Jim Peterson

[Health, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to transfers, it is obvious that we increased them by $1.5 billion in a previous budget. In this year's budget, we increased them by another $2.5 billion.

We are up to $31 billion, higher than ever, and we have said that we would contribute even more if an agreement were reached with the provinces concerning health care.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I neglected to acknowledge the great battle against criminals and crime that has been waged by the hon. member who has just spoken, and I must congratulate him on behalf of the Liberal Party and all members of this House.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief so that hon. members from other parties have as much time as they would want to debate this important measure.

The financial action task force also indicated that the extent of money laundering going on in Canada—and we will never know for certain what it is—is somewhere between $5 billion and $17 billion a year.

This bill is aimed at doing one thing, and that is to help take the profit out of crime.

What do we currently have in place in terms of law? We have the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, 1991, which does three things. It requires that records be kept of cash transactions over $10,000. It requires that client identification procedures be followed, that is, financial institutions are required to know the client. Third, it provides for the voluntary reporting of suspicious transactions by the financial institution directly to the police.

Why do we need this new bill in light of the existing law? This new bill retains the record keeping and client identification provisions of the old law. However, it has extended beyond the current institutions which must report, such as financial institutions, casinos, intermediaries, lawyers and accountants, to other types of financial institutions.

Money laundering is not just a phenomenon which takes place through financial institutions. There are expanded means, including the Internet. This new legislation will apply to cheque cashing businesses, crown owned institutions and crown owned casinos.

The old law, as I said, provided for the voluntary reporting of these suspicious transactions. We are moving beyond this to mandatory reporting. Where there is a suspicious transaction, it must be reported.

We will have three types of reporting. First, it will be mandatory for financial institutions and others who have reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction is linked to money laundering to report that transaction.

Second, there will be mandatory reporting of prescribed transactions. We are proposing that they be cash transactions, or the equivalent, of $10,000 or more.

Third, we want to deal with the importation and exportation in and out of Canada of large amounts of cash or negotiable instruments. We are proposing that one has to report any sum exported or brought into Canada in the order of $15,000 or more.

Those are the guts of the new law. We have struggled. It is not an easy task to balance the requirement to have an updated, modern, crime fighting legal system in Canada with protecting the privacy of individuals.

Having reviewed many international situations and examples and after extensive consultations, we have proposed that in order to safeguard individual privacy but at the same time ensure that crime is stopped we would institute a financial transactions and reports analysis centre of Canada, or the FTRACC.

The centre would be an agency reporting to the Minister of Finance, who would be responsible for it. It would be run by a director. It would have approximately 60 employees and cost approximately $10 million a year. The centre will receive reports from financial institutions or others required to report. In other words, they will not report directly to the police or to the government. They will report to the centre.

The centre will gather, collect and analyze all the information. It will then refer the information to the appropriate policing authorities, only when it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the information would be relevant to the crime of money laundering. The centre must satisfy itself first.

What does the centre pass on? It passes on only tombstone or bare bones information: the name of the account, the date of the transaction, the account number and the value of the transaction. If the police authorities want to get more information from the centre they would have to do so by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge.

This information can also be passed on by the centre to CSIS, to Revenue Canada and to immigration authorities. It cannot be passed on willy-nilly. It can be passed on only in the event the centre has determined there are reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering and has determined that there may be, for example, tax fraud involved as well.

Any individual who feels that privacy rights have been hampered would be entitled to go to the privacy commissioner to have the case looked at. The centre will not be exempt from examination by the privacy commissioner.

Let us look at why it is important that we pass the bill quickly. The financial action task force on money laundering has pointed out that Canada, one of its members, is the only member that does not have mandatory reporting. We have the commitment of our Prime Minister at the G-8 summit in Birmingham in 1998 to this type of law. This was reconfirmed again last year at the Cologne summit.

We have had extensive consultations starting in May 1998 when the solicitor general issued a consultation paper. We in finance issued a consultation paper in December. We have considered wide consultations with all interested parties.

In conclusion, I believe that we have found a way to expand the reporting requirements, to make them mandatory and at the same time to balance the rights of individuals to privacy and freedom from unjust or unreasonable search and seizure.

This is through using this unique concept of the centre. The centre will be able to analyze trends in money laundering. It will be able to work with international law enforcement agencies. I think it will be a great addition to our war against crime.

By enacting the bill, Canada will be a much less attractive target for money laundering. We will be sending a clear message to the world that organized crime and criminals should not try to do business in Canada. We will appreciate the support of all parties.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the co-operation of hon. members. This bill on money laundering deals with an emerging crime, and one that is getting worse. Dirty money is that money earned from criminal activities, mainly drug dealing, but also such activities as smuggling cigarettes and theft, and is often the product of organized crime. Money laundering is the process by which that dirty money is cleaned in such a way that it cannot be readily or easily traced back to its illegal activities, therefore allowing crime to profit.

The financial action task force, of which Canada is a member, consists of 26 countries. It consists of the OECD countries, plus Singapore. It estimated that the global amount of money laundering is in the area of $300 billion to $500 billion U.S. every year.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, April 5th, 2000]

moved that Bill C-22, an act to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, to establish the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and to amend and repeal certain acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask before I start that instead of taking the 40 minutes of speaking time and 10 minutes for questions and comments, that I be allowed to split the time. The parliamentary secretary and I would take no more than 20 minutes of speaking time with 10 minutes for questions and comments, but I would need consent for that.

[Health Care, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted that the hon. member feels that health care is a top priority. It is obviously ours as well. In the past budget we increased it by $11.5 billion and in this budget we added another $2.5 billion, an increase of 25% over two years.

The important discussions now going on in Markham indicate our commitment to added funding but only on condition that there is a long term plan which will preserve our health care system for our generation and for generations to come.

[Ways And Means, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 28, 2000. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion. I would also request, because there has been so little disagreement with the budget in the House of Commons, that we could pass this bill on all three readings right now.

[Health, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that our transfers in the CHST to the provinces are now at the level of $31 billion, the highest ever. In addition, we are transferring the highest amount of equalization ever, which is close to $10 billion. That is over $40 billion. When we consider that the total amount spent by the provinces on health care is around $56 billion, it is not an unsubstantial amount.

As I said before, working in harmony and co-operation with the provinces we are prepared to do more.

[Health, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, in last year's budget we devoted $11.5 billion in transfers to the provinces. In the last budget we devoted another $2.5 billion. That is a 25% increase over two years.

In addition to that, we said that we wanted the provinces to sit down with us. If we can work out a way to save the principles of medicare, then there will be more money on the table.

Canadians do not want provincial and federal governments bickering. They want quality health care for Canadians.

[Gasoline Pricing, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to discuss the matter of a lower gas tax, perhaps he would like to talk to Mr. Landry about it.

Second, we must also point to the outstanding report by the Liberal caucus, headed by the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. The report stated that New Brunswick lowered the price by two cents a litre in 1992 and that this cut was not—