Michel Bellehumeur

[Division No. 1266, April 10th, 2000]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to indicate that I voted in favour. I just thought we were voting a second time.

[Human Resources Development, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Solicitor General of Canada was informed that an investigation into the Placeteco affair had been called for. His response was that he would read the letter and then respond to it.

I have an extremely simple question for him today, one that requires an extremely simple answer. Has he read the letter, and has he asked the RCMP to investigate?

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-22.

We should make it clear right off that the bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance. It is surprising from its title, because it could have been introduced by the Minister of Justice or even the Solicitor General of Canada. This bill is entitled 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.

From the contents of the bill, we can see that the Minister of National Revenue is the minister primarily concerned, since the bill concerns a number of matters relating to income.

The fact that this bill could have been introduced by a variety of ministers is not insignificant. It means that Bill C-22 involves of matter of some scope affecting various facets of our society.

Bill C-22 is in fact a tool to help us fight a scourge, whose impact can be felt on the streets, in the schools, in the vaults of our financial institutions and in our penitentiaries. It is even felt by our farmers, as we saw last fall, and in a number of economic, social and even cultural sectors of our community.

This scourge has a name. It is called organized crime. It comprises many aspects: the bikers, the Italian mafia, the Russian mafia, the Asian triads, street gangs and so on. Each aspect operates in its own way and has its own varied and effective methods of intimidation.

Thus, members will understand that organized crime is an evil poisoning our lives in many ways. And it is precisely because it is organized that this type of crime is so hard to fight.

There is only one way this can be done: we must get organized ourselves. This means that, like crime, justice must be organized. We must also provide adequate funding—I am happy to hear members of other parties in the House say so—to the police to help it organize its efforts. Stiff measures are needed and they must be organized. In a nutshell, it would be better if we started calling the shots or others will keep calling them for us.

But all this is not easy—far from it. Organized crime is not just the occupation of a few influential masterminds. It is no longer the playground of people like Al Capone and the mobsters of the early 1900s.

Organized crime involves many kinds of individuals, some of whom may often bear a strong resemblance to you or me. Most of them are anonymous members of the public who appear to lead their lives in an entirely above-board and ordinary manner. All the players in organized crime do not bear some easily identifiable mark. On the contrary, the people involved in organized crime are often anonymous.

Obviously, there is a more visible type of crime that often makes the news and appears in the headlines. There was the biker war that was splashed all over the media a while back, and which makes a return appearance from time to time. But the whole biker war phenomenon is only the tip of the iceberg.

Members will therefore understand that the phenomenon we are now seeing is extremely complex. It was time that the government suggested some effective responses to one of the most harmful aspects of organized crime, money laundering.

On more than one occasion, the Bloc Quebecois has been critical of the failure of Canadian legislation to prevent money laundering. Even so, the government waited until Canada found itself in the unenviable position of money laundering centre of the world before it decided to take action. It was high time that Canada did something because it has become, in the opinion of many international experts, a real sieve.

What exactly is “money laundering”? It is the process by which revenue from criminal activities is converted into assets that are difficult to trace to their criminal origins. What is involved here is the concealment of the proceeds of crime by making them appear legitimate. The bulk of these assets are related to drug trafficking, and most of the rest to criminal activities such as robbery or cigarette smuggling.

Since, by their very nature, money laundering and the criminal activities it attempts to camouflage are clandestine activities, it is hard to have any clear idea of the scope of money laundering activities. According to experts, however, the annual figure for the laundering of the proceeds of organized crime is about $17 billion.

What weapons did we have, then, against such a huge problem? Far from enough. A brief overview of Canadian legislation would be appropriate here. Hon. members will recall that the federal government passed legislation in 1988 amending the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act, and the Narcotics Act, creating a distinct criminal offence of money laundering and providing for the seizure and forfeiture of the proceeds and property derived from various criminal and drug offences.

Section 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code provides that everyone is guilty of an offence who deals in any way with property or proceeds of property with the intent of concealing or converting them, while knowing or believing that all or part are derived, directly or indirectly, from the commission of either an enterprise crime offence or a designated substance offence.

The Criminal Code includes a list of 35 crimes coming under the definition of enterprise crime offence. We can see that something has been around since 1988, but we have to look at the decisions, the jurisprudence directly concerned with this section to realize it is inadequate, that it is insufficient to effectively fight crime. There is no need to be a great expert in criminal law to recognize this. It is enough to visit the courts to see how easy it is for a defence lawyer to get around these sections.

In 1991, there were other amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. Legislation was enacted in an extremely important area—financial institutions, real estate brokers, portfolio managers, and so on. It provided that, for any transaction of over $10,000 of a suspicious nature, information was to be taken and kept for five years. However, this was left to the discretion of the institution.

When a client of a financial institution has several million thousand dollars, and his portfolio is managed there, members will understand the reticence of the financial institution to report these sums. There is a problem.

In the last election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois included an approach in its platform to tighten things up, to provide major legislation to fight money laundering. Finally, the government seems to have understood with Bill C-22.

In introducing this bill, the government significantly remedies the situation by establishing three mechanisms to control suspicious transactions. The first is the mechanism of mandatory reporting of suspicious operations, as provided in clauses 5 to 11 of the bill. The second is a mechanism for the reporting of major cross border movements of currency, as provided in clauses 12 to 39. The third is the establishment of the financial transactions and report analysis centre of Canada, as defined in clauses 40 to 72.

Let us examine these mechanisms and the centre. With Bill C-22, the reporting of suspicious operations relating to money laundering, currently voluntary under existing provisions of the law, would become mandatory.

In addition, the obligation to report would extend to non banking financial institutions and certain other companies. Therefore, the reporting requirements would apply to regulated financial institutions, casinos, foreign exchange traders, stock brokers, insurance companies and persons acting as financial intermediaries, such as lawyers and accountants.

These people and institutions would be required to report certain categories of financial transactions and any other transaction regarding which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are connected with the laundering of money.

Second, when it comes to transborder operations, people who import or export considerable amounts of currency or instruments, such as travellers cheques, will be required to report these sums of money to Canadian customs officers.

If a Canadian travels to the United States and takes $35,000 in travellers cheques for a three day trip or, conversely, if an American comes to Canada with $35,000 in travellers cheques or in cash, we are justified in asking questioning that person if he is only going to be in Canada for two or three days, or even just a few hours.

Failure to comply with this requirement could lead to the seizure of the currency or instruments carried by the individual, unless he gives up the idea of importing or exporting these sums of money. He can decide to go back to his country of origin.

Third, the financial transactions and reports analysis centre of Canada is an independent government agency that will collect and analyse the information provided on financial transactions and transborder movements involving currency.

The centre will also be a central repository for information on money laundering activities. It will analyse and assess the reports submitted and, if necessary, give leads to law enforcement agencies.

As I said earlier, the government opposite should have acted sooner. It should not have waited until Canada had a reputation as a major centre of organized crime before taking action. The government should have been much more proactive. It should have listened to the Bloc Quebecois.

It is odd that Bill C-22 has finally made it to the House a few weeks before a parliamentary committee begins looking at the issue of organized crime. Members will recall that I introduced a motion in the House a while back calling for the creation of a committee to examine this issue and to propose amendments to the legislation, if necessary, or other approaches. The parliamentary committee will study the issue and report to the House on the whole question of organized crime.

A few weeks before they start their deliberations, the government introduces Bill C-22 on money laundering. The government probably did not want to be criticized for having taken no action in this regard, but the usual drill is that every time the government opposite takes action, it is because the Bloc Quebecois has pushed it right to the wall.

It was the Bloc Quebecois that initiated the anti-gang legislation passed just before the last federal election. The Bloc Quebecois had questioned the government, which decided to do something about the problem just before heading into a general election.

It was the Bloc Quebecois that took the initiative with respect to getting the $1,000 bill withdrawn from circulation, and the government listened to us. With respect to Bill C-22 now before us, again it was the Bloc Quebecois, in its first term of office, specifically in its 1997 election platform, which said that the federal parliament should bring in legislation to do something about money laundering.

Finally, the government over there had no other choice, since the Americans have even told it Canada was an all-round champion as far as money laundering is concerned, but to decide to comply with the Bloc Quebecois' demands by introducing the bill we now have before us.

I have already mentioned the $1,000 note. It is extremely important for the government to heed us on this, and withdraw it from circulation as soon as possible. It is used mainly by organized crime, and must therefore be pulled, so that only denominations of $10, $20, $50 and $100 are available. It takes a whole lot fewer $1,000 notes to make $1 million, and is far less unwieldy, than $1 million in $10s, $20s or $50s.

Care must be taken, however, not to see Bill C-22 as a solution to all our problems. We must point out that this bill does give the government considerable regulatory power. Clause 73 of the bill in fact authorizes the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, to “make any regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act”.

At first glance, the regulatory power assigned to the minister may seem extremely broad, even too broad, one might say. Although such power could eventually bring about changes in the law without the need to amend it, still, a number of important issues, which should be debated by parliamentarians, will be handed over to officials. That is a bit risky.

Here is an example. The government will set, by regulation, the amount requiring reporting. Under subclause 12(2) as well, regulatory conditions will determine whether individuals may be exempt from the requirement of producing such a report.

Knowing that the required report is the backbone of the mechanisms put in place by Bill C-22, we can see that the government is giving itself vast regulatory powers. With its history, I fear that the government is not too eager to tighten the screw, to require reports, which are difficult to prepare, from offenders, and to be too demanding about the reports people or groups are to do. The public may rest assured, however, that we on this side of the House will be very demanding.

I would be derelict in my duties if I did not mention that Bill C-22 raises significant questions about the protection of certain basic rights covered by the charter.

In a free and democratic society, the legislator may limit certain individual rights, as dictated by the larger interests of the community. However, this limitation must not be exercised outside certain rules. Bill C-22 must comply with certain basic procedural rules. In fact, in the case of seizures and searches, great care must be exercised in the drafting of the bill to prevent effective contest before the courts.

Work in committee will ensure us that these standards are met, before the bill is passed. If parliamentarians fail to examine in minute detail the impact of this bill, lawyers who are well paid by organized crime will review it and arrange to have this law declared illegal and unconstitutional. It is up to us to work properly and effectively on this bill.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rare thing for me to agree with the Canadian Alliance, but I agree 100% with the comments by the hon. member on the job the Liberals are doing.

We have always had to force the government to act, whether in connection with crime, with legislative amendments, or other things that had to be done.

Take, for example, the $1,000 bill. A while ago, they announced their intention of taking it out of circulation. The Bloc Quebecois has been calling for this famous $1000 bill to be withdrawn ever since 1994, because this was one of only a few countries with such a high denomination.

We are well aware that these notes were used by organized crime. I realize that the member opposite does not like to hear the truth, that he is running away to avoid hearing it, but the Bloc Quebecois had to introduce private members' bills in this House to convince the government to take the $1,000 notes out of circulation.

The issue of money laundering and the introduction of a measure similar to Bill C-22 were discussed as early as during the Bloc Quebecois' first mandate. The issue was also part of our platform in 1997. Everyone knew that there was a major money laundering problem in Canada. It was only after the Americans ridiculed it that the government opposite finally decided to do something about this problem.

The Liberals had better not tell us that they have been diligent in this area. I fully agree with the Canadian Alliance member about the government's negligence. Since the Liberals took office, and while they were not taking any action, between $80 billion and $100 billion were laundered in the Canadian economy. This is unacceptable.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty easy question, because we encounter the same thing on a regular basis, just about daily. One has only to listen to oral question period to see clearly that the government over there is a very arrogant government, one that refuses to answer our questions.

I see the Minister for International Trade laughing. If I were him, I would not be too quick to laugh, considering everything that is going on at Human Resources Development Canada, since he is in large part responsible for it, even though he is now in hiding. In your place, Mr. Minister, I would not be laughing.

That said, yes, the government over there is indeed arrogant. It does pretty well as it pleases, despite a consensus against it, sometimes even across Canada.

I will give an example that very much involves Quebec: the Young Offenders Act. I see two Quebec MPs and I am sure they are not going to contradict me. There is a very broad consensus on that bill. I have not to date seen a single organization in Quebec calling for changes to the legislation on young offenders, yet the government over there is preparing to make some extremely significant changes in order to totally alter the nature of the Quebec approach and the Quebec model we have had for the past 30 years.

Comments have come from defence lawyers or crown attorneys, the Institut Pinel, legal commissions, even judges—magistrates have abandoned their usual reserve to tell the government “Hands off the Young Offenders Act”. But it carries on regardless.

This is a government which is not listening to the population, and I am really anxious for the next federal election. At some point they are going to get what is coming to them, just like their predecessors did. Before there is an election, there will certainly be some changes at the top. We know how much discussion is going on among the Liberals at present. I am dying to see the Quebec MPs doing the rounds in their ridings to tell people how they have defended Quebec in certain matters, while they have hidden out when asked to intervene. I am dying to see how they will defend their great record in Quebec.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, March 30th, 2000]

As a member of parliament from Quebec who won with some 60% of the votes at the last federal election, I feel much more legitimate than the hon. member, who got elected by the skin of his teeth.

So, I have a great deal of admiration for the witnesses who, after thoroughly examining an issue or a bill, come to tell us about the impact of that bill. In this case they told the government “You are headed the wrong way”. They all said it one after the other, but the federal government turned a deaf ear, did as it pleased and passed the bill without taking into consideration anything these witnesses said. Indeed, I have a great deal of admiration for them because they keep coming back in the hope that, this time, the government will listen to them.

The Quebec Interprofessional Council, which includes 43 professional groups regulated by Quebec's Professional Code, came and told the government “We are opposed to this bill. Do not do that”. We also heard the Conseil du patronat. We had the Barreau du Québec, which said “You are headed the wrong way with such a bill”. We also heard the Chambre des notaires and various associations.

But the government did as it pleased anyway. I find it very deplorable that this government is not listening to the public, and particularly that, once again, is trampling on Quebec's jurisdictions and the Quebec model.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, March 30th, 2000]

Thank you for the clarifications, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to start where I left off.

These Senate amendments are a good example of the fact that what they do is often highly inefficient.

I think they could have sent the government a far clearer message about this bill. We MPs have received certain messages, and no doubt the senators have received the same ones. They originated with all the people who will have to apply this bill, or have it applied to them, at some point.

They have said nothing about them. The federalists in the other place could have dealt with flexibility, which is a catchword these days. Nearly every bill makes some reference to flexibility, this one included.

I will quote from several letters, which will show you the flexibility of the federal government.

On October 19, 1999, the minister responsible for the Quebec personal information protection act, David Cliche, and Robert Perreault—because these two ministers supervised this legislation—wrote to the Minister of Industry, warning him that legislation already existed in Quebec and not to infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction.

I will quote the second paragraph of this letter:

In fact, as ministers responsible for this matter, we have written on several occasions to express Quebec's position in this regard. Without reiterating all of our arguments, we remind you that this bill would not complement the Quebec legislation. It would duplicate it.

And the ministers sought an emergency meeting with the minister to examine the bill and make the necessary corrections or just to try to convince the minister he was off track. This was on October 19, 1999.

On November 18, 1999, the minister wrote to David Cliche and Robert Perrault to say:

I agree that we should meet, but in the short term it would be appropriate for our officials to work together to discuss the exemption that would apply to the organizations covered by the Quebec legislation and any technical issues relating to the bill.

That was his acknowledgement of receipt. On February 10, 2000, the Government of Quebec wrote Minister Manley to say “Listen, we have not met, and the bill has been passed. We have a problem. You are telling us someone is looking into this issue at the federal level and the officials should be meeting soon to discuss exemptions and the Quebec organizations to which the law will not apply”.

That is where we stand now. I heard a Liberal member mention earlier that, in Quebec, they will be exempt. Such is the flexibility of the act. Since we have our own legislation in Quebec, the federal legislation will not apply. This is false and I hope the member who said that did not say it knowingly. I dare hope he was misinformed.

As of now, the ministers concerned, both in Quebec and Ottawa, have not come to an agreement, they have not even met, because the arrogant minister across the way refused to meet the Quebec ministers to discuss the matter.

Consequently, the federal legislation will apply in Quebec. Only by order in council will some Quebec organizations be able to obtain an exemption. We will have to negotiate on a piecemeal basis for every organization. The minister, the big cheese, will have total control. He will say yes or no to individual organizations, as he pleases. This is what this government calls flexibility. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case.

At the industry department, this so-called but non-existent flexibility is not an isolated case. I see it in the department for which I am my party critic, namely the justice department.

Currently we are reviewing a bill on youth criminal justice to replace the Young Offenders Act. Here again, the minister told us repeatedly in the House “The flexibility is there for Quebec to keep on doing what it has been doing for the past 30 years. The Quebec model is not in danger; there is flexibility”. This is not true either. It is not true when we examine bills, whether in the case of the Department of Industry, the Department of Justice, or other departments. Flexibility is a word catchword, these days.

It is not true that there is flexibility or, if there is, it is always one-sided. Flexibility always works to the advantage of the federal government. I think this needs to be noted and, had they wanted to do something useful, the senators could have set this government straight and told it that the flexibility it refers to does not exist. But they let the opportunity pass. What is the point? What sort of work are they doing in the other place? The amendments they have submitted to us change absolutely nothing in the application of the bill.

I mentioned earlier that many people had spoken to us and I suppose they also spoke to the senators. Their comments were very revealing, and very carefully thought through as well. They had taken the time to examine the bill in depth. I have been here since 1993 and I have great admiration for those who testify before committees.

Some people are disturbed by the fact that we have been here since 1993, but we will be here for a few more years, that is until Quebecers say yes to sovereignty, particularly since we will have a clear mandate from them.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, to understand today's debate, one must understand why the Senate sent this bill back to us.

The minister introduced Bill C-6 and it was rammed through the House. It was rushed through for all sorts of reasons, some of them undoubtedly having to do with the political agenda of the Liberal members opposite. But the bill raised many questions in Quebec.

Many people came right out and said that the bill was not only ineffective but ill-timed, given what was being done in Quebec.

I do not wish to repeat what my Bloc Quebecois colleagues said, but they have raised the important point of the bill's constitutionality. If I can put it this way in the House, we all but pleaded the case. Had the senators wanted to do something useful, they perhaps should have spent a bit longer on the bill and tried to bring the Liberal members opposite around to their way of thinking, since they also hold a majority in the Senate. They could have woken the House up. It is often the Senate that is asleep at the switch, but this time it is probably the government members across the way, or perhaps they know what they are doing and once again have it in for Quebec.

Witnesses who appeared before the committee raised an important constitutional point. I will read a passage from the testimony of Jacques Frémont, a constitutional expert at the Université de Montréal. This is what he said:

In my view, Bill C-54 violates the spirit and the letter of the division of powers, as it must be understood in this country. It takes an arrogant and ill-timed approach to provincial jurisdiction.

I think that this is fairly clear. These are the words of an emeritus professor, a recognized constitutional expert, not something that came out of the mouth of a member of the Bloc Quebecois or a nasty sovereignist.

He went on to say:

Privacy is basically a provincial jurisdiction in theory. In Quebec, for instance, property and civil rights, the Civil Code, and Quebec law apply, in addition to the Canadian and Quebec charters.

This is not from someone who is directly involved in the issue. This is a professor who studied the bill and who, based on his experience, came to that conclusion.

The Conseil du patronat du Québec told the committee more or less the same thing, albeit in different terms. It said: doc.

Because the constitutional power given to the provinces by section 92(13) of the British North America Act regarding the protection of personal information and privacy is not at issue, the Quebec lawmaker has already passed its own legislation in this area. It is to be expected that many jurisdictional conflicts will surface.

The representatives of the Conseil du patronat told the government opposite not to legislate in this area, because it is not one of its jurisdictions. However, the government did so, as it always does, sometimes for suspicious reasons. In this case, it is rather striking.

One would have thought that the senators would have examined this issue. If they did, it is not reflected in their amendments today.

In Quebec, as we mentioned several times, but it is worth repeating, we already have similar legislation, which has proven effective over the past five or six years, which is extremely effective and which protects all personal information relating to Quebecers within the province's territory. This legislation is recognized and used as a model all over the world.

When I checked with the National Assembly, I was told that several other assemblies and parliaments have asked for copies of the act. They have asked about the philosophy behind it and how it works. I think the legislation we have in Quebec is an example.

Had the federal government done things the same way as Quebec, it would not have been so bad, but this bill is an intrusion and creates interpretation problems in this particular case.

Let us be clear. The federal act intrudes into areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us take a concrete example. Which act is going to apply to a business in Quebec that has information pertaining to individuals? Will it be the federal act or the provincial act? Will both acts apply?

That is more or less what witnesses came to say, that the way the two acts will be enforced makes no sense.

I will give examples of duplication that may lead to serious conflicts. At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who will end up footing the bill.

I will give an example with regard to individual consent. Whereas the Quebec act says that such consent must be given obviously, freely, in an informed manner and for specific purposes—it is pretty well defined—Bill C-6 says that it can vary depending on the circumstances. The wording is quite different. It can vary from one situation to the next and it should be explicit when dealing with personal information that can be considered sensitive. There is a big difference just on this important part of the act regarding consent for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.

It is a lengthy bill. I will not go through all of its clauses because we have had ample opportunity to discuss all that already. But how will the courts interpret it? This is always my main concern, especially as justice critic. I think it is not going to be clear.

The Senate has examined this bill and returned it to us with amendments that, overall, change nothing, nothing at all. What is added on? A year longer before it comes into effect, just as far as health is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to let me know if I do indeed have 20 minutes, because I am being given the two-minute sign, when I thought I had 20.

There are several amendments proposed by the Senate. It is unanimous in its opposition to Bill C-6 in its present form, sometimes for reasons that are totally contradictory, and one might wonder why.

It also feels this bill is poorly drafted. This is not surprising; we said so on numerous occasions. It also finds that medical information, which it considers more sensitive than other information, is not being sufficiently protected. This too we have said on numerous occasions.

[Young Offenders, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs, a group of major Quebec organizations working with young offenders, asked this question:

How will the 197 clauses of Bill C-3, this array of principles and objectives on tens of subsections, paragraphs and subparagraphs, these countless references to the Criminal Code, these 70 pages guiding the judge in determining the sentence and the custody provisions, these complex calculations about the release of an offender, in short this cumbersome semantic and legal document, help establish a more transparent judicial process?

What is the response of the Quebec federal Liberals to this question asked by coalition members? Are federal Liberal members blindly condoning a bill that is both complex and dangerous? When will federal Liberals from Quebec support the stakeholders who, for the past 30 years, have been working so hard to make our communities safer?

There is still time for them to wake up.

[Young Offenders Act, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the brief presented by the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs, a coalition of Quebec organizations working with young offenders, the following statement was made:

Before doing away completely with sixteen years of practice, adjustment and precedent, in order to engage in an avenue that breaks with close to a century of tradition, parliamentarians need to ask themselves whether it is worth it. Will they have the courage to defend legislation which is unanimously supported by those who are familiar with it and make use of it, or will they bow to lobbies which focus on disinformation, in order to push ahead a program that is as petty as it is reductionist?

Will the Quebec federal Liberals take notice of this message from the coalition? Are the Liberals aware of the harm they are preparing to do to youth justice with Bill C-3?

There is still time. Parliamentarians must refuse to play the Reform game. Youth justice must not became the battleground for those in search of sensationalism.