to regulate something that is totally unregulatable is pie in the sky. As a consequence, although I have the greatest respect for the mover of the motion, I could never recommend to my colleagues that we support it.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, as we mentioned earlier and as the other members have said, money laundering is a worldwide problem and, because of its nature, is difficult to quantify.

According to the federal government, some $7 billion to $10 billion is laundered in Canada. John Walker, an Australian criminologist and mathematician, has developed a global model at the request of the Australian government to determine the scope of money laundering worldwide. The United States and the UN are interested in his model.

This Australian estimates the money laundering worldwide to be worth about $3 trillion annually. He does not paint a glowing picture of Canada. According to his model, Canada ranks ninth worldwide as a country generating illicit money and eighth worldwide as a favoured destination for money laundering. According to this study, $64 billion in illicit funds from outside the country are laundered in Canada and $21 billion in criminal profits are generated.

Canada is a clearing house for the laundering of money and this news is not good. Canada is the only G-7 country that does not have legislation to fight money laundering. This is why Bill C-22 is welcomed favourably by the Bloc Quebecois. It is another step in the fight against organized crime. The fight against this international scourge must begin at home first. For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.

There are in Canada measures against money laundering. For example, there are provisions in the criminal code that make it a criminal offence to launder money and provide for the confiscation—

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for unanimous consent to concur in private member's Motion No. 308.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is there unanimous consent?

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, since I was interrupted right in the middle of a sentence, I will repeat it so that all those who are listening to us can understand it.

As I was saying, there are in Canada measures against money laundering. For example, there are provisions in the criminal code that make it a criminal offence to launder money and provide for the confiscation of the proceeds and property derived from various organized crime drug trafficking activities. Under these provisions, the burden of proof is heavy for crown attorneys. They must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and then that the seized goods were bought with dirty money. These investigations are extremely lengthy and few lead to prosecution.

In 1991 Canada passed the Proceeds of Crime (Monetary Laundering) Act, which requires several institutions to keep records. Indeed, financial institutions, foreign exchange offices, stockbrokers, life insurance companies and casinos are required to keep a record of transactions over $10,000. However, there is no accountability requirement. This reduces the possibility of investigating and laying charges, since the information collected is not in the hands of the police. If it is passed, Bill C-22 will replace the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act.

These measures are clearly inadequate and do not seem to be effective enough. That is why the Bloc Quebecois views Bill C-22 as an improvement on the existing money laundering legislation. However, Bill C-22 provides for the gathering of information about the movement of money. This will now be obligatory. A number of institutions and individuals will be required to make certain reports on the movement of money, as we mentioned. In addition, this information will be collected and analyzed in order to determine whether investigations or charges are warranted.

Financial institutions, exchange offices, casinos, life insurance companies and stockbrokers, among others, will now be required to report financial transactions that they suspect may be linked to an offence having to do with the laundering of the proceeds of crime. In addition, these institutions will be required to report certain categories of financial transactions described in the regulations and valued at more than C$10,000.

Persons importing or exporting cash or goods valued at more than $10,000 and those crossing the Canadian border with such items will be required to report these amounts to a Canada Customs official.

That concludes my remarks on Bill C-22 for now. We will certainly have an opportunity to continue the debate with the amendments that will be introduced in the course of the afternoon.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, I believe we do not have a quorum.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has called for a quorum count. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We now have a quorum.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, on her speech.

I also want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. He worked very hard during consideration of this bill. I am very proud to have worked with him.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-22, the proceeds of crime bill. This legislation will, for all intents and purposes, create a new agency that will oversee and very much attach itself to the effort to prevent money laundering, a very serious problem in our country.

Again, I congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg who has worked very hard on this bill and is very conscientious as a member, a previous member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and in his current capacity as he works equally hard for his constituents.

This amendment would add to a new clause to the bill. It would read:

3.1 The persons and entities to which this Act applies shall not transfer to their clients, either directly or indirectly, any costs incurred by them in carrying out their obligations under this Act.

This is a very positive, common sense amendment and one that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will be supporting wholeheartedly. The main purpose of the amendment is obvious. It would protect the average citizen from the various organizations concerned effectively passing the buck on to them, that is, using citizens very much as a dupe for some organized crime unit.

For example, in the banking sector consumers are already faced with relatively high service charges and further increases would not be desirable. As we all know, money laundering is a process by which revenues derived from criminal activity are converted into assets that cannot easily be traced back to their origins. It is something that is happening at an alarming rate in Canada.

Bill C-22 would bring Canada up to date with the standards of our G-7 trading partners. It does not take us beyond the minimum standard, but it does take us at least to the standard that G-7 countries have set.

In the United States I had the pleasure recently of visiting with an organized crime unit in the state of Massachusetts where they are doing a great deal to address this problem, and they are putting resources into it. That is the number one problem facing this government and this country. We are not arming our policing agencies, our internal security agencies, with sufficient resources to combat what is a very sophisticated and very well armed organized crime syndicate operating in Canada.

The saying that crime does not pay could not be further from the truth with regard to money laundering. It is estimated that between $5 billion and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are laundered in Canada each year. It has become a very lucrative and profitable business.

Canada has long had a reputation of being one of the easiest jurisdictions in which to legitimize the proceeds of illegal pursuits.

The latest report of the Crime Intelligence Service of Canada indicates that money laundering has allowed, for example, the Sicilian mafia to continue to infiltrate legitimate business. Asian based groups are heavily involved in Canadian heroin and drug trafficking. We also know that the Russian mafia has become very prevalent inside Canada.

There has been discussion in the Chamber recently about the situation, particularly on the west coast, of the smuggling of humans. We know that the sidewinder project has received a great deal of attention in the media of late. This again demonstrates, sadly, our lack of resources when it comes to law enforcement, our internal security services, and their ability to combat organized crime.

Money laundering is but one aspect of this growing concern we have about protecting the integrity of our citizens and our money system. Money laundering poses to law enforcement personnel one of their greatest challenges in the battle against organized crime. To fight organized crime effectively, law enforcement agencies and we, as legislators, must address the challenges posed by current trends in money laundering and adopt a strategy to respond to those challenges. This bill moves in that direction.

For example, several months ago United States officials uncovered the biggest money laundering operation ever inside their country. Federal investigators believe that Russian gangsters had channelled up to $10 billion through the Bank of New York, the 15th largest bank in the United States. This news sent shock waves throughout the entire financial services sector and proved that money laundering can affect even the biggest banks, those big commercial banks who would have us believe they are impenetrable.

The United States has moved ahead very quickly with its own tough, new money laundering legislation. It is very concerned, and we have seen it time and again, because the American economy and law enforcement agencies are very much tied, and therefore vulnerable, to our weaker internal security services. The U.S. has expressed concern repeatedly about the situation.

Since the Liberals took power in 1993 our internal security has diminished and has continued to be weakened. The Liberal government has given the United States much evidence to validate its concerns. In December 1999 U.S. customs officers discovered an Algerian Canadian, with Algerian terrorist connections, attempting to enter the United States through Seattle with a carload of explosives. This touched off a very serious concern within the United States and it continues to this day.

On February 25, 2000 the U.S. government suspended firearm and ammunition sales to Canada, which was done at the request of the Canadian government, and legal import licences were being used to import large quantities of handguns, rifles and ammunition. Firearms were then smuggled back into other countries. Many of them went back to the United States. This was very much an embarrassment for Canada. The soft approach on crime is highlighted by these inadequacies. It was another blow to our good relationship with the United States, because of our open, undefended border.

Since 1993 the Liberals have talked repeatedly about increasing penalties for money laundering in a manner that would be consistent with public safety, yet the RCMP still lacks the proper budget to deal with today's very sophisticated crime. For example, we saw that only $810 million had been set aside over the next three years. Much of that has been earmarked to fight organized crime.

Unfortunately, the usual sleight of hand has to be uncovered, and that is that 62% of this new money will not be available until the year 2001-02. This will be added to the RCMP base budget of about $2.1 million. That is still not enough, given the level of the problem and the years that the RCMP, CSIS and other services have been underfunded.

The mounties have already had to curtail their activities with respect to undercover operations which targeted organized crime. Reduction in training and the inability to conduct fraud investigations in British Columbia and undercover operations seriously jeopardizes the RCMP's ability to effectively do its job.

To correct these problems it is proposed that 5,000 new RCMP officers would be needed. Also lacking is staff at the forensic laboratory, the need for DNA databanks and the need to update the CPIC system. Police forces need this type of technology, and yet the government cannot even afford and will not commit the money that is needed to deal with these very serious inadequacies.

The government gave $115 million to the CPIC program when it was stated quite clearly that what was needed was $283 million. Once again, a pittance. It is an insult to our brave men and women who are in the mounties and in the secret service to have to work under these conditions.

British Columbia mounties alone may shift away from organized crime to deal with more pressing needs of fulfilling police vacancies and paying their officers. Basic policing needs have to be attended to and, therefore, organized crime needs are being neglected. In rural areas there is a very serious problem of losing RCMP documents and losing municipal police forces in small communities.

The riding of Shefford, represented by the Progressive Conservative member from Granby, is dealing with the very serious threat of losing its detachment. Biker gangs are terrorizing farmers and forcing them to grow marijuana in their fields.

There is a Bloc member who is currently being threatened by members of biker gangs and organized crime.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the broad purpose and principles of this bill, that is, to remedy the shortcomings in Canada's anti-money laundering legislation as identified by the G-7 financial action task force on money laundering. We support this amendment and we will be very supportive of this bill as it proceeds through the House and the various committee stages.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is the House ready for the question?

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The motions in Group No. 2, at the request of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, the mover of the motions, will be withdrawn.