Gurmant Grewal

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on 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.

Canada is a party to international agreements asking us to report transactions that may involve money laundering. The official opposition believes that the vast majority of law-abiding Canadians want legislation that will fight crime and that will prevent crime.

The weak Liberal government introduced this bill as Bill C-81 on May 31, 1999, and let it die on the order paper. Now we are only at second reading of the bill and still it will have to be sent to the committee for much study and amendment.

I listened very carefully to the comments of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. I am convinced that the government did not evaluate, did not look into the pros and cons of the bill in depth. I would like to give an overview whereby we will look into the gravity of the situation first and then look into the problems and concerns. I would also like to provide some suggestions and amendments.

Organized criminals, particularly in the drug trade, generate and launder billions of dollars annually. They have to do that to continue their illegal operations. They move from jurisdictions with strong controls to jurisdictions with weak or no controls. This criminal activity undermines Canada's financial and social systems and increases the power and influence of illegal businesses.

Experts estimate that from $300 billion to $500 billion of criminally driven funds enter the international market annually. In Canada alone the ballpark estimate is around $20 billion.

The Financial Action Task Force estimates that about 70% of the money laundered through Canada is derived from drug trafficking.

There are many ways to launder money, including through financial institutions, foreign exchange dealers, significant cash purchases, brokerage houses, foreign tax havens, real estate, the operation of shell companies, travel agencies, insurance agencies or companies, and dealing in gold and other precious metals. Even some professionals such as lawyers and accountants help in money laundering. Criminals launder money through gambling and cross-border transfers. It is a wide open area.

Some other methods are more sophisticated, for example smurfing, human mules, over-invoicing for import-export purposes. I will not mention the details for security reasons.

Canadian banks are reportedly favoured for the transfer of funds because of their wide international presence, stability, efficiency, strong tradition of banker-client confidentiality and facilities of transfer such as wire transfers, currency exchange, denomination exchange, savings deposit boxes, and please do not laugh, even government savings bonds.

The foreign currency exchange houses being less regulated than the chartered banks provide the second most common vehicle for money laundering, at least in Canada. There is a potential for concealing the identity of the launderers because the negotiable instruments or the wire transfers are deposited in the banks and the client is perceived as the currency exchange house, not those people who are laundering the money. The perception is created that the financial negotiable instrument comes from the currency exchange house and is then deposited in the bank and the laundering of the money continues.

Other illicit funds are also laundered through the purchase of stocks and bonds in the securities market through a shell company located in a tax haven somewhere where the laws protect the anonymity of the owners. Therefore money is laundered through the stock exchange.

Investing in a private company also is a way of laundering. The private company will go public and then the earnings from the sale of shares create an illusion that the profits generated are legitimate.

These side issues of money laundering or its byproducts have serious consequences. Street gangs channel criminal profits to fund terrorism or military operations abroad. Money laundering feeds armed conflicts and illegal activities that threaten everything from our families to our society to our national and international security and economy and perhaps even world peace.

A staggering variety of activities such as extortion, home invasion, murder, theft, drugs and arms trafficking, counterfeit currency and passports, migrant smuggling, prostitution, mafia, casino and lottery frauds are additional costs to society at the expense of the taxpayer and at the expense of our future. These activities make our streets unsafe. It is not only money laundering which affects our economy and undermines society, but other criminal activities piggyback on it and affect our children, our future and undermine our security.

These activities are escalating. It will likely become more difficult for police to deal with them if the weak Liberal government does not wake up. The Liberals can have a deep sleep if they want to, if they are tired and cannot remain awake. Someone else can sit in the driver's seat. We now have a licence to do that and we could do that for them.

The House will remember that in 1997 one of the six key platforms of the former Reform Party was to make our streets safer. A Canadian Alliance government would do that.

Canadians are fed up and have had enough. We do not want Canada to be a haven for money laundering. I urge the government to look at this bill very diligently and look through lens of the importance of the issue and not through the lens of politics, selfishness or arrogance as it usually does.

The broad purpose of Bill C-22 is to remedy shortcomings in Canada's anti-money laundering legislation. It was identified by the G-7 Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering in its 1997-98 report.

The financial task force recommended that reporting requirements in Canada be made mandatory rather than voluntary as is currently the case. Why has the reporting been voluntary in the first place? That means every honest person was supposed to report whereas the criminals escaped reporting. This does not make sense. The other recommendation made by the task force was that a financial intelligence unit be established to deal with the collection, management, analysis and dissemination of suspicious transaction reports and other relevant intelligence data.

Bill C-22 proposes to bolster Canada's anti-laundering efforts by making it mandatory for financial agencies to report information relating to certain types of transactions. The information is to be sent to a central data gathering and analysis body called the financial transactions and reports analysis centre of Canada. This analysis centre would authorize the release of information to domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies.

Bill C-22 will also establish in association with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency a system of reporting large cross-border transactions.

The Liberal government not only lacks vision but it is also very weak. It does not have the political will nor is it capable of fixing the ailing departments. It thinks that the status quo is the only option.

Even when international organizations tell it to fix something serious it does it half-heartedly. It has a mentality and culture of only doing a patchwork job. The patchwork does not work, particularly when dealing with organized crime. The criminals are light years ahead of our government. We need to overhaul the whole system. Corruption and abuse in the system is enormous.

Canadians suffer as a consequence of abuse and fraud in many areas. These include the GST refund, welfare, employment insurance, social insurance numbers, insurance, workers compensation board, immigration, and so on.

Criminals are buying mansions, boats and luxury cars with the proceeds from organized crime. They have hefty bank accounts. What is the reason? The loopholes in the system and the law are not plugged. There are so many loopholes and the criminals are exploiting them. Tax evasion and the underground economy are putting pressure on small businesses and legitimate taxpayers who cannot bear the huge Canadian tax burden.

The tax burden is responsible for a poor quality of life, the brain drain and so many other things. Due to the illegal activities of some individuals, the legitimate taxpayers suffer. The whole nation suffers.

There are criminals who do not pay taxes but they pay bribes or political donations, and they continue to enjoy the government's most favoured status. Many organizations enjoy charitable tax free status only to rake in money to finance organized crime or even wars in other countries.

A Canadian multinational trading company, which I will not name, whose stock was valued at about $600 million, was found to have very close ties to the eastern European mafia. It was laundering the money through the stock exchange and sending the money to its counterparts in other countries.

Canada is a candy store for these criminals. It is a shame that the government cannot come up with legislation that would be effective and would do the job.

The blurred vision of the Liberal government has caused the dismantling of the Vancouver port police. This makes the port a gateway for the importation of drugs and narcotics. It opens up the way for the criminals and makes their jobs easier rather than tougher. It is a shame the Liberal government gives international organized criminals VIP treatment while those same criminals according to the Immigration Act are supposed to be inadmissible into Canada.

The human smugglers and criminals who live on organized crime should be given the toughest penalties. That is what Canadians are telling us. That is the only way to discourage them. Otherwise unfortunately, they have the motivation to come to Canada and commit crimes because they consider Canada to be a crime haven.

How about stopping the federal government when it launders the money?

It appears that CIDA contracts and EDC loans have been given to businesses which donated huge sums of money to the Liberal campaign before the elections. We all know those figures. When we ask a question, the government does not reply.

I am sure that everyone in Canada knows about the billion dollar boondoggle. Do we need a bill to fix all that is wrong with the government? No, I do not think so. Rather, we need to replace the federal Liberal government, which we can and which we are prepared to do with the Canadian Alliance.

Let us look at some other aspect of the bill. When Bill C-22 comes into force, it will replace the existing Proceeds of Crime Act. However, the existing proceeds of crime regulations would remain in effect until the mandate regulations are promulgated.

There are four key principles of the bill.

The first would provide tools for law enforcement agencies, giving them the information to identify charges to be laid.

The second would strike a balance between privacy rights and law enforcement needs. We need to place strict controls on the collection, use and disclosure of personal financial information.

The third would minimize compliance costs for financial institutions and other stakeholders. We have to minimize compliance costs. We need to establish a workable regime with the full co-operation of all stakeholders, without unnecessary red tape.

The fourth would provide for contributions toward international efforts to combat money laundering.

We need to see the government's definition for these efforts. These definitions are not given in this bill. We do not know what they mean. They are too vague. I will come to that later.

The principles are ones that any law abiding citizen would support, but as always, we know we cannot trust the government because it does not keep its promises.

Let me dwell on the concern we in the official opposition have about the cautions we should take. One of the problems with Bill C-22, other than what I have mentioned, is that while the policy objective is laudable and Canada should not be a haven for laundering the proceeds of crime, the bill raises many concerns. The bill is too vague in many areas.

The official opposition is concerned that the bill is too vague concerning who is affected by the act. The Liberals have to show us clarity in this bill.

There is a lack of precision in this bill. There are no definitions of many terms, for example, the definition of “suspicious transaction”. What is a suspicious transaction? There is no definition.

The United States of America opposed this legislation because it presented problems of probable invasions of privacy. We in Canada are also concerned that the privacy of Canadian citizens could be unreasonably invaded inadvertently through overly restrictive regulations defining transactions that must be reported. There should be sufficient protection and freedom of law abiding citizens should be preserved.

Another issue is that customs officers are being given broad powers to search anyone they want when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has hidden currency or monetary instruments which are of greater value than the amount prescribed or declared.

Also, we are concerned that the powers to search should have safeguards to ensure that customs officers do not hassle persons lawfully crossing the border. They should not be hassled. It may grant customs officers the power to strip travellers of undeclared cash. The financial transactions and reports analysis centre of Canada could end up with a licence to harass innocent and legitimate people.

If passed, Bill C-22 would give bureaucrats fresh authority to trap the innocent, infringe on privacy, gather information on citizens and put routine money transactions under suspicion.

There are broad delegations of authority to the cabinet, including making regulations to define what transactions must be reported and who must report them. The government has overall authority to make those regulations.

Also, it will conscript lawyers, banks, accountants and others into a national subculture of informants and snitches. Routine legitimate business transactions could be disrupted as a result of the bill. The bill will restructure the relationship of trust between lawyers and clients.

There has to be a reasonable balance between entrapment of innocent citizens and effective tools of law to help our law enforcement agencies to do their jobs effectively and efficiently.

Let us talk about securing a conviction of money laundering. Securing a conviction of money laundering requires the crown to prove four elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be proven that the accused dealt with the laundered property with intent to convert or conceal it. The property must have been derived from the commission of a predicated offence. The accused must have had knowledge of this fact.

The enactment could now allow the police to arrange sting operations even though the above may not be proven by the crown. It could also help the police to get someone convicted of a companion crime, the crime which is attached to the money laundering crime, even if the laundering cannot be proved. That is dangerous. The legislation should be driven by need and not by police hype, political or international pressure. It should be needs based.

The Department of Finance issued a consultation paper on January 17. The paper promises that after Bill C-22 becomes law, proposed regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette for 90 days to allow further public input. This addresses some of the concerns about the broad discretion. But the proposed regulations include cheque cashers, money order vendors, crown owned or controlled deposit-taking institutions, which are banks, credit unions, trust companies and so on, and even Canada Post money order businesses.

Generally, transactions involving $10,000 would have to be reported, as would any transaction involving five or more $1,000 bills. Cheque cashers, money vendors and money transmitters would be required to retain a record of every transaction of $1,000 or more.

Everything is hidden in these regulations. Nothing has been clearly defined in the bill.

Let us talk about regulations. As the House knows, I am co-chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, so I can talk about regulations. I can say that this government governs by regulations only. The House will recognize that 10% to 15% of the laws are made in this Chamber and 80% to 90% of the laws are brought in through the back door. Only 20% come through the front door and 90% are hidden in the regulations. The regulations will hold the real story which no one will know because they will be buried under tonnes of paperwork.

My committee is responsible for examining and scrutinizing regulations that accompany a bill which is passed by both houses, this House and the other house, the Senate. This weak Liberal government that lacks vision, like the Tories before it, crippled our committee's work by not giving it the resources it needs to scrutinize hundreds and thousands of regulations. The bill will have so many regulations attached that only the courts will be able to tell us about the mayhem and the damage done to our economy by this bill's regulations. Every small business will sue the government.

In the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, there are about 800 regulations in the pipeline. Those 800 regulations are on questionable files that have been backlogged for years and years.

The House will be surprised to know that some of the regulations have been operating for as long as 25 years against the wishes of the committee which is supposed to be scrutinizing those regulations. For 25 years those regulations have clogged the pipeline and thus the work of the committee. Successive ministers have kept the stonewalling going. The regulations that the committee objects to are kept in place and are fully operable. That is shameful.

I have criticized this bill enough. Let me now discuss some of the suggestions for the government if it is listening. There are only three members here in the House who are listening.

I will call them proposed amendments. Broad delegation to cabinet to make regulations to define what transactions must be reported or who must report should be restricted. There should be precision in the legislation. The term, for example, “suspicious transaction” should be clearly defined, otherwise properties will be seized, like in the case of the flawed gun control legislation under Bill C-68. Broad powers of customs officers to search anyone or open mail should be limited and carefully crafted so that legitimate citizens do not suffer. Privacy and freedom of citizens should be respected. There should be safeguards in place to curtail hassling of persons by customs officers while lawfully crossing the border.

Witnesses before the committees must be representative of a cross-section. Regional and provincial police authorities, businessmen, federal and provincial government officials, all should be invited so that the committee can hear their concerns and ensure that the bill is crafted very carefully.

Law enforcement agencies should be prepared and equipped to deal with sophisticated activities of organized crime. The government does not put its money where its mouth is. We need to invest in the facilities and the tools given to law enforcement agencies so that they can effectively control crime in this country.

Hard positions, intransigence and thoughtlessness have no place in our deliberations when talking about this bill.

We must arrive at the best possible solution to this complex problem. Therefore, all parties must co-operate in the committee work. The committee work should not be like other committee work, which is a sham and so partisan that everyone looks through the lens of politics rather than the lens of issues. Sometimes the actual issue is lost.

I remember once, when I was on the immigration and citizenship committee, we introduced a motion to study fraud and criminal activities under the Immigration Act for illegitimate immigrants coming to this country, but the Liberal members refused the motion. Even when we want to discuss the future business of the committee, the discussion is based on partisan lines. In committees, when we need a minister to appear to answer some of the opposition members' questions, the motions are often declined.

I urge government members and all members of the House to work seriously at the committee on this serious legislation and come up with a constructive solution that will be the best solution to deal with this issue.

Another suggestion I have is to keep regulations to a minimum because businesses and financial institutions have to deal with so many regulations that they can cause serious problems.

In conclusion, we want to support the bill in principle but the contents and details need to be worked out at committee. We agree with the spirit of the bill but it should be workable. It should offer effective tools to our law enforcement agencies.

The Liberals should take fair warning that we want to see specifics during the committee hearings. The official opposition wants to know exactly what is being done with the bill and what the specifics are in the bill. As it is written, it is very vague. The terms are unclear and will not help to contain the serious money laundering situation. They will also not help the undermining of our economy. The black market, which is another byproduct of money laundering, affects our economy very seriously and puts extra onus on law-abiding citizens who pay taxes.

If we do not define the bill very clearly, we will have the same old story, the catch-22. If we look at the courts, lawsuits will follow, businesses will be hurt and small businesses, which create jobs in the country, will suffer. Jobs are not created by contributions and grants. Jobs are created by small businesses and we should support them by making sure we have clear legislation that will work.

The Liberals have not done that so far with this bill and they should have done that. Hopefully they will listen to the witnesses who came before the committee and accept the amendments that I just put forward which Canadians want us to make in the bill.

In a nutshell, I ask the government and all members of the House to support the intent of the bill. However, we need to look at the substance of the bill, which is not clear at the moment. I am sure at committee, with the hard work and diligence of all party members, we will be able to produce effective legislation.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elk Island for asking this wonderful question. It is shameful that the weak Liberal government is opposing the motion. I doubt that it will support the motion during the vote, but it still has some time to think about it.

To answer the question as to why the motion was put, it was because government members are hiding their incompetence. They are hiding their mismanagement. They are hiding their wastage and patronage and all those things. The government is hiding its arrogance. The government is becoming more and more arrogant day by day. It has more lame excuses and more delays in providing information. It denies the right to information. We see gross abuse of power by the government, and it will continue.

We are witnessing a continuous lack of willpower to fix what is wrong with the government. It lacks the political will to fix what is wrong with the system.

We are witnessing a lack of openness and transparency on the part of the government. We are witnessing day and night from the government a lack of respect for democracy. It has limited debate by moving time allocation on all debates in the House. Even on the elections legislation that was before the House, the government tried to deny amendments that would have made the system more transparent, open and democratic. It is so undemocratic that it is almost anti-democratic.

We have also seen that the government is not keeping its promises. It forgot what Canadians called on it to do. It forgot its promises to Canadians about what it would do. Who does not remember the GST promise it made? Who does not remember the national day care program it promised to bring forward? Who does not remember that it said it would bring forward whistle-blower legislation? So far we have not seen anything from the government which would enhance democracy in this place.

We are witnessing a cover-up mentality. Despite the mistakes by government ministers, the Prime Minister will stand to defend his record and try to support his ministers who have made serious mistakes such as the billion dollar boondoggle and the solicitor general's actions in the House during the APEC incident.

The government has a cover-up mentality. The basic reason government members are speaking against the motion is to hide their weaknesses and arrogance. We expect the government to come forward with openness, with true democratic principles being applied in the House. Unless we see them, I am sure that what I have said is why they are opposing the motion.

When the Canadian Alliance forms the government there will be transparency, openness and democracy in this place. Canadians will heave a sigh of relief when the Canadian Alliance forms the next government in the House.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to support my colleagues in the official opposition on our supply day motion which reads as follows:

That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees, that audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days after the adoption of this motion, and that all audit reports requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled forthwith.

We are recommending these actions because we are finding that the government is being less than forthcoming with respect to reporting and providing information to Canadians on how our tax dollars are spent.

The motion we are debating today simply asks this weak Liberal government to reaffirm its own regulations. The wording of the motion is the same as the regulations of the treasury board and the privy council office. That means if anyone is opposing the motion, he or she is opposing the government's own regulations.

A very serious and disturbing point has recently come to light in terms of how the government is governing our nation. All Canadians respect the fact that certain information is not made public in order to protect our national security. That is okay. Other information may be kept secret in order to ensure fairness in competition in certain cases, but for the most part we expect our federal government to come up with the facts and figures on the nation's finances in detail and without hesitation.

We only expect to be stonewalled if there is something to hide. We are proud of and trust our public service employees. If there is something to hide it is the political managers that want to hide something. Who are those managers? It is the Liberals who are hiding something. They have found out that it is too difficult to hide a $1 billion boondoggle.

The official opposition has received no reply to formal requests for audit reports from the following government departments and agencies. I will list some of them. The official opposition put forward many ATI requests to the Department of Human Resources Development, and HRDC is late in replying. It does not want to reply. Five of these requests are for departmental audits that should be public information according to treasury board guidelines and are now 45 days overdue.

Canada Customs and Revenue requested a 30 day extension on March 9. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation requested an undefined extension due to third party consultations. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration requested a 90 day extension on March 9. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans provided some audits and asked for a 30 day extension for others. Similarly the National Capital Commission, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and so on are on the list.

I want to speak about the treasury board guidelines. Treasury board policies were announced in a May 26, 1994, letter of decision which stated in part:

To simplify the process for acquiring copies of reports, and to deliver on the government's commitment for more openness, the policy requires that departments make the final version of review reports, including the internal audits and evaluation reports, accessible to the public, without requiring a formal access request—

The treasury board is now breaking its own policy by withholding such information even when a formal request is filed. HRDC had a good record of responding to ATI requests on time until the billion dollar boondoggle came along. As a result of the HRDC experience, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office now insist on being told what audits have been requested, whether they contain bad news, and what the official political media line will be before the audits are released.

In testimony before the HRD committee last week the information commissioner attributed the backlog of information requests in the department largely to new treasury board and privy council rules. Let me give some quotes from the information commissioner to the HRD committee on March 28 of this year. The information commissioner said:

The right to access is one of the cornerstones of our democratic process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible government.

He further stated:

With respect to the audit reports, there has been a slowdown, but the slowdown is government-wide, and the reason for that is that as a result of the HRDC experience...all audits requested now go through an additional process by Treasury Board and the Privy Council. What has happened is that the Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office want to know what audits have been requested, whether they contain bad news, and what the official media line will be...The problem, however, arises when the communication concerns of the Government are allowed to take precedence over the public's right to timely access to information.

The information commission said as well that it was clear from what had been said by the access to information commissioners in the various departments that they could not meet the 30 day stipulation because of the new process that had been put in place by the Liberals. He also said that information delayed was information denied.

The government should have no problem supporting a motion that would entrench its own policies with regard to the release of audit reports to the public on an order of the House. That way the House would have some recourse if the government failed to live up to its recent self-stated commitment to openness.

We have clearly witnessed in the government time and again a lack of openness and a lack of transparency. We have seen in the government time and again a lack of respect for democracy. It has limited debate many times. It has used time allocation many times. It has beaten the record of Brian Mulroney.

Similarly we have seen changes to the Canada Elections Act before the House which favour the governing party, in this case the Liberal Party. It is so undemocratic that it is almost anti-democratic.

The government denies information. It hides facts. It exaggerates its own achievements. It does not answer questions in question period, as we will see in five minutes. It misrepresents the opposition parties time and again in the House. It has not kept its promises to the Canadian public.

We know about the GST and national day care programs. The government time and again has exhibited a cover-up mentality. Despite its own mistakes it continues to ignore, ridicule the opposition and defend itself and its ministers, but it will not apologize or confess that it was wrong. It will not correct mistakes and rectify the problems.

We are witnessing the lack of political will by the government to fix the system. We are witnessing arrogance by the government. It has lame excuses, delays and denials. It abuses its power time and again in the House. It promised to introduce visibility legislation and it has not done that. I will introduce a private member's bill.

We see the role of committees. All parties tend to be partisan. The committees can be more productive and can analyze the audits we are talking about. They can analyze other issues and make recommendations to the government.

The public's only access to audits occurs when they are leaked to the media. I remember that CIDA released a very important audit just before the Christmas holidays. This attitude is continuing. All members in the House should support the motion.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Exactly. The Minister of Justice contradicts statements by other cabinet ministers. One example was the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and responsible for the Status of Women when speaking about who qualifies for benefits under Bill C-23.

Let me talk for a moment about the definition of conjugal relationships. Cabinet ministers appearing as witnesses before the committee that just finished with the bill disagreed on the definition of conjugal relationships. That definition is key to the operation of the bill. One minister says that sexual activity is involved in a conjugal relationship. Another minister says no, it has nothing to do with sex. It shows that this weak, arrogant Liberal government does not know what it is doing.

There are other problems. The justice department's testimony before the committee talked about the ineffectiveness of the justice minister's marriage amendment to the bill. Independent legal opinion confirms the ineffectiveness of the justice minister's marriage amendment. The same opinion supports the very substantive approach of the official opposition.

Finally there is the poor legislative approach inherent in Bill C-23. The Liberals refuse to be clear on who qualifies. How do people know if they qualify? Will the government appoint sex inspectors in everyone's homes?

The Liberals are driving people into court to determine if they qualify for benefits. Many people will be launching lawsuits as soon as the legislation is passed. This weak, arrogant Liberal government which lacks vision is continually forcing important decisions to be made by our courts. The elected representatives of the people should be making those decisions, and not the judiciary.

There are two other problems. Another aspect of the bill the Liberals would like us to ignore is that there is no requirement for information sharing between departments. People could claim a conjugal relationship exists in order to qualify for benefits but claim to be just roommates when it comes to paying obligations. What are the ramifications of the bill as it applies to ongoing obligations after one moves from one relationship to a new relationship with a new partner? The bill says nothing about that.

Let us talk about cost for a moment. Canadians have no information about how much it will cost taxpayers. The Liberals will tell us “Don't worry, be happy. It won't cost much”. Who believes them? They said that they would get rid of the GST. They also said that our military cannot have Cadillac helicopters because they cost too much, and now it has no helicopters.

What about the experts who say that as soon as the legislation is passed every person who lives with another person, regardless of the true relationship, will be applying for benefits? What about the flood of benefits taxpayers will have to pay for if the floodgates are opened? The pundits are correct when they say that it will cost millions and even billions of taxpayer dollars because the bill is so weak, vague and undefined.

This weak Liberal government has no vision, not even a blurred vision. Its lack of vision actually makes its policies anti-family There is nothing that the weak and ineffective Liberal backbenchers, who are mostly from Ontario, can do about it.

Let us look at the anti-family policies of the government. Let us talk about taxes and families. The current taxation system supported and maintained by the Liberals discriminates against families with a stay at home parent. Those families pay 100% more taxes than families where both parents work.

The government has been saying since 1993 in its red book, which has proven to be a red light for meeting its promises, that it would provide a day care program. The Canadian Alliance proposes a 17% tax that would apply to all families equally. We have a pro-family policy.

Let us talk about child pornography. The B.C. court and courts in other provinces if I am correct have struck down our laws against child pornography. The Liberals have done nothing about this except to leave the matter to the courts to deal with. A year and a half has gone by and we have not seen a single bit of improvement or any initiative from the government.

We asked the government to use the constitution's notwithstanding clause to protect our children and allow the anti-pornography laws to remain operable until our elected officials in the House could change the old laws. We have a pro-family policy but the anti-family Liberals will not do that.

The people of Surrey Central are proud to have me co-sponsor and support 19 of the many amendments the official opposition has submitted on the bill. We have offered the government many opportunities to do the right thing. All of my amendments use the same words and state very clearly: “Spouse means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage”. That is the exact text of all 19 of my amendments. My colleagues and I are trying to amend all 68 statutes to strengthen the definition of marriage.

In the time I have remaining I will continue to read excerpts from e-mails and letters that I have received from my constituents. As I said before, I have received a number of letters and e-mails. This one is another letter of support for family values. She says, “My husband and I are completely in agreement with your view that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family and the basis of our nation. I hope you continue to use your influence to encourage MPs from the other parties to help vote down this bill”. I received many, many more letters.

In conclusion, all these quotes urge the government to adopt our amendments. Remember that strong families make strong communities and stronger communities make a stronger nation.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to to debate government Bill C-23. For the benefit of those who are watching the debate and for the benefit of the Liberals, in this bill the government is giving out marriage-like benefits while failing to effectively define marriage. A vast majority of Canadians are opposed to it.

The official opposition is the only party in the House opposed to the bill and we have the support of the public right across this great nation. The constituents of Surrey Central are calling me every day opposing the bill. I have not received more calls, letters or e-mail messages than I have received on this particular important issue. My constituents are urging the Canadian Alliance to remain firm as a pro-family party. They are characterizing the Liberals as an anti-family party.

What is it that my constituents are opposing? The vast majority supports families. We support marriage as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other relationships. I will talk about the definition of marriage for a moment. The Liberals say they have included the definition of marriage in the justice minister's so-called marriage amendment. However that amendment is not included in the 68 federal statutes affected by the bill. If this definition of marriage is good enough to put in the preamble of Bill C-23, why is it not good enough for all the statutes it changes?

[Committees Of The House, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 123(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations concerning subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989.

The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report as soon as possible.

[Export Development Corporation, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the EDC loaned $50 million to Suharto's daughter in Indonesia for a pulp mill which is said to burn clear cut rain forest wood. The EDC loaned $50 million to a gold mine in Kyrgystan, the site of a poisonous cyanide spill. The EDC loaned China $130 million for a hydro project just a few weeks after the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

Why are Canadian taxpayers bankrolling environmental disasters and ruining the world's environment against Canada's own policies and rules?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the question from my hon. colleague.

I agree with him that our health care system, which I call sickness care system, is in a continuous declining state. There are reasons, and of course the immigration policy could be one of them, but there are other policies of this government as well. The government is responsible for the deteriorating situation of our health care system because it cut $35 billion from the health care system, even though it tried to put some money back.

It is the cause for the deteriorating health care system. I am sure this weak, arrogant Liberal government owes an apology to Canadians. Not only is it the government's moral responsibility to fix it but it owes an apology to Canadians.

When we look at the billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC and then see in the new budget that more money has gone, $1.5 billion, to HRDC rather than to health care, it reminds me that this government is in the habit of not putting the money where its mouth is, but putting the money where its back pocket is.

Coming back to immigration, yes, the government can do a lot. The government can bring the respect of Canadian citizenship to its highest level by being fair, by respecting the principles of equality and by respecting the new immigrants, those who come to this country, to help them get into the system, to make them realize that this is their home, this is the future of their children.

The doctors, engineers and professionals are leaving this country because of high taxes, the boondoggles, the misuse of taxpayers' money, the killing of taxpayers through high taxes and the immigration policies which are not fair. All these factors are compounding the situation.

When they are debating about who their leader is or that their leader should go, I think this is not only the time for the Leader of the Liberal Party to go, it is time for the Liberals to go.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to encourage the government to adopt amendments to Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. The legislation proposes to make several changes to the current act, with the intention of providing more clearly defined guidelines, upgrading sections and replacing current procedures with a new administrative structure.

There are some more clearly defined parts in the bill. I like to give credit where credit is due, even if it is a little. The bill reached report stage and third reading before the end of the first session but it has yet to be passed. There are only four changes to the bill, despite committee hearings and a debate in the House.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration mentioned in her speech on February 3 that during public consultations on legislative review the main focus of the people with whom she met was immigration. Why has the minister chosen to do nothing on the present inefficient immigration legislation? Instead she has chosen to fiddle with the citizenship act, which reminds us of the typical Liberal way of doing things, merely tinkering with the law.

She also mentioned in her speech on Bill C-63, the act respecting Canadian citizenship, that the primary mission in her department was to contribute to building a stronger Canada. I am wondering if by bungling a billion dollars in HRDC the government makes Canada stronger or weaker.

The arrogant Liberal government uses departments for slush funds to give away grants and contributions like CIDA, CIDA Inc., western economic diversification, ACOA, Indian and northern affairs, heritage and many others. I will not go into that but I wanted to make the point. With its political interference, poor accountability and mismanagement, this weak Liberal government is weakening Canada and certainly not making it stronger.

By increasing taxes to death, does the government make or break families? By being given broad based tax relief families can be strengthened. Strong families make strong communities and strong communities make a strong nation. Having said that, I would like to go into the nitty-gritty of the bill.

The four changes made in this legislation by the Liberals between the first and second sessions of this parliament are as follows. The first is physical presence. According to clause 6, the time requirement for physical presence in Canada as pertaining to applications for citizenship has been changed from three years out of five to three years out of six. This is a positive change. It will allow people who travel on business a greater opportunity and incentive to make Canada their home, and we appreciate that.

The second is presence in terms of spousal considerations in subclause 19(2). This clause has been removed from Bill C-16. It would have allowed spouses of those employed by the federal or provincial governments outside Canada, for example the military, diplomats, et cetera, to collect time toward citizenship. In effect, when posted outside Canada they would be considered to be residing in Canada if living with a spouse while he or she, as the case may be, was working outside our country, maybe for the government in this case.

This is a negative change because the clause presented an equality problem. The spouses of those employed by private businesses were not given the same opportunity. This is valid only for government employees. What about those who are employed by companies that have their head offices in Canada but have to spend time outside the country?

The third is the definition of spouse. The clause allowing the minister to determine the definition of a spouse has been removed from Bill C-16. This is another positive change.

The fourth is a response to the Mennonites in clause 57. In response to lobbying by the Mennonites clause 57 has been added to Bill C-16. This clause will allow three generations of descendants of a Canadian citizen who have never lived in Canada to apply for citizenship for a period of three years from the time the legislation is passed. Is this not amazing? It goes to show that no one is treated equally by the government.

Those four items are the limit of the changes the Liberals have made to the bill. The government is weak. The minister received the recommendations of the government dominated Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in 1994. The government has taken over five years to prepare this legislation which still does not address the committee's key recommendations. The Liberals do not listen to anyone. They do as they please and still there are many problems with the bill. Let me go over some of them.

Citizenship at birth is in subclauses 4(1) to 4(4). Bill C-16 states in effect that all children born in Canada, except of course the children of foreign diplomats, will continue to automatically acquire Canadian citizenship regardless of the immigration or citizenship status in Canada of their parents. This is contrary to what the standing committee heard. This is contrary to what the departmental officials stated and this is contrary to the position of the official opposition and many other Canadians who support it.

The official opposition supports an immigration and citizenship policy that requires children born in Canada to take the citizenship of their parents. Only children born in Canada to landed immigrants would assume Canadian citizenship.

Another problem is the conditions for granting citizenship. First, subclause 6(1)(b) deals with presence in Canada. Bill C-16 defines the term permanent resident more concisely than does the current act. The existing legislation may be loosely interpreted. Some individuals have been found to be residing in Canada because they had a bank account here or they owned property in Canada without having actually resided on Canadian soil.

How could someone be a resident when not residing in Canada? Bill C-16 calls for 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada in the six years preceding application for citizenship. Bill C-16 does not provide any mechanism for determining when applicants arrive in Canada or when they leave. That is the root cause of the problem when we do not know when and how someone left the country or through what channels someone came to Canada.

The next one is penalties for bureaucratic delays in subclause 6(1)(b). The current act allows individuals whose claim for refugee status is approved to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for their citizenship application requirement. Bill C-16 removes this provision so that applicants will now be penalized for the system's bureaucratic delays even when the delays are no fault of the applicant.

Another one is redefining the family in clause 43. Bill C-16 grants the minister the power for what constitutes a relationship between parent and child. That is wrong. The next one is the famous one, blatant patronage in clauses 31 and 32. Bill C-16 maintains the tradition of patronage appointments.

The Liberals are famous for patronage appointments. Probably they have broken all records in history. Here again they do that. All citizenship judges will have all their duties taken over by departmental officials except for ceremonial duties. There is room for appointing someone for doing some favour for the Liberal Party, the governing party in this case.

Another one is language requirements to gain citizenship in clause 6. This is a very important one. I have had many calls on this point in my office because my constituency of Surrey Central has more of an immigrant population than any other constituency in Canada. It is the largest constituency in Canada in terms of population.

Bill C-16 states that the applicant must have an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada. No provisions are included on how this is to be judged or by whom it will be judged. Being a good citizen has nothing to do with language skills or how many languages one can speak. Being a citizen means one obeys the laws and makes a positive contribution to society.

How about those who are unfortunate, who are mute, deaf or blind? How will they pass that test? I understand it is important that someone should be able to effectively communicate, but I have seen examples of people in this country who could not speak a word of English or French but are now fluent, excellent in business and have made tremendous contributions to Canadian society and to our communities.

Another one is the citizenship oath in clause 34 of the bill. There was little public input on the content of the new oath in Bill C-16. The minister prepared this oath on her own. She did not consult anyone in Canada on what the wording of the oath should be. She ignored listening to Canadians.

The minister's first legislation should have been aimed at fixing a failed immigration system rather than tinkering with the citizenship act at this time. More than five years after the Liberal controlled and dominated standing committee made its recommendation on citizenship, the minister retabled the legislation. It delivers little of what was recommended by the committee. She chose not to listen to Canadians. She chose to ignore the official opposition and other parties in the House.

With globalization and advancement in technology, transport and telecommunications, in an ideal world the boundaries of countries could disappear for the purpose of mobility of the people. There should be peace, prosperity and harmony but this wonderful dream has not yet been fulfilled. I believe it will be fulfilled sometime down the road.

The biggest curse the world has is our inability to see humanity in all of us. Among us are those who do not respect law and order, those who know only their rights and not their responsibilities. There are criminals and terrorists unfortunately.

We have to take appropriate measures to protect our citizens and secure their safety and future. We have to make Canada a better place. It should not be a sieve where terrorists and criminals pass through and jeopardize the safety and security of our citizens and the future of this great country. Therefore our legislation should be carefully crafted and drafted.

The new changes to the Immigration Act the government will propose have been leaked to the official opposition immigration critic. The Canadian public is already very concerned about how badly the Liberals are going to fail in giving us what we want which is to fix the flawed and broken immigration and refugee system in this case.

I am sure members and all Canadians are concerned about refugees coming here in boats but Ottawa is missing the boat on refugees. The proposed changes to the Immigration Act will not do anything to fix the many faults with Canada's refugee adjudication process. The new rules will erode public support for real refugees. Who will suffer? The genuine refugees.

Changes to the Immigration Act contemplated by the immigration minister will not streamline the refugee adjudication process. They will not do anything to fix that. They will not stop bogus claimants from clogging the system. The pipeline is clogged. Genuine refugees are already suffering. The cost of processing applicants should be reduced but it will go up because more people, bogus refugees, criminals and terrorists are involved. We have to do more work to scrutinize them. They will not discourage human smuggling. Erosion of public support for genuine refugees is the likely outcome of Bill C-16.

The United Nations convention on refugees states that countries should accept those who have “a valid founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”. The Minister of Citizen and Immigration proposes to expand the definition of refugees to include a new category five, “people in need of protection”. This extended definition could lead to more dubious refugee claims.

A 1998 government report called for an end to patronage appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. It urged Ottawa to appoint experienced bureaucrats to adjudicate refugee hearings despite the fact that immigration department officials could do a more effective job than inexperienced political appointees. Again the minister chose to ignore this recommendation.

Another level of appeal has been added that will clog the system even more. According to the act, unsuccessful claimants will not be removed from the country. Also no deterrent is in place for human smugglers. Between 1995 and 1998 only 14 smuggling charges were laid. The maximum fine was $4,000 and no one served a single day in jail. That is surprising.

This legislation is supposed to define the criteria for obtaining the world's most respected citizenship, Canadian citizenship. Our citizenship is the very foundation of the Canadian identity which unites us from coast to coast to coast.

To summarize, let me go over some of the points because they are interesting.

Another level of appeal has been added to the system and it will clog the system. The existing system along with its several rounds of appeal has already created a backlog of 30,000 refugee claimants. Rather than streamline the appeal process, this bill adds another level of appeal. There are already many layers. It is like an onion; we peel off one layer and there is another layer. We have to stop this onion effect. We have to be focused and have a clear-cut judicial process which should be keen on helping genuine refugees and not bogus refugees.

Recently the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that Canada's obligation to protect its citizens outweighs its obligation to keep suspected foreign terrorists from torture. Under the new legislation which we are debating, if there is a chance of mismanagement upon their return, unsuccessful refugee claimants will not be sent home. They will not be sent back to countries which are deemed unacceptable by the minister. Migrant smugglers are sure to exploit this loophole. We have to plug the loophole.

Under the current legislation, penalties for smuggling range from $5,000 to $100,000 as well as prison terms from five to ten years. The bill proposes to strengthen the penalty for smuggling 10 or more illegal immigrants to a maximum fine of $1 million or life imprisonment. What about when there are batches of nine illegal immigrants? Then the penalties are different and less.

In spite of protestations to the contrary, by drafting the bill before the all-party committee on illegal immigration has made its recommendations, and by planning to introduce the bill on March 30, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is sending a signal that it is a done deal. That is the Liberal style.

To safeguard genuine refugees and the public interest, the minister should scrap the bill. She should hear what the committee has to say and re-write this legislation.

I mentioned that Canadian citizenship is one of the most respected citizenships in the world. We are proud of this fact. We have to maintain respect for Canadian citizenship. Canadian citizenship is based on equality. One criteria for Canadian citizenship is understanding the equality of all Canadian citizens, but that is not the case with the government.

For example, I tabled some petitions from concerned Canadians, many of which were signed by my constituents but were also signed by people from all across Canada. I received many petitions on this issue. The petitioners, our respected senior citizens in this case, asked the weak Liberal government to treat all seniors equally in the allocation of old age security benefits.

I can understand that there is a difference between immigrants and citizens. To some extent we can probably understand the extent to which the difference exists. But for senior citizens the allocation of old age security benefits depends on the country of origin.

Once a person is a Canadian citizen what does where the person came from or his or her race and ethnicity matter? Why are citizens treated differently based on their country of origin and placed under arbitrary restrictions? These are the questions the petitioners asked of the government. Why does the government treat some citizens as second class citizens? The government through its programs has designated some citizens as hyphenated Canadians based on their race, ethnicity and country of origin.

We are debating the amendments to the citizenship act and it is not clear whether it is the government's intention to dilute Canadian citizenship or create different tiers of Canadians. A Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen. No Canadian citizen is superior or inferior to another Canadian citizen. This is what equality is all about. All Canadian citizens are Canadian citizens, period.

Should we not integrate new citizens rather than segregate them? The government sponsors the multiculturalism policy, the immigration policy and many other policies. It is bent on segregating Canadians rather than integrating them into Canadian society.

It is appalling that the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism says she is proud to call herself a Trinidad-Canadian. When will a Canadian federal minister be proud to call herself or himself a proud Canadian?

We are all proud of our religion, culture, race, ethnicity and our country of origin. When we have adopted and embraced Canada as our new home, we cannot get mail by writing part of the old address on the envelope. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian period, both in French and English and in any other language in the world. A Canadian is a Canadian.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to speak to the official opposition motion which states in part:

—the government should provide the necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system, by working in conjunction with other levels of government and the private sector, to plan, implement and fund such a system.

I congratulate the chief transportation critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, which is south of my constituency, on her thoughtfulness in tabling the motion on behalf of the official opposition and the excellent speech she delivered earlier in which she raised very important issues.

Other members have spoken in the House, particularly members of the official opposition who have brought forward many issues dealing with different aspects of transportation: fuel prices, air transportation, pollution, road maintenance, ferries and railroad transport.

My constituents care about transportation. I will tell the House about the makeup of my constituency. The constituency of Surrey Central is mostly an urban community. There are certain pockets, which are semi-urban so it is a mixture of urban and semi-urban communities. One of the remarkable features of my constituency is that it is the largest in Canada in terms of population.

The city of Surrey used to be one of the fastest growing cities in Canada before Alberta became more attractive because its Conservative government had lowered taxes. A few months ago about 1,200 people on average moved into Surrey every month. Lots of new development and construction took place to accommodate the influx of people. Due to serious parking problems in downtown Vancouver, many businesses have moved in and are moving into Surrey and other lower mainland communities.

All this has compounded the already existing traffic congestion on highways, freeways and other tributaries. It will get serious in the future if effective and constructive planning is not done in a timely fashion. If the federal government does not show leadership, we will see some serious problems not only in my constituency and the neighbouring riding but in many parts of Canada.

No. 10 highway and 176 Street in my constituency have high levels of traffic with trucks going to and from the Canada-U.S. border. Both these highways pass through many residential areas. Residents are seriously concerned about traffic congestion, safety and pollution.

The motion is asking the federal government to provide leadership in developing a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system by working in conjunction with the other levels of government, namely the municipal and provincial governments, and the private sector to plan, implement and fund such a system. It is very timely and is needed if we want to see a lot of development and progress in the country.

The federal government should not only be playing a leadership role but should also be part of the cost sharing program. Industrial development is important to create and sustain jobs in Canada. We know that small business creates jobs, not the government. Rather the government discourages jobs by increasing taxes. Small business is the backbone of our economy. To facilitate industrial development, the key to enhancing our economy, the government should keep pace with infrastructure and transportation system development in the country.

Road development and maintenance of the roads are important elements in urban planning. I indicate to my constituents and other people who are watching that I am focusing on the urban planning part of the transportation problem because my other colleagues have spoken to all other areas related to transportation. Some efforts have been made by the provincial and municipal governments to develop a ring road, for example, in Surrey but progress has been very slow. There is a need for us to effectively plan transportation in urban and semi-urban areas.

The poorly planned road system and poorly maintained roads create chaos, particularly during rush hour and bad weather. If we look at the bigger picture, this results in thousands and millions of man hours being lost during routine traffic jams, resulting in a loss or waste of national productivity. Traffic jams also adversely affect businesses and add to the costs of production and the delivery of goods and services.

Traffic jams also increase air pollution, affecting the health of Canadians. This may result in huge amounts of money being spent on health care related to pollution when the air is not purified, when air pollution or some other types of pollution occur as a result of traffic congestion.

What do we see being done by any level of government but particularly by the federal government? We see very little with respect to the magnitude of the problem or the forecast of the problems that may occur.

I was in Germany some time ago and I was surprised to see how effective the car pooling system had become in many European countries. In Germany car pooling is so effective people advertise in the newspaper that such and such a person is commuting within such and such an area. People share vehicles which reduces fuel consumption and air pollution and which results in a fewer number of vehicles being on the streets. It is very effective.

Car pooling in Canada, particularly on the lower mainland, is not effective at all. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is not working. Even park and ride is not effective. Crime control is a serious problem with park and ride. Break-in and theft of vehicles happen very frequently.

Also with respect to car pooling, the minimum number of passengers required for a vehicle to be able to use the car pool lanes on the freeways is six. This is very high. On many freeways it does not encourage commuters to use car pools. It should be reduced. In the U.S. two passengers are required in a vehicle for it to be able to use the car pool lanes. I do not see anything being done in Canada in that regard. If the government does not address these problems they become more serious.

Nigeria did not plan like we plan in Canada. Its government did not show any leadership in this area, at least not enough leadership. At one time when I used to live in West Africa its government did not plan. Traffic congestion on the roads became very serious. That government did not know what to do so it had to recall some vehicles from the streets. To do that there was a regulation that on certain days only vehicles with even numbered licence plates were allowed on the streets. On other days vehicles with odd numbered licence plates were allowed to move on the streets. The situation was serious.

If we in Canada do not plan properly there will be some of the disadvantages I mentioned. People feel frustrated and road rage occurs because of traffic congestion and other problems. To avoid all these things we need leadership from the government. Therefore the motion is very important and timely.

I will add for the lonely Liberal member who is listening to this debate that when he reports to his caucus he should urge his Liberal colleagues to do something to address this situation, and not bungle it like they did with the airline fiasco which we saw in the past. The other aspects of transportation are equally important. I am sure they will concede to the motion, take the necessary action and show some leadership.