Richard Marceau

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

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.”

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

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.”

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

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.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

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.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

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.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

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.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the following new clause:

“3.1 The persons and entities to which this Act applies shall not transfer to their clients, either directly or indirectly, any costs incurred by them in carrying out their obligations under this Act.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-22 which seeks to deter money laundering.

Most people agree with the objective of this bill. Indeed, who could support regulations and laws that are too lax in the area of money laundering?

That being said, we think some amendments are required not to change the bill's thrust but rather to improve the bill. It is in that spirit of co-operation and with a view to improving the legislation that we participated in all the various stages.

I want to mention that the time allocated to us between the end of the testimonies at the Standing Committee on Finance and the beginning of the review, particularly the clause by clause review, was much too short.

I ask that this House and all its committees ensure that, next time, more time be provided between the end of the testimonies and the beginning of the clause by clause review of a bill. Otherwise, what is the use of these testimonies, of all the efforts, money and time expended by witnesses to come and express their views, if we do not have time afterwards to digest this new information?

I want to explain what Motion No. 1 is all about. Bill C-22 imposes new obligations to various organizations and entities, such as banks, casinos and caisses populaires. We know that bank charges for most Quebec and Canadian consumers are already very high.

The bill imposes new obligations to these entities to help fight money laundering. The purpose of Motion No. 1 is to ensure that the costs resulting from the new obligations imposed by Bill C-22 on these various institutions are not passed on to clients.

In the fight against money laundering, this amendment obliges these institutions to be good corporate citizens. In the battle that all elements of society must wage against money laundering, we want to ensure that financial institutions become good corporate citizens and do not transfer to their clients the costs incurred in carrying out these new obligations. Finally, they must do their part so that everyone helps carry the load in the fight against money laundering; these institutions will have to absorb these costs, which are minor for them.

We know that the banks make profits in the billions. The idea is to prevent them from passing on the costs of these obligations to their clients. In my view, this would be a big improvement to the bill.

People say “Another obligation for the banks. They will pass on the bill to us. Our fees will go up again. This is crazy, we are already paying plenty”. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid all this and ensure that clients do not suffer because of these obligations.

[Treaties Act, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we had a most inopportune interruption in order to go and see someone who is not elected, but appointed, in a room full of people who are appointed because they are friends of the government. I cannot help but point out that it is sad to see—and I can see you rubbing your eyes with good reason—the work of this House being interrupted, without any consideration for the speeches that are made here.

Speeches in this House are made by representatives who have been elected and therefore have democratic legitimacy, unlike the person who signed and the people in the other place, where you went yourself, because these people are appointed, not elected.

Before this inopportune interruption, I was saying that the passing of the excellent, wonderful and important Bill C-214 introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry would bring greater transparency to the conclusion of treaties.

Greater transparency also means greater support by Canadians and Quebecers to the contents of the treaties. It is much more difficult to support something that we know nothing about and whose contents we are not aware of, than something of which we know the pros and cons and that we have debated.

Bill C-214 would also confer upon the House of Commons the power to approve what are termed important treaties. During the break, I was informed that my friends over there have decided not to support this bill. I am disappointed that they want to remain powerless.

Over there they could have said for once “Yes, we do want more powers, we do want more control”. Instead ,they have just decided, once again, to be the government yes-men that they are, saying “If the government says so, and does so, then it must be all right, it must be a good thing”.

They are shirking part of their responsibilities, responsibilities they should take seriously. The purpose of this bill is to allow the House as a whole, not one or another party, to have its say, as an instance of the federal government with democratic legitimacy. I suppose when one is used to being powerless, maybe one wants to continue that way. I feel this is a pity.

This bill would enable members to debate the content of treaties, but without limiting the government's leeway in negotiating or signing treaties. The government's leadership is not being challenged here. It is, of course, up to the executive to negotiate treaties. That is the way it is done throughout the world. The desire here is to ensure that the balance between the executive and the legislative is not completely tipped in favour of the executive.

There are also provisions in this bill aimed at involving the provinces in the negotiation of treaties coming under their jurisdictional responsibility, and requiring the Government of Canada to consult them.

I myself wrote an article in the period leading up to the WTO conference, a marvellous document if I do say so myself. Again, the WTO is increasingly important. In my opinion, the provinces must be as closely associated as possible with the process of negotiation, and of representation in the event of trade disputes too.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry on introducing this bill, which is intended to enable us all in the House of Commons to have a little more say in Canada's international involvement.

We cannot not pass this bill, not want to have it considered in committee and go on to third reading, where it may be rejected if that be the wish of the members, but we must have the chance to debate it. We must, we the democratically elected representatives of the people, seize the opportunity to have our say on an international matter that affects us increasingly, that will affect our fellow citizens increasingly in their daily lives.

I ask all members of this House to join with my colleague and vote in favour of this bill.

[Treaties Act, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this important bill introduced by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

This bill deserves our consideration. I hope it will make it past this stage and be referred to a committee, before finally being passed.

The first question concerning this bill may be: What is it all about?

Under Bill C-214:

—Canada shall not, without first consulting the provincial governments, negotiate or conclude a treaty: a ) in an area under the legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces; or b ) in a field affecting an area under the legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces.

It is important to note that nothing in this bill in any manner limits or affects the royal prerogative of Her Majesty in right of a province with respect to the negotiation and conclusion of treaties in an area under the legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces.

The bill provides that Canada may not ratify an important treaty unless the House of Commons has first approved the treaty by resolution pursuant to the rules of procedure of that House.

Under the bill, when Canada intends to ratify a treaty, the Minister of Foreign Affairs must table the treaty in the House of Commons, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum on the subject matter and effects of the treaty, not later than 21 sitting days before it is to be ratified.

Put simply, Bill C-214 seeks to promote the participation of all of us in the House, as democratically elected representatives of all Canadians, in the process to conclude treaties.

We may wax philosophical about globalization and its importance in our lives but, at some point, we must be practical and see what it means in real terms.

I think all the members of this House will agree that an increasing number of decisions affecting each of us in our daily lives will be taken at the international level. Whereas in the past, the government or the legislative process was in the hands of people elected in certain countries, including Canada, more and more decisions are being made internationally, not by parliamentarians but by governments.

The process is a bit topsy turvey, in other words, things on various subjects are negotiated internationally and then the governments simply pass them without the people, the elected representatives in the parliaments of the various countries, having a say. This could perhaps be compared to a sort of new piece of legislation created world-wide, where there is no real democracy. We can talk about a lack of democracy internationally and also federally or nationally.

At the end of November, beginning of December, I attended an important conference, which the members followed with considerable interest, the WTO conference in Seattle. One of the points raised in the conference by the opponents of the WTO process, was the lack of democratic control over the WTO. These opponents, demonstrators, had supporters in most of the countries, and they were saying “It is incredible that the governments are negotiating such things without the public being informed or consulted and without the people's elected representatives having their say”.

The people demonstrating against the WTO, whether in Seattle or here in Canada and Quebec, were right in that it is important, in a world where more and more things affecting us in our daily lives are decided internationally, for the elected representatives to have their say. Such participation by MPs could be strongly encouraged if treaties were systematically tabled in the House.

Tabling treaties would have the advantage of informing members of the existence of treaties signed by the government, and that is already something, and of bringing to their attention the legal standards in them that could have an effect on Canada.

Passage of the bill would mean greater transparency in the matter, and we must not forget that greater transparency—

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber. And being returned :