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.