Roy Cullen

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at second reading of Bill C-24.

I think most hon. members would agree that few issues are more timely and few areas of action more compelling than taxation. The operation of our federal tax system affects virtually every Canadian and every family, each company and organization. It impacts our standard of living as individuals and our ability to compete and grow as a nation.

That is the reason why, having put the country's financial house in order and eliminated the deficit, our government adopted concrete measures to start reducing the personal tax burden of Canadians.

Broad based income tax reduction is not and cannot be the only arena for action. From the start of our first mandate, this government has been active in ensuring that we provide a tax system which is fair, a system which eliminates unnecessary loopholes and confusion, and a system which provides targeted assistance to sectors and groups, such as charities and persons with disabilities, that deserve our assistance.

These are the goals and opportunities underlying the legislation before us to make our tax system more simple and fair not only for individual Canadians but for Canadian businesses as well. Another goal we have consistently pursued is to sustain and enhance our federal tax system in a manner which promotes federal-provincial co-operation and harmonization. This bill does just that.

Hon. members will recall that when the harmonized sales tax, the HST, was implemented in 1997 with three Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador, it was a successful example of federal-provincial co-operation. It also presented creative solutions to some of the challenges that we as Canadians will face together as we head into a new century. This bill builds on the spirit of that initiative.

Even if this bill is specifically designed to improve the GST, the goods and services tax, and the HST, it also contains important proposals concerning the tax on certain products.

In this regard Bill C-24 contains measures with respect to the taxation of tobacco products.

I trust that hon. members are aware of the government's commitment to reduce smoking rates, particularly among younger Canadians. One of the concrete planks in this commitment has been the national action plan to combat smuggling which we launched in 1994. This plan has had a significant impact on contraband such that we have been able to increase taxes on tobacco products in 1995, 1996 and 1998 in co-operation with the participating provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.

Today's legislation puts in place another increase of 60 cents in federal excise taxes per carton of 200 cigarettes for sale in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the five provinces that are action plan partners. These provinces are also increasing their taxes on cigarettes by comparable amounts.

Excise taxes on tobacco sticks will also be increased in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, re-establishing a uniform national tax rate on tobacco sticks for sale in all provinces and the territories. Furthermore, the bill proposes to make permanent the current 40% surtax on the profits of tobacco manufacturers.

In a related matter, as it was mentioned in the federal budget of February 1999, Bill C-24 contains measures intended to implement a reduction of the tobacco export tax exemption.

The intent of this measure is to reduce the supply of Canadian made tobacco products intended for export but which are potentially available to smugglers.

The proposals contained in the bill relating to the taxation of tobacco products reaffirm the government's commitment to reduce tobacco consumption in Canada while maintaining vigilance in combatting the level of contraband.

An important component of Bill C-24 is that it reflects the government's responsiveness to the health and social needs of Canadians. For example, the government recognizes that many Canadians are providing care for family members, very often an elderly parent or disabled child.

Bill C-24 proposes an exemption from sales tax for these respite care services. This would mean that services—care and supervision—for persons who have limited capacity for self-supervision and self-care due to disability would be exempted

This proposal will enhance federal support for those Canadians who are striving to meet the growing demands of caring for family members with an infirmity or disability.

With respect to individuals with disabilities, I trust that hon. members would agree that these Canadians face many challenges. In past budgets the government has introduced numerous measures to assist these individuals. The bill builds on such actions and the significant level of tax assistance that is already available.

The proposals contained in Bill C-24 extend sales tax relief to the purchase of specially equipped motor vehicles for transporting individuals with disabilities. The proposed sales tax rebate will ensure that all individuals and organizations get tax relief on the additional cost of purchasing vehicles that meet their special needs.

Other measures in the area of health care that are contained in the bill include the continuation of the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax exemption for speech therapy services. Under the GST and HST, harmonized sales tax, the list of exempt health care providers is limited to those regulated as a health care profession in at least five provinces. The proposals contained in the bill will allow the speech therapy profession more time to meet the eligibility requirements for the provision of tax exempt services.

The bill also ensures that providers of osteopathic services are exempt from sales tax. In addition, Bill C-24 corrects an inequity with respect to providers of psychological services by ensuring that the sales tax does not discriminate against duly qualified psychologists.

As I indicated in my introduction, the government is committed to making the taxation system more equitable for Canadians. Bill C-24 shows that commitment in a number of different areas.

In recognizing the important role played by charitable organizations in assisting Canadians and enriching our communities, the bill addresses the special circumstances faced by designated charities whose main purpose include the provision of care, employment, employment training or employment placement services for individuals with disabilities. Specifically the bill provides these charities the capacity to compete on an equal footing when selling goods or services to GST registered businesses.

Bill C-24 also refines the rules for the streamlined accounting method for charities. In addition, it implements the decision by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to extend the 50% rebate of the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax, which is already available to charities in that province and to certain public service bodies such as hospitals that are also charities. The extended rebate would be available to those entities in relation to the activities undertaken in their capacity as charities.

Thus, a hospital board in Newfoundland, operating as a charitable institution, might also manage a care home. The proposed amendment would enable them to apply for a 50% rebate of the HST paid on expenditures relating to the care home.

A number of the amendments proposed in Bill C-24 are aimed at clarifying and enhancing application of our sales tax systems.

For example, the bill contains amendments aimed at clarifying the sales tax treatment of transactions between natural resource producers and exploration companies. Amendments such as these will ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax in a number of key areas.

I should like to take a moment to point out that the amendments in the proposed legislation were developed in response to representations from tax professionals, business communities and Canadians. As I mentioned earlier, this reflects the government's ongoing commitment to making the tax system fairer, more efficient and easier for businesses to comply with.

As a result of the collaborative process between the federal government and businesses in the energy sector, the bill proposes a number of changes which streamline the operation of the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax in that sector.

For example, the measures proposed facilitate export transactions which involve exchanges of gas and oil between Canadian and foreign suppliers.

These changes will help to ensure that Canadian businesses remain competitive in the international marketplace. With respect to other international commercial transactions, the bill also proposes to make air navigation services provided to carriers tax-free in relation to international flights and refine the rules for exports of goods by common carriers.

I would like to take this opportunity to state that the federal government acknowledges the importance of the travel and tourism industry to the Canadian economy.

The government has contributed to promoting Canada as a tourist destination and to supporting the tourist industry as a source of employment.

Hon. members are no doubt aware that the federal government provides rebates of the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax to non-residents on eligible goods exported from Canada, short term accommodation and certain goods and services used in the conduct of a foreign convention.

In consultation with the tourism industry the visitors rebate program was reviewed. These consultations highlighted the fact that the program is generally seen as an important tool in promoting tourism, in particular the accommodation and convention measures.

As a result of the review the 1998 budget contained several proposals to improve the visitors rebate program. Bill C-24 proposes further enhancements to the design and delivery of the visitors rebate program to better promote Canada as a destination for tourists and a site for conventions, for example by reducing the the GST and HST costs associated with providing conventions to non-residents.

On the subject of tourism the bill also proposes changes aimed at providing consistent tax treatment between tax-free international transportation services and various separate charges that relate to such transportation.

Another change will eliminate the requirement that payment for air travel from the United States to Canada be tendered outside Canada for the transportation service to be tax free.

I emphasize that the federal government will continue to consult with the business community to improve the operation of our sales tax system.

In that regard Bill C-24 contains a number of proposals to improve the rules relating to certain business arrangements and ensure that the legislation is consistent with the policy intent. As well as clarifying certain sales tax issues in the area of financial services, Bill C-24 provides a more level playing field in the retail debt sector by repealing bad debt relief for closely related financing companies.

In response to industry concerns, the bill also proposes an important measure that will correct an inequity with respect to multi-employer pension plans. The bill proposes that a rebate be provided to trusts governed by such pension plans, which will place them on a comparable footing with single employer pension plans in relation to the sales tax they bear.

Our government is continuing as well to improve the administration and application of our sales tax system. Bill C-24 amends a number of provisions in these areas to ensure their conformity with existing administrative practices.

In addition, the bill proposes greater harmonization between certain administrative and application provisions in the various laws on taxes and charges.

It also contains proposals to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the assessment, appeals and corrections provisions overall.

I mentioned earlier that Bill C-24 contains measures relating to other specific levies on certain products. In accordance with the 1997 decision of the World Trade Organization, the bill contains the amendment that repeals the provisions relating to the excise tax on split-run editions of periodicals.

With respect to customs tariffs the bill implements proposals to increase certain duty and tax exemptions for persons returning to Canada after a minimum period abroad. These proposals will make it more convenient for travellers to clear Canadian customs. This is just another example of the steps we have taken to improve service for visitors and for Canadians returning to Canada.

The government remains committed to enhancing aboriginal self-government and has often reiterated its willingness to put into effect taxation arrangements with first nations interested in exercising tax powers. In this context through the budget implementation acts of 1997, 1998 and 1999 the government introduced legislation enabling certain first nations to impose GST-like taxes on specific products such as alcoholic beverages, fuel and tobacco.

This bill proposes that technical amendments be made to the laws I have just mentioned to increase the harmonization of the sales tax of first nations with the GST and to ensure the definitions in these laws are consistent with the definitions used in other federal laws.

In closing, the measures contained in Bill C-24 I have outlined today propose to refine, streamline and clarify the application of our tax system.

This bill also tackles social issues that are important to Canadians.

I therefore urge hon. members to consider the bill and give it their full support.

[Labelling Of Genetically Modified Foods, May 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to respond to Motion M-230.

The motion, from the hon. member for Louis-Hébert has two parts. The first would make labelling of genetically modified food compulsory. The motion also calls for the government to carry out exhaustive studies on the long-term effects of genetically modified foods.

Let me begin by saying that the Government of Canada's commitment is always to safety first: safety for the protection of Canadians, safety for animals, and the safety of our environment.

Canada quite rightly prides itself on its regulatory systems. We know that Canadians, whether they are consumers, producers, distributors or health professionals, rely on and value these safety systems.

In terms of labelling, Canadian federal legislation calls for Health Canada to set the requirements for mandatory labelling. Health Canada sets the data requirements for the safety assessments of all foods and undertakes comprehensive pre-market reviews of new foods, including those derived through biotechnology. Every new food goes through a rigorous and thorough review process before being allowed on the market.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, carries out inspection and enforcement activities relative to the food safety standards set by Health Canada. The CFIA also has responsibility for the environmental safety assessment of a number of agricultural products derived through biotechnology, including plants and animal feeds. Based on its safety evaluations of foods, Health Canada determines if and when labelling is required. As I am sure the hon. member would agree, any authority for labelling must be based upon science.

I would like to emphasize that current labelling regulations in Canada require that all foods, including those developed through biotechnology, be labelled where a potential human health or safety issue has been identified, for example, for people with food allergies or if foods have been changed in composition or nutrition.

Let me address the first part of the motion before us by reminding the House that there are already several initiatives in place to study the question of how and when to label a genetically modified food. Canadians expect their views to be heard and the government is doing just that by listening to Canadians on how they want their foods to be labelled. The government is committed to exploring how labelling can best serve the public.

The government believes that all labelling must be credible, meaningful and enforceable. For this reason the Government of Canada has strongly encouraged the establishment of a Canadian standard for the labelling of foods derived through biotechnology. The Canadian General Standards Board under the sponsorship of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors is in the process of developing this standard through an open and inclusive process.

A committee composed of representatives and individuals from a broad range of Canadian interests has been established. This committee has developed working groups to look at areas such as definitions, labels, claims in advertising, and compliance measures. A completed standard is expected within the next six to 12 months.

The government continues to listen to all Canadians. Canada is the first country in the world to actively engage such a broad range of stakeholders on this issue. Canada is fully immersed in developing its own national standard in full consultation with stakeholders and in a way that is open and transparent to all Canadians.

My colleagues should be aware that by endorsing such a thorough process to develop a labelling standard, Canada is indeed a leader worldwide. We can see that the Canadian public is already strongly engaged on the issue of genetically modified foods.

It is also important to note that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food raised this issue of labelling in 1998 when it tabled its report “Capturing the Advantage: Agricultural Biotechnology in the New Millennium”.

On May 18 the standing committee will begin a series of hearings on the labelling of genetically modified foods. I would like to point out that in Tuesday's debate on this very same issue my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance called for a joint study by the health and agriculture committees on the issue of labelling.

Moreover, Canada is playing a strong role on the international stage to promote standards for labelling these foods. For example, Canada chairs the Codex Alimentarius committee on food labelling. We are also heading a subcommittee of this organization which has worked to draft recommendations for the labelling of biotechnologically derived foods.

Around the world Canada is regarded as a leader on this issue. In short, there are processes currently under way to address the information needs of Canadians on the issue of labelling. These processes must be given an opportunity to provide the recommendations before we hastily embark on another course of action.

The government recognizes that consumers want choice. We believe, and I am sure hon. members would agree, that Canadians want informed choice and labels which are meaningful. It is the government's goal to ensure that the information provided to Canadians enables them to make informed choices.

The House should vote down Motion No. 230 on the basis of the first part of the motion. Let me now turn to the second part, which urges the government to carry out exhaustive studies on the long term effects of genetically modified foods on health and the environment.

I would like to emphasize again that food safety and consumer protection are priorities for the Government of Canada. We are strongly committed to the safety of Canadians, animals and our environment.

Canada has certainly built a strong reputation as a producer of foods that are consistently safe, clean and of high quality. We built that reputation by putting very rigorous regulatory systems in place.

Our approval systems are science based and transparent. Our government's decision to accept or reject a product is based on sound science and proven facts. Our regulators include experts in nutrition, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology, and environmental science to name just a few.

These regulators use the best available science from Canadian and international experts to determine whether these products pose any hazard to people, plants, animals or the environment. If there is any question as to their safety, we do not approve them for use.

Even after a product has been approved, its case is never closed. New scientific evidence is always taken into account and appropriate action taken immediately if any problems are detected.

The regulatory system assesses products on a case by case basis. The research on safety required for evaluation directly addresses the potential risks of the product to human health and the environment. The Government of Canada takes pride in advocating this science based approach around the world.

We recognize the need for scientific research to settle any questions relating to long term health, safety and environmental issues. With that in mind, I believe the House will applaud the efforts the Government of Canada has undertaken to maintain and even enhance the safety of genetically modified foods.

Canada is committed to a regulatory system that is based on sound science—a regulatory system that meets the highest scientific rigour.

That is why, for example, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of the Environment asked the Royal Society of Canada to appoint an expert panel on the future of food biotechnology. The Royal Society named its expert panel last February.

This proactive forward looking body will look ahead over the next 10 years to forecast the types of food products that are expected to be developed using biotechnology.

The Government of Canada's commitment to open an inclusive dialogue with Canadians has also resulted in the formation of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, CBAC. The committee will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to advise the government, raise public awareness and engage Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology matters.

I am sure the House will support the government's initiatives to make sure the regulatory system can effectively assess the health and environmental safety of genetically modified foods.

In conclusion, we have initiatives underway to ensure that Canada is well positioned for the future. In addition, the regulatory system in place is rigorous, thorough and scientific.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against Motion M-230.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Elk Island finally get to budget 1999, but in his preamble he talked extensively about the reindexation of the income tax system which occurred in budget 2000.

The hon. member talked about the flat tax. People understand that the flat tax or solution 17 is not a progressive tax. In other words, it moves the tax burden from high income Canadians to middle income Canadians. For example, a single taxpayer earning $30,000 would receive a tax reduction of 12% while a similar taxpayer earning $200,000 would receive a tax cut of 39%.

We know it is not progressive but we hear about the simplicity where people will fill in a form with their income and they will just take 17%. I heard the member talk about various deductions.

I do not have the information on solution 17. Under solution 17 will there be various deductions and tax credits? For example right now under our tax system we have deductions for RRSP contributions, pension contributions, charitable donations, medical expenses over a certain amount, union dues, professional fees and special tax considerations for people with disabilities. Will items of that nature still apply under solution 17 or will it just be a matter of taking one's income and applying a percentage?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, given that we will be strict on time in terms of questions and comments, I feel like someone at a smorgasbord. I do not know where to start, but I will be succinct.

The member talked about the budget in Ontario, corporate income taxes and their impact on trade, et cetera. Has the member actually had a chance to read the Ontario budget or budget 2000 of the federal government? Budget 2000 of the federal government reduced the general corporate tax rate from 28% to 21% or seven percentage points. A few months later the Ontario government has come along and made similar reductions in the corporate tax rate. I applaud the Ontario government for following the lead of the federal government.

In fact, the member opposite talked about how Canadian companies are not competitive. He cited Ontario. I can tell the hon. member that when these corporate tax reductions are fully implemented, the combined federal and Ontario corporate tax rate will be significantly below the tax rates in that party's sacred cow, the United States, and in the United Kingdom, two jurisdictions that the member for Calgary East cited.

I am wondering if the hon. member has had a chance to actually read the Ontario budget and to read budget 2000 of the federal government and if he would reconsider the conclusion he reached earlier, because I think it clearly negates what he said earlier.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

I have heard it.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was building up to a question. I will leave the subject of the flat tax for a moment and come back to it later.

The member for Medicine Hat talked about the huge amount of money spent in the United States on health care. Will he acknowledge that in the United States, because of its private health care system, fully 30% of the costs of the total health care system is spent on administration, filling in forms?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I heard the comments of the member for Medicine Hat. The party opposite uses the expression “marginal tax rates”. What are marginal tax rates? Marginal tax rates are taxes at the margin; what an individual will be taxed for every incremental dollar. It can apply to anyone in the income tax system, but when members opposite talk about marginal tax rates they talk about marginal tax rates at the high end. While it is true that the government has not reduced marginal tax rates at the high end as much as we have reduced marginal tax rates at the middle income and low income levels, we have reduced taxes significantly.

In budget 2000 we have a tax package of $58 billion as a minimum. The economy continues to tick away at a growth rate of about 4% annually. There have been 18 consecutive quarters of growth. The way the member opposite was speaking we would think it was doom and gloom. There have been 18 straight quarters of growth in the country. We are leading the G-7 and the OECD countries. In terms of employment growth, we are leading the G-7. Unemployment is at its lowest level in a generation—in 24 years. I could go on and on about the good news. I am glad that Canadians do not listen all that carefully to the doom and gloom across the way.

I would like to address the member's premise in terms of the tax rates at the high end of the income tax scale. That really coincides with the opposition's flat tax proposal. Let me give a comparison. A taxpayer—

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at the third reading of Bill C-22.

I would like to thank members for their co-operation and their indulgence. We have dealt with a number of amendments that were presented just days ago, or in some cases hours, and I think we have accommodated a number of the concerns of the members who proposed amendments.

In fairness to Canadians who are watching this debate, the substance of the bill is sound and the amendments will add further clarity to the reporting mechanisms. The amendments will certainly add value to the bill.

In my view it is important that the bill be sent to the Senate and promulgated so that law enforcement agencies and financial institutions can finalize the development of the regulations and the guidelines that will set this initiative into motion as quickly as possible. We know that money laundering will not go away. What we are trying to do with this legislation is curtail the growth and decrease the levels of activity that are prevalent in Canada and internationally.

There have been extensive consultations, not only at committee, but with a number of stakeholder groups. Bill C-22 provides a statutory minimum 90 day pre-publication requirement for any regulation proposed under the legislation and a minimum 30 day notice period if further changes are to be made. This goes well beyond what is provided in many federal statutes and reflects the importance that the government attaches to public consultations in this area.

In the same vein, the House should know about the guidelines that will be given the institutions and the people, who, in order to meet the reporting requirements of this bill, must establish the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction is related to the commission of a money laundering offence.

As we explained at committee, the guidelines will be issued by the proposed anti-money laundering agency to assist with that determination.

Flexibility will be the key word in developing the guidelines and regulations. The money launderers of this world are constantly changing their modus operandi. They are constantly moving into new areas of activity. Therefore, we need to have some flexibility within the regulations and guidelines.

As an example, there will need to be some clear rules around the professions. If an accountant or an auditor is doing a regular attest audit and he or she comes across what might be a suspicious transaction, the legislation does not put the burden on that person to report it. That would create an unnecessary burden. However, if that person becomes party to a financial transaction which involves a suspicious activity or an amount of money defined by regulation, that person is obliged to comply with the legislation. In the normal conduct of professional activities that would not be required. This will be spelled out in the regulations.

Our other G-7 partners are devoting considerable resources and energies to combatting money laundering activities. With this law we will do the same.

At committee we heard very strong representations from lawyers in terms of solicitor-client privilege. The bill specifically calls for respecting solicitor-client privilege. However, we cannot allow the opportunity for lawyers who might be involved in transactions involving money laundering operations to be exempt on the grounds of solicitor-client privilege. That aspect of this law will be very similar to the law in other jurisdictions.

Bill C-22 targets the financial rewards of criminal activity by creating a balanced and effective reporting regime. It protects the integrity of our financial systems and enables Canada to meet its international obligations while protecting individual privacy. We will have an effective money laundering system in place to ensure that Canada fulfils its responsibility both as the founding member of the financial action task force on money laundering and as a member of the G-8 to co-operate in the international fight against money laundering.

Not only are we joining with other members of the financial action task force on money laundering in order to make the reporting of dubious operations mandatory, but our system of reporting will now be equal to that of most of the industrialized countries, including the other members of the G-7, most European countries and many of our Commonwealth partners, such as Australia and New Zealand.

Let us waste no time in passing this legislation. I urge all hon. members to accord this bill speedy passage, as we have done to date. Let us pass this legislation so that Canadians can be protected from money laundering activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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