Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which is one of clarification. It seems to me that the request for a recorded division was made yesterday. Therefore, we should now be ringing the bells to proceed with the vote, unless the whip would specifically ask for the vote to be further deferred.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, if it would help the House, particularly in addressing the issue raised by my colleague from Elk Island, earlier I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to dispose of the deferred vote that was requested on Group No. 1. I want to assure the member that we dealt with the matter in the best traditions of the House.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The hon. government whip asked for consent and the Chair did not hear any disagreement to the request, so we proceeded as if consent had been given.

The hon. government whip has asked for consent to proceed immediately to third reading. Does the House give unanimous consent to proceed in such a fashion?

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberalfor the Minister of Finance

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

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at the third reading of Bill C-22.

I would like to thank members for their co-operation and their indulgence. We have dealt with a number of amendments that were presented just days ago, or in some cases hours, and I think we have accommodated a number of the concerns of the members who proposed amendments.

In fairness to Canadians who are watching this debate, the substance of the bill is sound and the amendments will add further clarity to the reporting mechanisms. The amendments will certainly add value to the bill.

In my view it is important that the bill be sent to the Senate and promulgated so that law enforcement agencies and financial institutions can finalize the development of the regulations and the guidelines that will set this initiative into motion as quickly as possible. We know that money laundering will not go away. What we are trying to do with this legislation is curtail the growth and decrease the levels of activity that are prevalent in Canada and internationally.

There have been extensive consultations, not only at committee, but with a number of stakeholder groups. Bill C-22 provides a statutory minimum 90 day pre-publication requirement for any regulation proposed under the legislation and a minimum 30 day notice period if further changes are to be made. This goes well beyond what is provided in many federal statutes and reflects the importance that the government attaches to public consultations in this area.

In the same vein, the House should know about the guidelines that will be given the institutions and the people, who, in order to meet the reporting requirements of this bill, must establish the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction is related to the commission of a money laundering offence.

As we explained at committee, the guidelines will be issued by the proposed anti-money laundering agency to assist with that determination.

Flexibility will be the key word in developing the guidelines and regulations. The money launderers of this world are constantly changing their modus operandi. They are constantly moving into new areas of activity. Therefore, we need to have some flexibility within the regulations and guidelines.

As an example, there will need to be some clear rules around the professions. If an accountant or an auditor is doing a regular attest audit and he or she comes across what might be a suspicious transaction, the legislation does not put the burden on that person to report it. That would create an unnecessary burden. However, if that person becomes party to a financial transaction which involves a suspicious activity or an amount of money defined by regulation, that person is obliged to comply with the legislation. In the normal conduct of professional activities that would not be required. This will be spelled out in the regulations.

Our other G-7 partners are devoting considerable resources and energies to combatting money laundering activities. With this law we will do the same.

At committee we heard very strong representations from lawyers in terms of solicitor-client privilege. The bill specifically calls for respecting solicitor-client privilege. However, we cannot allow the opportunity for lawyers who might be involved in transactions involving money laundering operations to be exempt on the grounds of solicitor-client privilege. That aspect of this law will be very similar to the law in other jurisdictions.

Bill C-22 targets the financial rewards of criminal activity by creating a balanced and effective reporting regime. It protects the integrity of our financial systems and enables Canada to meet its international obligations while protecting individual privacy. We will have an effective money laundering system in place to ensure that Canada fulfils its responsibility both as the founding member of the financial action task force on money laundering and as a member of the G-8 to co-operate in the international fight against money laundering.

Not only are we joining with other members of the financial action task force on money laundering in order to make the reporting of dubious operations mandatory, but our system of reporting will now be equal to that of most of the industrialized countries, including the other members of the G-7, most European countries and many of our Commonwealth partners, such as Australia and New Zealand.

Let us waste no time in passing this legislation. I urge all hon. members to accord this bill speedy passage, as we have done to date. Let us pass this legislation so that Canadians can be protected from money laundering activities.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to take part in this debate on the third reading of Bill C-22. I can see that all my colleagues and the pages are eager to hear my remarks and are deeply interested in this debate, which has a major impact on Canadians and Quebecers.

First of all, I cannot help but deplore, once again, the fact that the committee had to rush its examination of the bill.

We heard the last witnesses on Wednesday night at 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m., and we had to sit the next morning at 9 a.m. to begin the clause by clause review of the bill. It is easy to understand that, after hearing interesting evidence, very intelligent and well documented evidence, members should have been given a little time to weigh this evidence and come up with amendments.

Unfortunately, this was just before our two week recess. We had some time to digest all of this, and we came up with amendments that passed. I hope this will serve us a lesson to ensure that, if we really want to give witnesses who appeared the credit, I would say, that they deserve, the least the hon. members could do is take the time to assimilate and to re-read their testimonies. The quality of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance concerning Bill C-22 was particularly impressive.

I would be remiss if I did not tell members of the House that the Bloc Quebecois has probably the most intelligent, balanced, concrete and imaginative anti-crime agenda of all political parties represented in the House. It is an anti-crime agenda that does not fall into populism, into demagogy, and I think we can see the result with Bill C-22.

I would remind hon. members that the 1997 election platform of the Bloc Quebecois—I know this is almost bedtime reading to you, Madam Speaker—provided for and clearly asked for such a measure to fight money laundering.

Indeed, as early as 1997, even before the federal government introduced Bill C-22 and its doomed predecessor, Bill C-81, the Bloc Quebecois was already working on this issue, holding numerous intensive meetings with different crime fighting agencies. This is only one example. We could give others.

For instance, I introduced a bill to take $1,000 bills out of circulation. The federal government decided to listen to the Bloc Quebecois and to take them out of circulation to fight money laundering.

We spent a full opposition day trying to get all the parliamentarians in this House to agree to have the Standing Committee on Justice look into the problem of organized crime in Canada. It is a third victory for the Bloc Quebecois.

These three victories are quite impressive. I would be remiss—and I am pretty sure that all the members would hold it against me—if I overlooked the relentless campaign against organized crime that the member for Bagot is engaged in, despite all the risks involved, particularly in his region where farmers live in fear, terrorized by criminal groups who grow marijuana in their corn fields and other fields. It deserves the support of all members of the House.

Those were four specific actions taken by the Bloc, and we claimed victory on three of them. Of course, when we hear the clever and convincing arguments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, it is hard to imagine that the House would decide not to follow the lead of the Bloc on this matter.

Coming back to Bill C-22 per se, and I repeat that it was an original idea of the Bloc, it is important to mention that it is indeed an obligation, as the parliamentary secretary for the minister of Finance said, an international obligation for Canada to fight this worldwide phenomenon known as money laundering. Canada meets its obligations in this regard.

On the whole, this is a good bill. The amendments proposed, again, by the Bloc Quebecois bring some pretty major improvements to the bill. I see a number of people agreeing with that. The regulative jurisdiction is one of the main problems of this bill. It was extremely broad, and one can understand the logic of all that.

The centre that will be created under this bill will have to be flexible. Indeed, considering the ever changing new technology, it will have to be able to adjust very quickly. This is why the regulatory power is very broad.

We wanted to ensure that not only would the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act apply, but also that parliamentarians would be properly informed about the centre's operations. This is why I moved Motion No. 8, which was carried with an amendment, but which still ensures that the policies and benchmarks set by the centre are known by members of the House, who are ultimately accountable to the public.

This bill deals, among other things, with the issue of privacy. Given today's technology, that issue can raise some concerns and this is understandable. It is therefore important to give elected members of the House, who are the only ones accountable to the public, at least an opportunity to understand and the authority to ask what is going on in a centre that could potentially have excessive powers.

I congratulate the House, and particularly the Bloc Quebecois, which promoted the idea of fighting money laundering and of reporting suspicious transactions over $10,000. This great victory for the Bloc Quebecois is made even sweeter by the fact that several of our amendments were accepted by the House, and for good reason.

Again, the House showed great wisdom in supporting the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I congratulate the House, and particularly the Bloc Quebecois for its excellent work in the fight against crime.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Madam Speaker, this is possibly the strangest bill I have ever had anything to do with in the eight years I have had the privilege of serving the people of Kootenay—Columbia.

As the solicitor general critic I am fully aware of the consequences of the bill. It will be used basically as a highly sophisticated sieve to be able to look at countless billions of dollars of transactions literally on a daily basis. The bill is a highly sophisticated response to a highly sophisticated problem.

In one presentation during the course of our committee work the law enforcement people showed us a graph with three different pictures. When we first looked at it, it appeared as though there was a yellow sun approximately 30 inches in diameter and there were some notations around its perimeter.

When we looked very closely at it, we realized they were all simply lines. It was much like taking the wrapping off a golf ball and looking at how the elastic band was wound on it. Another section showed a bit closer that indeed they were lines, but they were so complex that it was difficult to perceive any kind of pattern.

A smaller section was blown up to the same size as the original sun and we could see the number of transactions by organized crime they had traced in this one instance to take a look at the money coming in from illegal activities that are dragging down society such as drugs, prostitution and so on. Those activities were detailed in the study by this law enforcement organization. Of everything I saw, the graph was the most graphic illustration of what we are discussing today.

We now have the ability because of the power of computers to enact all sorts of transactions and exceptionally sophisticated transactions on the part of organized crime.

I have been exceptionally critical, and I think rightfully so, of the solicitor general, the finance minister, the Prime Minister and the government for the fact that they have strangled the ability of law enforcement agencies in Canada to come even close to the level of sophistication of which even the most rudimentary organized crime units are capable.

It is not only organized crime. We are also talking about the laundering of money, much of which ends up sticking to the fingers of people involved in terrorism. The new immigrants to Canada, the people who come here to help us build our great nation, the people who see the opportunity and seize it, are most disadvantaged by the fact that the Liberal government consistently strangles the ability of law enforcement to get to the bottom of terrible terrorist organizations that not only plague the world but indeed individuals in Canada.

The speed by which the legislation is going through the House today and over the last couple of days is well warranted. It is something we desperately need to do, but we put that against the fact that over the last three years the government has dillied and dallied. It has dragged its feet and has not got around to giving us the necessary legislation. In just a second I will describe the process that led up to the point where the government finally brought the legislation to the House of Commons.

Unfortunately the legislation has been subjected to crass opportunism on the part of the Liberal government which sees this Chamber and the work of the people here as being worthy of nothing more than being treated as though it were a rubber stamp, as though we do not have a function in the process.

I was elected in my constituency not just to represent the people there. Along with the other 300 members in the House of Commons, we were collectively elected to come here to work on behalf of the people of Canada. I find it absolutely appalling that the government continuously treats the opposition and this Chamber as though it was a matter of yet another rubber stamp.

I can give an example. I am deeply concerned that the bill will be so egregiously flawed that we will run into the problems in two, three or four years after the bill is enacted and the centre gets going. We will find all sorts of flaws because of the terribly bad process it has gone through.

We have spoken during report stage about the number of things that were going on in the background. First, we ended up with negotiations between all parties on a work schedule. The government will say that the work schedule for the committee was on the basis that we would be hearing witnesses up to a particular point. The hearing of witnesses was to close at 5.30 p.m. one day and at 9 a.m. the next day we would start clause by clause consideration.

For those who are not familiar with how bills go through the House of Commons, clause by clause is exactly that. Every law is made up of any number of clauses to a bill. The number of clauses can be as few as two or three. In most instances there are 100 or more clauses to a bill. Those describe in great detail so that judges, law enforcement officials and interested Canadians can see what the intent was of the people in this Chamber with respect to any kind of legislation.

When we go through clause by clause on any bill there is the government side and, depending on how contentious the bill may be, there is the opposition that will then debate each word, each parse, each phrase and each piece of punctuation to make sure that it is indeed the way the government wants it. Of course at the end of the day the government will prevail. That is the parliamentary process.

What happened in this instance was we had a number of very interesting witnesses who gave all of us pause for concern. They made us stop and realize that we have to make sure that our Canadian legislation reflects the values within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A witness, a law enforcement official from the U.K., gave us illustrations. I asked him some questions about his illustrations on what was being done in the U.K. We very clearly discovered that if we are going to have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every piece of legislation has to match it. Therefore the bill was working around the restrictions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that many of our ancestors or relatives of our ancestors currently living in the U.K. do not have to work around. We realize in every jurisdiction in all of the G-7 countries and any of the signatories to any of the agreements with respect to money laundering that there will be different platforms that legislation will be working from.

We listened to different professional agencies. We listened to businesses that were going to be affected by the legislation. We had some very thoughtful presentations from most of the presenters. One or two of the presenters we collectively found were a bit over the top but that is fine. That is their right and their privilege to come before us in committee.

Against the 2,000 or 3,000 lawyers the government has in the justice department, the solicitor general's department, the finance department, every government department, against the 2,000 lawyers the government has on its side who could be taking apart this testimony, the official opposition has one lawyer. Count him. There is one lawyer who is basically responsible for three different ministries, that is 2,000 to one in terms of strength.

I acknowledge that the work schedule was agreed to by all parties, my party included, but when we came to the conclusion of this process it was very evident that the work schedule was no longer workable. That we were going to be hearing witnesses at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday and at nine o'clock in the morning on Thursday we were supposed to be prepared to do clause by clause study was clearly and specifically unworkable. I drew that to the attention of the parliamentary secretary.

In good faith I went to that committee session. My colleague from Charlesbourg went to that meeting. We both basically said that we needed more time. The member from Sarnia who was at the meeting actually put forward a motion that we needed to have time over the two week parliamentary break when members are at home working with their constituents. That period of time would give our lawyer an opportunity to take a look at the testimony and to parse it to see how it related to all of the clauses.

The government saw fit to vote down the motion put forward by the member from Sarnia over the objections of three members of the opposition. Therefore we did not take part in the clause by clause study. The reason I did not take part in the clause by clause study was that quite candidly I was not prepared. I have not received counsel. This is an exceptionally complex bill. I say again it is going to screen countless billions and billions of currency in and out of Canada. I wanted to be prepared. There was no way I could be prepared.

Let us fast forward to bringing this matter to the Chamber yesterday. What a disgraceful display that was. This was brought into the Chamber yesterday while we were still in the process of discussions. As a matter of fact I recall the clerk at the table stood to introduce Group No. 1 and the Speaker at the time began to read the motions. We were all running back to our seats halfway through negotiations as to how we were going to be handling the various amendments.

We got into the process and then the Liberals ended up discussing things with the Bloc Quebecois, which is entirely their privilege. I do not think much of that myself but I do think very much of the fact that I represent Her Majesty's Official Opposition. We were left out of any discussions of that type. All of a sudden the government was presenting motions to the Chair which the Chair could not receive.

I say for the third or fourth time this bill is basically responsible for acting like a highly sophisticated sieve involving countless billions of dollars on a daily basis and we are running around giving motions from the Government of Canada that the Chair cannot receive. It is no wonder I asked that the debate be adjourned. It was only logical. It gave the government an opportunity to get a breather.

What a disgraceful display for a government of a G-7 nation to come forward with this kind of vital legislation and to do it in such a slipshod way. It has been the height of folly. It has been absolutely frustrating to try to perform my duties on behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition when we have seen this type of chewing gum and baling wire.

As I pointed out on Group No. 3 that was just passed, again the government member from Sarnia presented a motion to amend the bill as written. That is what can happen at report stage, just so the people who are not familiar with the parliamentary process understand. That motion actually had some merit. I think it would have strengthened the bill not in a large way but certainly in a small way, and for something as sophisticated as this bill every little small part helps.

What happened? The member included a phrase that unfortunately was unworkable. The phrase would have caused a situation where the centre that will be doing the work would have to reveal far too much detail in public, and I understand that. My understanding in conversation with the member from Sarnia is that there had been agreement that he would agree to the removal of that phrase.

My colleague from Charlesbourg for his own very good reasons brought forward an amendment. He wanted to remove the word “government” and insert the word “parliament” thereby freezing the Senate out of the ability of being involved in the five year review of this. This is important.

Had the government been on the ball, and I drew it to the attention of certain government members at the time, and had it inserted the amendment to the motion by the member from Sarnia and then my colleague had put his subamendment, we could have had that improvement to the legislation in the bill. This just happened within the last hour.

Instead the government was remiss and did not do that. As a consequence, as we voted down the amendment by the member for Charlesbourg, we closed off the ability to make the necessary amendment for that improvement to the bill. I just despair for this process.

I have not been involved in a lot of the legislation that has gone through the House in terms of shepherding it through the House for Her Majesty's Official Opposition. I have not been as involved in the detail. Heaven forbid that the the process on every piece of legislation is as messed up as the process that was involved in this piece of legislation has been.

I recognize we are reaching the time when the Speaker will tell us it is time for members' statements. I will want to complete my speech following question period. I will conclude this portion without talking about the substance of the bill, which I will happily do following question period.

I state again that I have the greatest feeling of despair for this piece of legislation because of the fatally flawed process through which it has rumbled through this Chamber. This is where the Senate does come in. God bless their souls over there. They do have the ability to take a look at this legislation. Hopefully they will not go through as badly flawed a process.

The government now wants to get this bill through like greased lightning and wants to get this bill enacted finally after three years. I would hope that if the Senate comes forward with meaningful amendments the government will not take those as hostile and that we will not be involved in another seriously flawed process in the event that the bill ends up coming back from the Senate.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleague, of course you are absolutely correct that you still have close to 22 minutes. I am sure it will fit in with your plan to give us the second half of your talk today.

As it is almost two o'clock, we will go to Statements by Members.

Canada Book DayStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country celebrated Canada Book Day on April 27. To mark this event I had the pleasure of hosting my annual Canada Book Day luncheon on April 19 in my riding.

Attendees included renowned Canadian and local authors Christopher Moore, chairman of the Writers' Union of Canada, and Greg Gatenby, the founder of the Harbourfront Reading Series. Also in attendance were publisher Kim McArthur and Sheryl McKean of the Canadian Booksellers Association. A special guest appearance was made by Professor Stephen Leacock, also known as Neil Ross, while on his whirlwind tour to cheer up Canada and promote literacy.

Founded in 1976 the Writers' Trust of Canada has endeavoured to advance and nurture Canadian writers and Canadian literature. This national non-profit organization has, with Canada Book Day 2000, launched new programs through schools and libraries and a Canada Book Day coupon program.

This day also provides us with the opportunity to recognize the contribution writers make to the cultural richness of Canada and to pass on our previously loved books so that others may benefit.

Lake Dauphin FisheryStatements By Members

May 4th, 2000 / 1:55 p.m.

Reform

Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to a very important matter in my riding. Over the past few months the health of the Lake Dauphin fishery has been questioned. Fishing practices and conservation are the issues.

The matter has taken on an urgent sense this spring as some aboriginals have been using gill nets to catch fish during their river spawning runs. This has upset the people of the parkland who have worked hard to stock the lake to ensure it thrives for generations to come.

It should be noted that many aboriginals and first nations leaders do not condone this reckless act toward this precious resource.

The minister responsible for fisheries has a duty to explain to the people in my riding of Dauphin—Swan River how this issue will be resolved.

Does conservation of a natural resource take precedence over an aboriginal fishing right? What does the word sustenance mean when quoting these rights? What are the acceptable methods of carrying out sustenance activities?

Daniel RicherStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, last week, the 20 best town criers in the world were in Bermuda to compete in the tournament held by the Ancient and Honourable Guild of Town Criers.

It is with much pride that I pay tribute today to Daniel Richer dit Laflèche, a resident of Aylmer, who won the title of best town crier in the world, thus becoming the first francophone to achieve this prestigious international distinction.

Mr. Richer won the praise of members of the jury and fellow challengers during his last cry, a ringing tribute to unity and rapprochement at the beginning of the third millennium. A wonderful ambassador for his region, his province and his country, the senior crier for Quebec and Ontario, Daniel Richer represents us proudly wherever his voice takes him.

Congratulations to his wife Sylvie, who won the title of most elegant escort at the same competition, as well as their two sons, because of whom the Richer family were able—

Daniel RicherStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for St. Paul's.

Louis ApplebaumStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, on April 20, 2000 Canada lost an important pillar of its culture. Louis Applebaum, noted music composer, conductor, arts administrator and champion of the arts, passed away at the age of 82 after a long illness.

Most of us will remember Louis Applebaum's name for his participation as chairman of the Applebaum-Hébert commission, a committee of 18 eminent Canadians who undertook to review cultural policies for Canada.

Mr. Applebaum's accomplishments are legendary. He began his career in 1941 with the National Film Board where he served as music director. After composing for many feature films in Hollywood and New York, he became the first music director of the Stratford Festival. Likewise, he was part of the planning group that led to the founding of the National Arts Centre Orchestra and the Department of Music at the University of Ottawa. He was also a founder of the Canadian League of Composers, executive director of the Ontario Arts Council and president of the SOCAN from 1994 until his death.

The recipient of a Gemini, a Juno, the Diplome d'honneur, the Order of Canada and several honorary degrees, Mr. Applebaum will remembered for the many things—

Louis ApplebaumStatements By Members

2 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

Gun RegistryStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice appears to be ending up with egg on her face after a recent announcement that her useless gun registry is doing something about reducing firearms crime in Canada.

A bit of an investigation revealed that she has not even bothered to put into force the part of Bill C-68 that requires guns entering the country to be registered. If the minister believes the registry is so important, why was the entire shipment of World War II army rifles, which she says was a threat to public safety, knowingly waved through Canada customs without even being registered?

The RCMP advised me that Canada customs does not even tell the registrar about the guns coming across the border. The minister's own research shows that between 200,000 and 300,000 firearms enter Canada illegally each year but are never registered because the minister has not put into force legislation passed in 1995.

Everyone should be wondering why the minister waited for a so-called criminal to register a 1,000 World War II rifles destined to collectors if registration is so important for public safety.

The minister cannot change this mountain into a molehill. This is a billion dollar boondoggle.