Debates of May 4th, 2000

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I declare Motion No. 3, as amended, carried.

(Motion No. 3, as amended, agreed to)

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I am not mistaken, the vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motion No. 4. I need clarification of that.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The vote was on Motion No. 3, as amended, and therefore Motion No. 4 is adopted.

I will now put the motions in Group No. 3 to the House.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-22, in Clause 71, be amended a ) by replacing line 32 on page 37 with the following:

“71. (1) The Director shall, on or before Septem-” b ) by adding after line 40 on page 37 the following:

“(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall include a copy of the instructions and regulations governing the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions under this Act which could affect human rights and freedoms.”

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find, if you recognized the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, that we are ready to move an amendment to the motion put forward by the member from the Bloc Quebecois.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I propose that I read all the motions in this group and then I will recognize the parliamentary secretary.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-22, in Clause 71, be amended a ) by replacing line 32 on page 37 with the following:

“71. (1) The Director shall, on or before Septem-” b ) by adding after line 40 on page 37 the following:

“(2) The annual report stands referred to the committee of Parliament that is designated or established for that purpose. The committee shall review the report and the operations of the Centre and report to Parliament within 90 days after the tabling of the annual report by the Minister or any further time that Parliament may authorize.”

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 37 the following new clause:

“71.1 (1) The Director shall, on or before September 30 of each year following the Centre's first full year of operations, submit a report to the Privacy Commissioner on the measures taken by the Centre to ensure the confidentiality of any personal information obtained in the course of its operations.

(2) The Commissioner shall, within three months after receiving the report, submit to Parliament the Commissioner's opinion on the report.”

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-22, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 9 on page 38 with the following:

“72. (1) This Act and the regulations made thereunder shall cease to have effect five years after the day on which section 98 comes into force.

(2) Within four years after the day on which section 98 comes into force, this Act and the regulations made thereunder shall stand referred to the committee of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose. The committee shall, within one year, undertake a comprehensive review of the Act, the regulations and their administration and submit a report to Parliament including any recommendations pertaining to the continuation of, or changes to, the Act, the regulations or their administration that the committee wishes to make.”

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

moved:

That Motion No. 8 be amended by replacing all of the words after the words “(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall include” with the following: “a description of the management guidelines and policies of the Centre for the protection of human rights and freedoms”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The amendment is receivable.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the amendment that was moved, which was then amended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, is to ensure that parliament has a good idea of the rules and policies adopted by the centre so that it can better play its role as guardian of human rights and freedoms.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

If we were to vote now, we would be voting on Motions Nos. 8 to 11 inclusive, without the possibility of a new motion.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am perhaps mistaken but I thought we were debating only Motion No. 8. If that is not the case, I wish to move amendments to Motions Nos. 9 and 11 moved by the Liberal Party member. If the question is not just on Motion No. 8, I wish to continue to avail myself of my right to speak.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Yes, I think that is an entirely understandable error. We are now debating Group No. 3. It includes Motions Nos. 8 to 11 inclusive. If the hon. member wishes to continue speaking, he has seven minutes and 48 seconds left.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, we agree with the spirit of Motions Nos. 9 and 11 moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, but we wish to make a slight amendment so that it is not parliament as a whole but the House of Commons which has authority over such matters.

I therefore move:

That Motion No. 9, in paragraph b ), be amended by replacing the word “Parliament” with the following:

“the House of Commons”

In addition, I move:

That Motion No. 11, in paragraph b ), be amended by replacing the word “Parliament” with the following:

“the House of Commons”

I believe these amendments improve the bill by stipulating that elected representatives, members of the House of Commons—we all know the esteem in which the member for Sarnia—Lambton holds the other House, and I am sure he will agree—oversee the process and not people appointed to the Senate.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The amendments moved by the hon. member are in order.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the third grouping of amendments to Bill C-22, in particular Motions Nos. 9 and 11.

I want to say first that I support the bill. We all know there is a need that has been agreed upon both nationally and internationally to combat money laundering. It is a global phenomenon. Enabling and co-ordinating the efforts of different law enforcement agencies through a centralized body such as would be established by this bill certainly is not in question.

I should also say that the amendments I have proposed do alter the bill. I would ask my friends opposite who have proposed a subamendment to think about what my amendments in fact say because I do not believe that we are saying anything differently. I would ask them to consider the following points.

The reason I have proposed these amendments is that I have very specific concerns about the lack of a role for parliament, in particular the House of Commons, in the oversight of the centre established pursuant to the bill, and the limited accountability to parliament, in particular the House of Commons, on the part of the Minister of Finance for the centre's practices. However that certainly is not a criticism of the minister.

My amendments attempt to redress what I would characterize as an undermining of what some would call backbenchers' rights by a bill that allows for too little accounting of actions undertaken in the name of Canadian citizens by the centre. My amendments do not attempt to micromanage or second guess the daily activities of the centre. They attempt to provide a role for members of parliament to monitor the means used by the centre to fulfil its mandate and also to enable members to scrutinize periodically the effectiveness of the policy that underlies Bill C-22.

My first amendment modifies the reporting obligations of the centre's director. As it now stands the director must submit an annual report to the Minister of Finance on the centre's operations for the preceding year. The minister would then table the report to both houses of parliament within 30 days.

Merely tabling the report in parliament does not provide members the opportunity to seriously consider the effectiveness of the centre's activities. It does not enable them to question officials from the centre. It does not permit members to monitor the centre for potentially abusive practices. This is particularly troubling to me, given that some of the witnesses before the committee described the bill's breadth as excessive and the powers reserved for it as potentially sweeping. Legal experts testified that the danger of abuse of power is real and that the safeguards they foresaw in the bill might not be adequate to forestall such abuses.

My amendment proposes an additional step to the formal report made under the current legislation to the Minister of Finance, that it be reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary committee. I understand the desire of my friends opposite to have the bill say it is the House of Commons, but if we look at this, the amendment in fact says that it be reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary committee. It could be designated as a committee of the House of Common. It is very rare that a committee of the Senate would take upon itself such an activity. It could be referred to a committee of parliament that has been established for that purpose.

I would also point out to my friends opposite that the traditional role is for the finance committee to carry out those sorts of things. In some respects I can understand the fear they have that the Senate will come into this but our tradition shows that will not happen.

Requiring a committee to make a report of its own would obligate, I would suggest to my friends opposite, members of parliament to study the effectiveness of the centre. It also would permit concerns to be addressed to the director of the centre and his officials as well as raise any problems that may not have been seen when the bill was created. That is not a very radical idea. I am not in any way suggesting that members could ask who they are investigating, how they are investigating or anything of that nature. It would simply be about where the money is going, how it is being spent and whether it is working.

I have also proposed changes that would add a sunset clause to the provisions that would give effect to the bill limiting those provisions to a period of five years, just like the Bank Act. To quote from the proposed amendment, the sunset clause would require a parliamentary committee to “undertake a comprehensive review of the act, the regulations and their administration and submit a report to parliament including any recommendations pertaining to the continuation of, or changes to, the act, the regulations or their administration that the committee wishes to make”. This process already exists in the Bank Act. It would have to be completed so that new re-enabling legislation could be introduced to parliament. It is very simple. It would have to be considered, voted and acted upon within five calendar years of the time that this act is given royal assent.

Such a provision would allow members of this place to further scrutinize all the aspects of the money laundering act. The sunset provision would also allow changes to be made as new law enforcement techniques are discovered and more important, as different ways of money laundering emerge. There will certainly be techniques and ways we cannot even foresee or imagine today especially with the emergence of electronic technology. In short, I would call it a guard against statutory rust-out. It is a Ziebart provision, if I can call it that.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that this bill undermines backbenchers' rights because we are creating it, giving it regulatory powers, and there is a reporting provision. We know this is not the only piece of legislation that has short-circuited the rights of members in this place. Over the past number of decades, we the backbenchers have witnessed a decline in means of participation in and influence on the great public policy debates. We have little ability to influence new legislation as it is being drafted in the faraway reaches of this place. Nor do we have a parliamentary committee structure that enables members to adequately influence the course of action taken or even to hold ministers to account.

It has become a common practice here to time allocate legislation so that it does not get bogged down in the House. While it is important to ensure against parliamentary gridlock, not having adequate time to debate legislation in some ways invalidates our roles as legislators.

These impediments do not only have implications for our jobs as lawmakers or legislators. Most important, it dangerously weakens the link between those who govern and those who are governed. Important questions about the true nature of democracy arise. In a parliamentary democracy like ours, we as well as our leaders must be aware that the elected members of the House of Commons are the repositories of democracy in this country. We must at all times be aware of the fact that our obligations must remain to our constituents, to national objectives and the ability for us to ask the kinds of questions that are expected.

In recent times these obligations have become misplaced. Increasingly as a body we are giving up our ability to question, to debate and to propose changes to legislation. By having the sunset clause we will bring that back to this place. The idea of depositing a report with the minister is fine and that minister's depositing it in this place is fine, but we need that other connection for us. That is the ability to bring the person responsible before a committee of parliament and allow us from this place to ask those questions. A committee report on the table here does not allow debate, does not allow questions.

I am simply saying that these amendments are not revolutionary. They just allow for the centre and its operations to be subject to the scrutiny of us in this place. The way it stands, that is not the case. For the department to resist such an amendment is not the correct thing to do. It enables us, the backbench members and those who will come here in the future to have some scrutiny of that operation.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-22, the money laundering act.

The report stage amendments have been very constructive and helpful in addressing some of the issues I raised when speaking to this legislation earlier. The legislation without these types of constructive amendments would provide a carte blanche, a blank cheque to the new agency which has the ability to effectively pursue activities without any checks and balances and potentially persecute innocent Canadians in the course of its activities.

It is in the interests of accountability and ensuring that the rights of all Canadians are respected and protected against all powerful institutions, particularly these new agencies, whether it is the Revenue Canada agency or this new money laundering agency. We need to ensure that we in the House are vigilant in protecting the rights of each and every Canadian.

My greatest concern, and I raised this when speaking to this legislation earlier, is that ultimately the money laundering agency would have the power to refer information on questionable cases to Revenue Canada. If that is done only in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering is one thing. However, if in a case where there may not be enough evidence to suggest money laundering activities but some evidence of tax evasion exists and the money laundering agency refers the matter to the Revenue Canada agency, that is a very different matter. We need to ensure that with the combination of these two agencies we are not creating a turbocharged Revenue Canada agency that has a greater level of power to pursue and persecute Canadians.

My concern on the Revenue Canada agency as brought forth earlier was that it has the capacity to become an IRS style agency, Godzilla the tax collector. The new money laundering agency could augment the powers of an unaccountable agency and make it even more frightening to the average Canadian taxpayer.

The accountability and transparency that would result from the amendments would go a long way to help address a fundamental flaw with the original legislation. I would hope that members in the House will support these amendments and will continue to monitor the activities of these agencies on an ongoing basis.

We do not want to create a system of fear in Canada for the average taxpaying citizen that at the other end of the tax enforcement side we are actually creating a turbocharged Revenue Canada agency. We do not want to tilt the balance against the average Canadian taxpayer who in the past has had to deal with Revenue Canada, now the new Revenue Canada agency, without a lot of defences.

Again, with the new money laundering agency, anything we can do to ensure that its activities are held accountable by some means, in this case by reporting and by some independent analysis and parliamentary reporting and so on, that will all help take the necessary steps in the right direction.

The Progressive Conservative Party would be supportive of the direction of these amendments and hope that other members of parliament would see these amendments as being constructive.

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

Madam Speaker, when I made the amendment on Motion No. 8 I did not realize we were speaking on all the motions. With the indulgence of the House, I wonder if I could speak to Motion No. 8, the motion by the member for Charlesbourg. With some compromise on the government side, we were able to accommodate his amendment which has been dealt with.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The parliamentary secretary has already spoken to this group, I believe. We can seek the consent of the House for you to proceed. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to speak at this point?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill already requires that the director of the anti-money laundering centre submit an annual report to the minister and that the minister table a copy of the report in each House of parliament. This is a fundamentally important accountability measure in the bill.

In our view there was no need to add a provision that would require the centre's annual report to be reviewed by a committee of parliament. Parliamentary committees have the right to conduct such a review as they see fit. The motion would merely create a rigid procedure and timetable for parliamentary review without doing anything to strengthen the accountability of the centre.

With respect to Motion No. 9, we were prepared to accommodate the member for Sarnia—Lambton with an amendment that would strike out the words “and the operations of the centre”. Unfortunately we cannot support the subamendment by the member for Charlesbourg to replace the word “parliament” with “House of Commons”. Unfortunately, we also cannot support the motion by the member for Sarnia—Lambton because we cannot support the subamendment.

With respect to Motion No. 10, the Privacy Act authorizes the privacy commissioner to investigate the centre to ensure that the confidentiality of personal information is being properly protected. The proposed amendment would not therefore provide any additional safeguards. For this reason, I do not support the proposed amendments.

However, we do believe there is merit in having the director report in some fashion on the very important matter of confidentiality. That is why we accepted some revised language to Motion No. 8 which would call for the centre to describe its policies and practices as it relates to the privacy of information of Canadians.

Finally, with respect to Motion No. 11, I believe that the bill as currently drafted strikes the right balance by requiring that within five years of coming into force a committee of parliament review “the administration and operation of this act” and report to parliament. Clause 72 also explicitly requires that the committee's report to parliament include a statement of any changes to the act or its administration that the committee recommends.

The existing provision in the bill will ensure that parliament will re-examine this legislation carefully within five years with a view to considering possible changes to improve Canada's anti-money laundering regime. This is appropriate given the importance of this legislation.

I do not believe that anything would be gained by the amendment proposed by the member for Sarnia—Lambton to the five year review clause in this bill because the bill is already going to be reviewed by parliament within five years. I also cannot support the subamendment by the member for Charlesbourg to strike out the word “parliament”.

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

Madam Speaker, we continue with the saga of pulling the bill together with amendments, subamendments, everything happening at the last minute and negotiations happening even at 11 hours and 59 minutes.

I continue to feel a sense of distress over this bill. We all want the bill to go through so I am begrudgingly recommending to my colleagues that we support these motions. However, there has been so much chewing gum, baling wire and paper clips put to this bill at this particular point I do not have a lot of confidence that we will not see a big problem in three or four years after this bill comes into effect. I am very concerned about that.

I will speak to Group No. 3 specifically. I will also comment on Motion No. 9 by my esteemed colleague from Sarnia, and I say that in all seriousness. I take him to be a very serious and competent gentleman. He has certainly put some very legitimate concerns in front of the House and has a deep concern about this bill. He is a very serious and worthy member of parliament but the problem with his motion is the phrase “and the operations of the centre” contained in that motion.

Why I prefaced my remarks yet again with this business of negotiating at the last second is that if in the procedure the government had seen fit to remove that or to propose an amendment to move that, then my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois could then have entered the motion that he has before the Chamber. The point is that we have to deal with his motion and we could have dealt with the motion against this wording and the operations of the centre. It could have happened and we could have had a clause in this bill that would have in its own small way gone to strengthening the bill. Unfortunately that did not happen. As a consequence, because the member's motion includes those six words “and the operations of the centre”, I will have to recommend to my colleagues that we turn down an otherwise worthy amendment.

With respect to the member for Charlesbourg, for whom I also have a great deal of respect, I understand what he is trying to do in terms of talking about parliament as opposed to the government and the whole attitude that there is vis-à-vis the Senate. The Canadian Alliance is certainly in favour of a total revision of the Senate before we afford it perhaps the kind of respect that a chamber like that should have. However, because we want to get this bill through quickly and come up to speed, in spite of the three year delay on the part of the government, I would have to vote against revising the Senate for the very simple reason that we will not have any constitutional change. We will certainly not have this Prime Minister do anything about the Senate. This would have to be included in the motion which we will have to defeat. This is terribly confusing.

On Motion No. 11 the Canadian Alliance generally would be in favour of sunset clauses. As a matter of fact, we have proposed them for bills like Bill C-68 and other very contentious bills that have no proven value. Just to parenthesize that particular bill is completely off track. It is costing hundreds of millions of dollars and going nowhere. There is no sunset clause. Under normal circumstances our party would be in favour of a sunset clause.

However, the fact that this bill, as written by the government, does call for a review in five years, and the fact that money laundering will not go away in the next five years, I do not think this particular motion would be at all helpful.

Those are the comments of the official opposition. I hope we can get through this without more chewing gum and baling wire because we are getting a little bit low. The confectionery is getting concerned.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?