Jim Abbott

[Points Of Order, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from my colleague from Calgary Centre, the heritage minister said that I had written her department on numerous occasions about getting loans or grants, or things of that nature.

I think the minister would want to have the opportunity to correct that impression, because it was without any basis of fact or statement.

[Correctional Service Canada, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general's answers to questions today have been somewhat curious. In an answer to the Bloc Quebecois he said that he could not get involved in that department. In an answer to my colleague from Surrey he said that he got involved in that department. My colleague from Wild Rose stood in the House and asked a question about a report. The solicitor general should know that in the last five minutes Correctional Service Canada has asked my colleague for a copy of that report.

Who is in charge? When does the minister actually take charge in his department? What is going on?

[St. John's West Byelection, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the current byelection in St. John's West gives Newfoundlanders the opportunity to strengthen the new voice in parliament, the Canadian Alliance. This new and exciting movement is positively changing the face of politics in Canada. Concerned citizens in St. John's and Placentia have told me they are voting for change. They are sick and tired of the games that the Liberals and Tories play.

The Liberals are trying to resurrect their candidate's floundering campaign by pumping millions of dollars of public money into St. John's for the election.

They have seen it all before when John Crosbie ruled the roost for the Conservatives. They are demanding a change. They are all voting for Frank Hall, the Canadian Alliance candidate, to send a message to Ottawa. He will be joining 57 dedicated members of Canada's official opposition, Canada's government in waiting.

Newfoundlanders are going to start a saltwater wave that will sweep from the east coast across Canada and will remove the old parties and tired old politics.

Congratulations, Newfoundland. You are leading the way with Canadian Alliance.

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

Madam Speaker, as you said I am resuming debate. In the first half we had a few choice words about the way the government proceeded to bring Bill C-22 to the House and, indeed, the debacle that we have seen in that whole procedure, to the point where we had to shut down debate yesterday.

Let us now turn to the bill itself. I received a research paper from the Library of Parliament which gives a very good explanation of Bill C-22. It received first reading in the House of Commons on December 15, 1999. The broad purpose of the bill is to remedy shortcomings in Canada's anti-money laundering legislation, as identified by the G-7's Financial Action Task Force, FATF, on Money Laundering in its 1997-98 report.

This is a quote from that report:

The only major weakness is the inability to effectively and efficiently respond to requests for assistance in relation to restraint and forfeiture. The use of domestic money laundering proceedings to seize, restrain, (and) forfeit the proceeds of offences committed in other countries is recognized as sometimes ineffective, and legislation to allow Canada to enforce foreign forfeiture requests directly should be introduced.

In addition, the FATF recommended that reporting requirements in Canada be made mandatory, rather than voluntary, as is currently the case, and that a “financial intelligence unit” be established “to deal with the collection, management and analysis and dissemination of suspicious transactions, reports and other relevant intelligence data”.

What does this mean to the ordinary citizen either watching these proceedings on televisions or reading these proceedings in Hansard ? First, this activity is a criminal activity. It basically undermines Canada's financial and social systems by increasing the power and influence of illegal business.

Experts estimate that some $300 billion to $500 billion in criminally derived funds enter the international markets annually. In Canada alone the estimates range from $5 billion to $17 billion. The fact that they range from $5 billion to $17 billion gives me cause for concern. That being such a broad spread, it is very clear that even our law enforcement officials have not really been able to quantify this problem.

There are many ways to launder money, including through financial institutions, foreign exchange dealers, significant cash purchases, brokerage houses, foreign tax havens and cross-border transfers. The methods of laundering money are becoming more and more sophisticated, as I indicated in my remarks before question period. Indeed, many of the transactions are so immensely complex that there is no possible way, other than with the power of the most high powered computer programmed to do this, that we could actually conduct the kind of transactions that are currently being undertaken by criminal activity.

If Canada is viewed, real or otherwise—and I think it is real—as having weak controls, we become a haven for organized crime and money laundering.

In the second reading of this, I drew to the attention of the House the situation with YBM Magnex, which turned out to be a money laundering operation for the Russian mafia, and the fact that there were many prominent Canadians, names people would know, who ended up being sucked into that vortex. Six hundred million dollars disappeared as a result of YBM Magnex being a money laundering operation and getting by the Ontario Securities Commission and other organizations like that.

If we look at the situation of the $6 billion Bre-X debacle and put the YBM Magnex on the back side of that, we can see why people around the world are deeply concerned about the lax attitude that Canada has displayed in this very important area.

As I also indicated prior to question period, it is not just the issue of organized crime. There are also violent street gangs in Toronto and Montreal that are channelling criminal profits to tamil terrorists waging a bloody fight for an independent homeland in Sri Lanka.

According to an RCMP intelligence report that was reported in the Ottawa Citizen on March 27 this year, it said that an extensive probe by the Mounties found strong connections between outlaw gangs and the liberation tigers of tamil eelam, one of the world's most dangerous groups. “There is clear evidence to support the relationship and that the money involved is being funnelled to the LTTE for extremist purposes in Sri Lanka”, says the newly classified report obtained through access to information.

Many people who come Canada as legitimate landed immigrants are here to help us build our great nation. These people come to this country looking at it as being a law-abiding country where they can live in peace and harmony with their neighbours. They come to this country looking at the opportunities that they have to advance the fortunes of their own families. They come to this country as a haven of peace. However, because of the laxity of this government and its slowness to bring either dollar resources or necessary legislation like this piece of legislation into effect, law enforcement is unable to protect those very people who come to this country to help us build this great nation.

Shame on the government, particularly for its delay in bringing this legislation to the House of Commons, if only for that reason.

The RCMP implicate the tamil criminal groups in a staggering variety of activities, including extortion, home invasion, attempted murder, theft, importation and sale of brown heroine, arms trafficking, production and sale of counterfeit passports, migrant smuggling, bank and casino fraud and money laundering. This is from an RCMP security intelligence report.

The report goes on to say that the activity is escalating and will likely become more difficult for police. It also says that there are other armed conflicts and hot spots in the world where there are allegations of smuggling profits that finance military operations.

This is why we, as Canadians, whether we are recently landed immigrants or our families have been here for a long time, should care about this piece of legislation. Money laundering feeds armed conflicts and illegal activities that threaten everything from our families to our society, our national and international economies and perhaps even world peace.

The act establishes a financial transactions and reports analysis centre to receive the reports. Under normal circumstances, as a Canadian Alliance MP, I would be opposed to the enactment of any legislation that would set up yet another analysis centre or another way to have more bureaucrats. However, in this particular instance, the independence of the financial transactions and reports analysis centre is absolutely critical because of the level of expertise to track these transactions that were described earlier.

The level of expertise to analyze the reports as they come out of the data that will be collected is very specialized. However there is the whole problem of personal security, the security all Canadians have from unreasonable search and seizure and big brother overlooking our shoulders.

In this instance what we are doing under this bill is to establish the financial transactions report analysis centre totally apart from our enforcement agencies so that all transactions will end up going through a highly sophisticated microscopic sieve. From that sieve and from the entrails that come out of the money flowing through it, skilled analysis will say that we should be looking at this track of money or that track of money.

The way this will work, as I understand the legislation, is that then there would be a report to law enforcement agencies to say here is something they might want to take a look at. That is it. The idea then is that the law enforcement agencies would say that they already are looking at a particular terrorist group or a particular group of organized crime and that the preliminary information, this heads-up that the financial transactions report analysis centre has given them, fits the mould of what they are already doing.

On the basis of the other police work, together with this heads-up from the centre, they would then have to go to a judge and fulfil all the ordinary obligations that would be required of law enforcement agencies so that they could then undertake other activity that would be outside where they could normally go.

To that extent this centre has to be separate because it has to be highly sophisticated, not only the centre itself but the people manning it. Additionally, the centre not being under the thumb of, answerable to, or under the jurisdiction of any police enforcement body or any military enforcement body gives me some feeling of comfort that it will not be abused and that my civil rights and the civil rights of all people in Canada will not be compromised by the enactment of the legislation.

As I mentioned, the centre would report any suspicious transactions or series of suspicious transactions to the appropriate police force, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency if the information is relevant to tax or customs duty evasion, CSIS if relevant to threats to the security of Canada, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and a foreign state if there is an agreement with Canada on money laundering.

Concerns have been raised, as I have mentioned. On behalf of people who have raised them, as the member of parliament responsible for the official opposition I have been very sensitive to any of the testimony that has come before committee and any other research that I have been able to do to arrive at the feeling of comfort that indeed the reports analysis centre will be isolated from being able to easily do anything in terms of infringing on our right to privacy.

I note that criminal defence lawyers and the federal privacy commission warned that the reporting scheme could turn Canada into a nation of snitches. With that in mind I listened to all the testimony very closely. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service said the transaction reporting machine could become a bureaucratic monster. Again, we have taken a look at that. The fact that it has to report back to the government and to parliament is a very important issue, which again is why we feel comfortable with the legislation.

CSIS proposed more selective measures that would target parties known to engage in dubious activities, but it would be my judgment that in all likelihood the centre would end up doing that in any event.

I want to deal specifically with some comments in the March 4, 2000 edition of the National Post by Terence Corcoran who wrote:

If passed, Bill C-22 would give Ottawa fresh authority to trap the innocent, infringe on privacy, collect mountains of information on citizens and put routine money transactions under suspicion. It would also conscript lawyers, banks, accountants and others into a national subculture of informants and snitches.

With due respect to Mr. Corcoran, I think he got a little carried away with his hyperbole. He went on to say:

In a letter to Justice Minister Anne McLellan last December, the Canadian Bar Association listed some of the threats posed by Ottawa's plan to increase its surveillance over money transactions greater than $10,000. It said routine legitimate business transactions could be disrupted and solicitor-client relationships undermined.

Again, I was sensitive to this and other pronouncements by people who have expressed concern about it. I am sorry, but I do not see that as being a problem. I know a member from the Toronto area was as upset as I was when we heard testimony from the Canadian Law Association. It was really very unfortunate. It was like they knew everything, that they were present but should not have been included, that they should have an exemption just because they are lawyers. It was just a tad thick.

Although I am sure there were grains of good information they were giving us, I am sure many of us had to sift through an awful lot of chaff that these lawyers were giving us. I agree with the government that there were no amendments required to give exemptions to the law profession.

I suggested that it would be a hole big enough to drive a truck through. If somebody was intending to try to get around the legislation and find exemptions in it, they could end up getting their transaction through. By making an exemption for the lawyers, anyone interested and possibly engaging in this kind of nefarious activity would naturally choose a lawyer to do the transaction as opposed to choosing an accountant or some other professional. Unfortunately that testimony, although I am sure it was sincere, was not singularly helpful. Mr. Corcoran went on to say:

In the name of fighting organized crime, Ottawa also wants to set up a new bureaucratic agency with big powers. The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada would collect information supplied by bank informants and lawyers, and—depending on regulations—could end up with a licence to harass the innocent and legitimate.

I say to Mr. Corcoran and other people who are concerned about this issue that I take their expressions of concern as being serious. In spite of all the missteps we have had in this process, nonetheless there has been fundamental goodwill among members of parliament. We have all been looking very closely to ensure that the concerns brought forward by Mr. Corcoran and others have been answered within the legislation.

One concern all of us should have is that there is an ever increasing encroachment on our ability to be able to relate to each other within society either as business people, as neighbours or even within our own families.

The headline of an April 4 Globe and Mail article read “Mob threat getting worse, RCMP says Top Mountie warns of organized crime's threat to democracy”. That is not a false threat at all. That is not hyperbole. We have seen the tentacles of organized crime reach right into the Chamber. A member of the Bloc Quebecois, his wife and his young child are being threatened by organized crime. This is something that comes to a neighbourhood near us, if not to our own homes. This is something we have to stand on guard against and we have to fight collectively.

As I have said many times, I have been desperately unhappy with the amateur hour we have had in terms of getting the legislation through the House. I maintain a concern because I do not know. Because of this flawed process I maintain a concern that two, three or four years into the legislation we will probably need a massive review of it, probably preceding the five year mandated review for the legislation.

We are faced with a delay created by the government of at least three years to bring the legislation forward. Because of the urgency of the legislation we have to enable the various public servants that will bring the transaction centre into place to get on with the job. This is an important tool to put into the hands of our law enforcement people. Therefore we will support the legislation proceeding through the House, to the Senate and hopefully to royal assent as quickly as possible.

There are things that we can join hands on. We notice that there has been full co-operation, to the best of my knowledge, among all members of the House respecting the bill. Any interventions I have made on behalf of the official opposition have been made in the spirit of having a proper process to bring this urgent legislation to successful completion and of making it as good as we could possibly make it.

[Immigration, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, because of the cutbacks and strangulation of funds for the RCMP in B.C., they are flatly refusing to guard any new immigrants who come into B.C. on leaky ships this year. Yet the immigration minister said on Tuesday “We are anticipating every eventuality and we are prepared”.

If the government is so prepared, probably the solicitor general can now tell us just who will guard those migrants.

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

Madam Speaker, this is possibly the strangest bill I have ever had anything to do with in the eight years I have had the privilege of serving the people of Kootenay—Columbia.

As the solicitor general critic I am fully aware of the consequences of the bill. It will be used basically as a highly sophisticated sieve to be able to look at countless billions of dollars of transactions literally on a daily basis. The bill is a highly sophisticated response to a highly sophisticated problem.

In one presentation during the course of our committee work the law enforcement people showed us a graph with three different pictures. When we first looked at it, it appeared as though there was a yellow sun approximately 30 inches in diameter and there were some notations around its perimeter.

When we looked very closely at it, we realized they were all simply lines. It was much like taking the wrapping off a golf ball and looking at how the elastic band was wound on it. Another section showed a bit closer that indeed they were lines, but they were so complex that it was difficult to perceive any kind of pattern.

A smaller section was blown up to the same size as the original sun and we could see the number of transactions by organized crime they had traced in this one instance to take a look at the money coming in from illegal activities that are dragging down society such as drugs, prostitution and so on. Those activities were detailed in the study by this law enforcement organization. Of everything I saw, the graph was the most graphic illustration of what we are discussing today.

We now have the ability because of the power of computers to enact all sorts of transactions and exceptionally sophisticated transactions on the part of organized crime.

I have been exceptionally critical, and I think rightfully so, of the solicitor general, the finance minister, the Prime Minister and the government for the fact that they have strangled the ability of law enforcement agencies in Canada to come even close to the level of sophistication of which even the most rudimentary organized crime units are capable.

It is not only organized crime. We are also talking about the laundering of money, much of which ends up sticking to the fingers of people involved in terrorism. The new immigrants to Canada, the people who come here to help us build our great nation, the people who see the opportunity and seize it, are most disadvantaged by the fact that the Liberal government consistently strangles the ability of law enforcement to get to the bottom of terrible terrorist organizations that not only plague the world but indeed individuals in Canada.

The speed by which the legislation is going through the House today and over the last couple of days is well warranted. It is something we desperately need to do, but we put that against the fact that over the last three years the government has dillied and dallied. It has dragged its feet and has not got around to giving us the necessary legislation. In just a second I will describe the process that led up to the point where the government finally brought the legislation to the House of Commons.

Unfortunately the legislation has been subjected to crass opportunism on the part of the Liberal government which sees this Chamber and the work of the people here as being worthy of nothing more than being treated as though it were a rubber stamp, as though we do not have a function in the process.

I was elected in my constituency not just to represent the people there. Along with the other 300 members in the House of Commons, we were collectively elected to come here to work on behalf of the people of Canada. I find it absolutely appalling that the government continuously treats the opposition and this Chamber as though it was a matter of yet another rubber stamp.

I can give an example. I am deeply concerned that the bill will be so egregiously flawed that we will run into the problems in two, three or four years after the bill is enacted and the centre gets going. We will find all sorts of flaws because of the terribly bad process it has gone through.

We have spoken during report stage about the number of things that were going on in the background. First, we ended up with negotiations between all parties on a work schedule. The government will say that the work schedule for the committee was on the basis that we would be hearing witnesses up to a particular point. The hearing of witnesses was to close at 5.30 p.m. one day and at 9 a.m. the next day we would start clause by clause consideration.

For those who are not familiar with how bills go through the House of Commons, clause by clause is exactly that. Every law is made up of any number of clauses to a bill. The number of clauses can be as few as two or three. In most instances there are 100 or more clauses to a bill. Those describe in great detail so that judges, law enforcement officials and interested Canadians can see what the intent was of the people in this Chamber with respect to any kind of legislation.

When we go through clause by clause on any bill there is the government side and, depending on how contentious the bill may be, there is the opposition that will then debate each word, each parse, each phrase and each piece of punctuation to make sure that it is indeed the way the government wants it. Of course at the end of the day the government will prevail. That is the parliamentary process.

What happened in this instance was we had a number of very interesting witnesses who gave all of us pause for concern. They made us stop and realize that we have to make sure that our Canadian legislation reflects the values within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A witness, a law enforcement official from the U.K., gave us illustrations. I asked him some questions about his illustrations on what was being done in the U.K. We very clearly discovered that if we are going to have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every piece of legislation has to match it. Therefore the bill was working around the restrictions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that many of our ancestors or relatives of our ancestors currently living in the U.K. do not have to work around. We realize in every jurisdiction in all of the G-7 countries and any of the signatories to any of the agreements with respect to money laundering that there will be different platforms that legislation will be working from.

We listened to different professional agencies. We listened to businesses that were going to be affected by the legislation. We had some very thoughtful presentations from most of the presenters. One or two of the presenters we collectively found were a bit over the top but that is fine. That is their right and their privilege to come before us in committee.

Against the 2,000 or 3,000 lawyers the government has in the justice department, the solicitor general's department, the finance department, every government department, against the 2,000 lawyers the government has on its side who could be taking apart this testimony, the official opposition has one lawyer. Count him. There is one lawyer who is basically responsible for three different ministries, that is 2,000 to one in terms of strength.

I acknowledge that the work schedule was agreed to by all parties, my party included, but when we came to the conclusion of this process it was very evident that the work schedule was no longer workable. That we were going to be hearing witnesses at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday and at nine o'clock in the morning on Thursday we were supposed to be prepared to do clause by clause study was clearly and specifically unworkable. I drew that to the attention of the parliamentary secretary.

In good faith I went to that committee session. My colleague from Charlesbourg went to that meeting. We both basically said that we needed more time. The member from Sarnia who was at the meeting actually put forward a motion that we needed to have time over the two week parliamentary break when members are at home working with their constituents. That period of time would give our lawyer an opportunity to take a look at the testimony and to parse it to see how it related to all of the clauses.

The government saw fit to vote down the motion put forward by the member from Sarnia over the objections of three members of the opposition. Therefore we did not take part in the clause by clause study. The reason I did not take part in the clause by clause study was that quite candidly I was not prepared. I have not received counsel. This is an exceptionally complex bill. I say again it is going to screen countless billions and billions of currency in and out of Canada. I wanted to be prepared. There was no way I could be prepared.

Let us fast forward to bringing this matter to the Chamber yesterday. What a disgraceful display that was. This was brought into the Chamber yesterday while we were still in the process of discussions. As a matter of fact I recall the clerk at the table stood to introduce Group No. 1 and the Speaker at the time began to read the motions. We were all running back to our seats halfway through negotiations as to how we were going to be handling the various amendments.

We got into the process and then the Liberals ended up discussing things with the Bloc Quebecois, which is entirely their privilege. I do not think much of that myself but I do think very much of the fact that I represent Her Majesty's Official Opposition. We were left out of any discussions of that type. All of a sudden the government was presenting motions to the Chair which the Chair could not receive.

I say for the third or fourth time this bill is basically responsible for acting like a highly sophisticated sieve involving countless billions of dollars on a daily basis and we are running around giving motions from the Government of Canada that the Chair cannot receive. It is no wonder I asked that the debate be adjourned. It was only logical. It gave the government an opportunity to get a breather.

What a disgraceful display for a government of a G-7 nation to come forward with this kind of vital legislation and to do it in such a slipshod way. It has been the height of folly. It has been absolutely frustrating to try to perform my duties on behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition when we have seen this type of chewing gum and baling wire.

As I pointed out on Group No. 3 that was just passed, again the government member from Sarnia presented a motion to amend the bill as written. That is what can happen at report stage, just so the people who are not familiar with the parliamentary process understand. That motion actually had some merit. I think it would have strengthened the bill not in a large way but certainly in a small way, and for something as sophisticated as this bill every little small part helps.

What happened? The member included a phrase that unfortunately was unworkable. The phrase would have caused a situation where the centre that will be doing the work would have to reveal far too much detail in public, and I understand that. My understanding in conversation with the member from Sarnia is that there had been agreement that he would agree to the removal of that phrase.

My colleague from Charlesbourg for his own very good reasons brought forward an amendment. He wanted to remove the word “government” and insert the word “parliament” thereby freezing the Senate out of the ability of being involved in the five year review of this. This is important.

Had the government been on the ball, and I drew it to the attention of certain government members at the time, and had it inserted the amendment to the motion by the member from Sarnia and then my colleague had put his subamendment, we could have had that improvement to the legislation in the bill. This just happened within the last hour.

Instead the government was remiss and did not do that. As a consequence, as we voted down the amendment by the member for Charlesbourg, we closed off the ability to make the necessary amendment for that improvement to the bill. I just despair for this process.

I have not been involved in a lot of the legislation that has gone through the House in terms of shepherding it through the House for Her Majesty's Official Opposition. I have not been as involved in the detail. Heaven forbid that the the process on every piece of legislation is as messed up as the process that was involved in this piece of legislation has been.

I recognize we are reaching the time when the Speaker will tell us it is time for members' statements. I will want to complete my speech following question period. I will conclude this portion without talking about the substance of the bill, which I will happily do following question period.

I state again that I have the greatest feeling of despair for this piece of legislation because of the fatally flawed process through which it has rumbled through this Chamber. This is where the Senate does come in. God bless their souls over there. They do have the ability to take a look at this legislation. Hopefully they will not go through as badly flawed a process.

The government now wants to get this bill through like greased lightning and wants to get this bill enacted finally after three years. I would hope that if the Senate comes forward with meaningful amendments the government will not take those as hostile and that we will not be involved in another seriously flawed process in the event that the bill ends up coming back from the Senate.

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

Madam Speaker, we continue with the saga of pulling the bill together with amendments, subamendments, everything happening at the last minute and negotiations happening even at 11 hours and 59 minutes.

I continue to feel a sense of distress over this bill. We all want the bill to go through so I am begrudgingly recommending to my colleagues that we support these motions. However, there has been so much chewing gum, baling wire and paper clips put to this bill at this particular point I do not have a lot of confidence that we will not see a big problem in three or four years after this bill comes into effect. I am very concerned about that.

I will speak to Group No. 3 specifically. I will also comment on Motion No. 9 by my esteemed colleague from Sarnia, and I say that in all seriousness. I take him to be a very serious and competent gentleman. He has certainly put some very legitimate concerns in front of the House and has a deep concern about this bill. He is a very serious and worthy member of parliament but the problem with his motion is the phrase “and the operations of the centre” contained in that motion.

Why I prefaced my remarks yet again with this business of negotiating at the last second is that if in the procedure the government had seen fit to remove that or to propose an amendment to move that, then my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois could then have entered the motion that he has before the Chamber. The point is that we have to deal with his motion and we could have dealt with the motion against this wording and the operations of the centre. It could have happened and we could have had a clause in this bill that would have in its own small way gone to strengthening the bill. Unfortunately that did not happen. As a consequence, because the member's motion includes those six words “and the operations of the centre”, I will have to recommend to my colleagues that we turn down an otherwise worthy amendment.

With respect to the member for Charlesbourg, for whom I also have a great deal of respect, I understand what he is trying to do in terms of talking about parliament as opposed to the government and the whole attitude that there is vis-à-vis the Senate. The Canadian Alliance is certainly in favour of a total revision of the Senate before we afford it perhaps the kind of respect that a chamber like that should have. However, because we want to get this bill through quickly and come up to speed, in spite of the three year delay on the part of the government, I would have to vote against revising the Senate for the very simple reason that we will not have any constitutional change. We will certainly not have this Prime Minister do anything about the Senate. This would have to be included in the motion which we will have to defeat. This is terribly confusing.

On Motion No. 11 the Canadian Alliance generally would be in favour of sunset clauses. As a matter of fact, we have proposed them for bills like Bill C-68 and other very contentious bills that have no proven value. Just to parenthesize that particular bill is completely off track. It is costing hundreds of millions of dollars and going nowhere. There is no sunset clause. Under normal circumstances our party would be in favour of a sunset clause.

However, the fact that this bill, as written by the government, does call for a review in five years, and the fact that money laundering will not go away in the next five years, I do not think this particular motion would be at all helpful.

Those are the comments of the official opposition. I hope we can get through this without more chewing gum and baling wire because we are getting a little bit low. The confectionery is getting concerned.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I am not mistaken, the vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motion No. 4. I need clarification of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the process that we are currently involved in is egregiously flawed. We are talking about a bill that will interdict hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of currency. It is an international agreement with vast ranging, international implications for not only G-7 nations but indeed nations throughout the entire world.

As has been pointed out by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and also my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois in debate this afternoon, we are talking about the core of international crime and the way in which we can track it. The member for Charlevoix, another member and myself have all pointed out that the haste with which this is going through the House is to treat the House with disrespect and as a rubber stamp.

The debacle we are currently involved in was as a result of discussion in good faith between the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. As the representative of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, I was not involved in any of the discussion about the motions that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled out of order. I find it completely unacceptable that Her Majesty's Official Opposition would not have been involved in the discussion.

Therefore, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be the third speaker to mention the whole issue of the compression of time. As I pointed out at second reading, the bill is long overdue. The government has been dragging its feet on it, and all of a sudden we are going at warp speed to try to get it through the procedure of the House of Commons.

I resent that very deeply on behalf of Canadian people because it is a vitally important bill. It has the potential to impact many hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in their financial transactions not only with respect to costs but also with respect to privacy issues and with respect to enforcement issues.

For that reason I have to concur with the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, although I do acknowledge on the part of the Liberal speaker before me that there had been an all party agreement to a work schedule When the work schedule became unworkable it was incumbent in my judgment on the government to revisit that work schedule.

I will be raising this issue in some depth when we get to third reading. Even as we speak there are ongoing negotiations on a bill and on clauses to a bill that have international ramifications, if not individual and national ramifications. I find the process to be completely unacceptable. It is a bill that is vital. Because of the urgency to get the bill through, in part because of the delay of the Liberals in bringing it to the House of Commons, we will support it. However I want the people of Canada to know that this is a seriously flawed process.

With respect to Motion No. 1, as has been noted by the government there is a problem which very simply is how in the world would we ever get institutions, individuals, professionals or casinos to comply with the particular bill. I believe it is in Never-Never Land. It is kind of a fairy tale, something like the tooth fairy, that the costs to institutions or individuals providing services to people will not somehow find their way into the service charges. Of course they will.

To try to regulate something that is totally unregulatable is pie in the sky. As a consequence, although I have the greatest respect for the mover of the motion, I could never recommend to my colleagues that we support it.