Debates of May 3rd, 2000

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following ongoing negotiations with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I have decided not to withdraw these amendments. I will ask to speak in order to introduce them.

Some will be amended by the parliamentary secretary. As they are my motions, I cannot amend them myself, if I am not mistaken.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I understand that the motions in Group No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, will be introduced at this time.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 47 on page 10 the following new clause:

“19.1 If an officer decides, on grounds that the officer believes to be reasonable, to exercise any of the powers or perform any of the duties or functions under subsections 15(1) and (3), 16(1) and (2), 17(1) and 18(1), the officer shall record in writing the reasons for the decision.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-22, in Clause 36, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 17 the following:

“(3.1) If an officer decides, on grounds that the officer believes to be reasonable, to disclose information under subsection (2) or (3), the officer shall record in writing the reasons for the decision.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-22, in Clause 55, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 26 the following:

“(5.1) The Centre shall record in writing the reasons for all decisions to disclose information made under subsection (3) or paragraph (4)( a ) or (5)( a ).”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-22, in Clause 56, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 27 the following:

“(4) In every agreement or arrangement entered into under subsection (1) or (2), there shall be inserted an express condition that each party shall comply with the provisions of this Act dealing with the confidentiality and the collection and use of information.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-22, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 33 the following:

“(1.1) If an authorized person decides, on grounds that the person believes to be reasonable, to enter premises under paragraph (1)( a ), the person shall record in writing the reasons for the decision.”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-22, in Clause 63, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 33 with the following:

“business, profession or activity, and shall record in writing the reasons for the person's belief.”

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I seek unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No. 5.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Charlesbourg has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to remove Motion No. 5 standing in his name. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion No. 5 withdrawn)

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to address this bill, even though I am a little out of breath.

The purpose of Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is very simple. If we want the privacy commissioner and the information access commissioner to be able to get all the information they need, the reasons for which the officer of the centre wanted to investigate further must be recorded in writing, otherwise it will be difficult to know what happened and why the decision to investigate further and to disclose the information was made.

This is the reason why I proposed these motions. I know that these provisions will be amended by the parliamentary secretary and I will be waiting for his amendments.

In that same spirit of continued co-operation to speed up the process, I ask that Motions Nos. 6 and 7 also be withdrawn, with the unanimous consent of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Just to be clear, is it the intention of the member for Charlesbourg to ask that Motions Nos. 6 and 7 standing in his name be withdrawn?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the House give unanimous consent to withdraw Motions Nos. 6 and 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Charlesbourg?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motions Nos. 6 and 7 withdrawn)

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the various members for their co-operation in trying to reach some conclusion to these amendments.

Motion No. 2 would impose a legal requirement on customs officers to do what in certain circumstances is done as a matter of good administrative practice. My concern with the motion is that it would create a procedural burden for routine actions, such as a request of a customs officer to look inside the trunk of a car which is crossing the border.

The procedures proposed in Bill C-22 to deal with cross-border movements of large amounts of currency and monetary instruments are intended to dovetail with similar procedures dealing with the movement of goods. Introducing a requirement to create a written record for routine actions by customs officers at the border would add bureaucracy and cause unnecessary delays for the travelling public.

I therefore would like to propose the suggestion that officers be required to record in writing their reasons for decisions under this bill not apply to routine actions but be limited instead to the exercise of the powers under subsection 18(1) which deal with the seizure of currency or monetary instruments. Therefore the amended motion would read as follows:

That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 47 on page 10 the following new clause:

“19.1 If an officer decides to exercise powers under subsection 18(1), the officer shall record in writing reasons for the decision”.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The debate is on the amendment.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could I now proceed to Motion No. 3?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are on Group No. 2. We have to stay on Group No. 2 but you can speak to any of the motions in that group.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion No. 3, we have no objection to the intent of the motion but we would suggest that it be redrafted to make it clear that the decision would be made by the officer on the basis of the criteria set out in the appropriate subsections rather than “on grounds that the officer believes to be reasonable”. The amended motion would read:

That Bill C-22, in clause 36, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 17 the following new clause:

“(3.1) If an officer decides to disclose information under subsection (2) or (3), the officer shall record in writing the reasons for the decision.”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The debate is on the amendment. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, moving now to Motion No. 4, the centre's decision to disclose information in accordance with section 55 of the bill is an extremely important one. It will be necessary for the centre to fully document the reasons for doing so in each and every case. It was always intended that the centre would do this and therefore I am prepared to support the amendment proposed by my colleague.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Normally in a speech an amendment is moved just once. There were several amendments created during the speech. I would like to know what the protocol is.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The protocol is when it is a report stage motion it is the responsibility of the Chair, where there is a recognition between parties that they are working toward resolving a bill, not to stand in the way of that. The Chair's responsibility is to make sure that what is being done is being done in a parliamentary sound fashion. That is why we are taking the time now to make sure that what is being done is being done appropriately.

I think behind the hon. member's question is the fact that generally if an amendment to a motion is moved, it is done at the end of an intervention and that terminates the intervention. In this case I recognized the hon. parliamentary secretary on a different motion within the context of that group recognizing that there had been negotiations between opposition and government members on this particular bill.

Again it was not my intention to involve the Chair in the debate, but it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that if opposition and government are working toward resolution of differences on a bill, to facilitate the ability of members to work together in common cause.

As members know, they cannot through amendment change a bill. All they can do is amend something that is already there; they cannot change the format or the intent. This is what is being considered by the clerks.

As this is the first time this has come before me, I will need the attention of all members present to make sure that it is done correctly.

The amendments as presented by the hon. parliamentary secretary are not in order because they are amendments to change the bill. What is before the House now are the amendments. For an amendment to be in order it must amend a motion. Therefore, the amendments as presented by the parliamentary secretary are not in order. This leaves the Chair in the position of saying that if there is the will for the motion to be amended it is not up to the Chair to negotiate this. It must be done by the parties.

The way we could do this is to continue with the debate on the motions that are before the House. If there is no further debate on motions before the House, with the indulgence and with the unanimous consent of the House, we could move to Group No. 3 and then come back again to Group No. 2. However, that would require the unanimous consent of the House. Other than that, we will stay on the motions in Group No. 2 as they are presented.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that if the government had listened to the Canadian Alliance member who was sitting on the parliamentary committee at the time, if it had agreed to allow more time between the end of evidence and the beginning of the clause by clause review in committee, we would not find ourselves in this situation.

I can only deplore it. I think the Canadian Alliance member will agree with me. This is deplorable, because normally this exercise should be done in committee.

That being said, I want to make sure I clearly understood what you said. I proposed Motions Nos. 2 and 3, which were amended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. These are amendments to my motions with which I can live. I wonder if we could go the unanimous consent route.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The third option would be to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to receive the amendments as presented by the parliamentary secretary. If a member would like to make that motion, we will get on with it. That is a good way to do it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the process that we are currently involved in is egregiously flawed. We are talking about a bill that will interdict hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of currency. It is an international agreement with vast ranging, international implications for not only G-7 nations but indeed nations throughout the entire world.

As has been pointed out by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and also my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois in debate this afternoon, we are talking about the core of international crime and the way in which we can track it. The member for Charlevoix, another member and myself have all pointed out that the haste with which this is going through the House is to treat the House with disrespect and as a rubber stamp.

The debacle we are currently involved in was as a result of discussion in good faith between the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. As the representative of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, I was not involved in any of the discussion about the motions that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled out of order. I find it completely unacceptable that Her Majesty's Official Opposition would not have been involved in the discussion.

Therefore, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.