Peter MacKay

[Justice, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we know the minister is in favour of timeliness. I have a question for the solicitor general.

Kim Hancox, the widow of murdered Toronto police officer Bill Hancox, was outraged to find that CSC was allowing the female same sex lovers convicted of killing her husband to serve their life sentences together. That has since been corrected, but this is the second time in six months that the solicitor general has had to override the atrocious decisions of the CSC commissioner.

Will the solicitor general please show some semblance of leadership, restore some confidence in our justice system and our correctional system and remove the CSC commissioner?

[Justice, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted held a press conference today concerning the tragically flawed conviction of Stephen Truscott. The association will undertake an exhaustive review of this case and plans to file an application under section 690 of the criminal code.

The suspect investigation which led to Truscott's 1959 death sentence conjures up nightmarish memories of past injustices suffered by Marshall, Milgaard and Morin.

In the interest of justice, will the minister act quickly to establish an independent inquiry to review and finally provide some closure and fairness in the Truscott case?

[Health, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once again the health minister is caught in a time warp. Canadians are looking for action, not words from the minister.

Members of the Liberal government have had seven years to come forward with a meaningful plan to address the health care crisis. First, they have removed billions of dollars from social transfers, and the minister's stand pat attitude just does not cut it. The provinces have been forced to look for their own solutions.

Will the health minister stop the rhetoric and commit today to a concrete plan to provide predictable, stable, long term plans for health care in the country?

[Health, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians everywhere, including the good people of St. John's West, are tired of waiting for the health minister to come forward with real action on the number one issue facing the nation, health.

At this weekend's P.C. policy convention our party overwhelmingly endorsed implementing a sixth principle of the Canada Health Act to provide much needed stability and predictability.

Will the health minister commit today to meaningful long term health care funding for the provinces to face this crisis?

[Pornography, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would echo much of what has already been said in terms of the timeliness and the importance of this debate. I am very pleased to participate in a debate of such a very significant nature.

I want to begin by commending my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South. I know he has been a tireless worker with respect to issues such as this one. I know the particular motion comes from a very purist and principled motivation to protect children. I could not embrace in a more enthusiastic way anything that we as legislators and we as members of parliament do that will enhance protection for children.

The motion would amend subsection 163(8) of the criminal code. It would basically tighten up an existing definition. Without casting any aspersions at all on what the hon. member is trying to accomplish, that current section sets out significant protection for individuals who would be victims of exploitation under this type of activity. However, as has been referred to, there is certainly a need to have clarity in this type of legislation and in some cases to provide some direction for judges who might interpret too broadly this type of activity.

The references to the case that is pending before the supreme court, Queen v Sharpe, was highly publicized and received a great deal of response nationally although it arose out of a court in British Columbia. It has sparked very much a debate and a need to revisit this type of legislation. Anything that would depict children in such a way as to be defined as pornography or exploitive is something on which we have to move swiftly and very starkly to oppose.

My only regret, as this case has progressed through the courts and has been argued before our justices of the supreme court, is that the Minister of Justice did not act in a more swift and decisive way to refer the case immediately to the supreme court so that the decision would have been made and the signal would have been sent.

Any suggestion that the possession of child pornography, let alone its production and distribution, is constitutionally valid is asinine. Any type of activity that leads to the production of child pornography obviously has to be what has created the opportunity for someone to possess it. It is not beyond logic to follow that someone had to produce it for a person to be in possession of it. We have to send a clear message that it is absolutely offside.

The current practice is to let these matters progress through the courts. As the hon. member has stated there may very well be the need in the near future, if things do not go as they should in the supreme court, for the government to act swiftly and to invoke the notwithstanding clause. We know that is a very severe intervention and it is one that is very rarely implemented. It is the equivalent of a legislative nuclear bomb. It brings in a legislative bar on further discussion on the particular issue and suspends any further litigation in that area.

This issue is of importance. I agree very much with the commentary we have heard already on the subject matter before us. I agree wholeheartedly that it is a perfect example of something where parliament should very much consider, if need be, invoking the notwithstanding clause. I know we can all speculate and that there is not a great deal of merit in doing so at this time, but let us hope that step will not be necessary.

When we are dealing with issues that involve charter rights it is something that we have to contemplate carefully. There are fundamental freedoms which are very much protected by our charter. I am sure the Chair would agree that the charter has also led in some instances to very perverse decisions where community rights are used to stomp on individual rights and vice versa. Individual rights are often displayed in such a way that the majority of people are very much taken aback by a court's decision.

The law is and has been referred to many times as a living tree. We have to be careful when we cross into the area of legislators telling or restricting judges in what they can and cannot do. I for one still have a fair bit of faith in our judiciary. We have some very talented judges. Just like it is not popular to defend politicians, it is sometimes not popular to say that we have some very able and very competent judicial minds.

However, there is ample evidence to suggest that when it comes to children and the protection of children there are times when it is incumbent, not just our responsibility but our absolute right, to intervene on behalf of children. I can think of many instances where that is the case. One that comes to mind quite quickly is the potential change to the criminal code with respect to conditional sentences.

Conditional sentences should not be handed down by judges when it comes to sentences for sex offences, offences of violence or offences against children. That is something that should not be contemplated. I am sure it was not contemplated when the legislation was passed. The government should very much consider revisiting the particular issue.

Similarly I think we can do more to protect individuals from sex offenders. I have a private member's bill before the House that would amend the conditions of probation which attach under section 161 of the criminal code with respect to putting a bar on a sex offender attending a private dwelling house when a child is present.

There are more examples of what we can do to tighten up and very much close in on anyone who would cross that line and harm a child. It goes without saying that the harm done to a child by even the mildest display of violence or sexual intrusion carries with that child for life. It is a life sentence imposed and has absolutely drastic and far reaching effects on the life of a child.

This type of debate is very useful when it comes to looking at these types of issues, examining what more we can do. We in this place are tasked to do everything we can to protect young people, people of all denominations, ages and creeds across the country.

I believe the hon. member would very much agree that we should have a national strategy to combat child pornography. We should be doing more to study this area. We should have a national databank with respect to those who are convicted of pedophilia and crimes of such a nature.

We could do a great deal more if we had a national sex offender registry that would inform those who are most at risk. We know that the use of the Internet, the use of modern technology, allows us to expand the horizons of information and availability. Technology has broken down many barriers in terms of making information available.

There is much to be done. We should have legislation that would allow for testing of sex offenders for communicable diseases such as AIDS. That is another suggestion I am sure many members of the House would embrace.

Fundamental changes can be made. I think the hon. member is moving in the right direction with his suggestion under this motion. Obviously a lot can be done. One of the greatest fears against which we have to be guarded is the creeping complacency or apathy that exists, desensitization by the prevalence of pornography and violence and its perpetration as some form of art. We have to do more to ensure that this is not the case in the House. That is not what Canadians expect us to do. Although I am very quick to point out that freedom of expression is something we always have to be conscious of and respect, freedom of expression never involves the exploitation of a child.

I have no doubt that we will be discussing the Sharpe case again at some point in the future. As I have indicated, I hope it will not come to pass that it will be incumbent upon this government or any government to intervene with the notwithstanding clause. Should that happen, I expect that the hon. member will echo the remarks he has already put forward. I support him in that. The charter is there as a shield and a sword. Similarly we have to be prepared to use the particular piece of legislation when it is necessitated, when it is incumbent and when it is proper.

I support the hon. member in his efforts. I commend him and congratulate him again for bringing the matter forward. Debates of this nature help Canadians to understand the issues. They help in furthering the drafting and presentation of legislation that would improve the protections which currently exist in our criminal code. In conclusion, I support the matter and I fully hope that all members of the House will do likewise.

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, members of the solid Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no on this motion.

[Youth, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of a real success story involving Canada's youth.

The national youth at risk pilot project initiative resource collection “Open Your Mind—Open Their Lives” is the result of nine national organizations, 28 communities and hundreds of local partners in youth working together. Teen Express 2000 in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is one of seven profiled as extremely successful. Teen Express 2000 was established during the summer of 1998 as a co-operative venture among the Pictou County Women's Centre, New Glasgow Youth Centre, New Glasgow/Westville Police Service, YM-YWCA of Pictou County and Recreation New Glasgow.

Establishing partnerships and creating mechanisms for shared information between organizations related to youth is the goal. This is achieved by means of a four step process: building awareness, gaining commitment, implementation and sustainability.

Communities and organizations form partnerships that will provide support, leadership, expertise and the commitment needed to develop a sustainable program for youth and children. Many agencies and individuals are unaware of just how beneficial youth networking can be in their community. Teen Express 2000 is a shining example to all.

[Division No. 1279, May 3rd, 2000]

I hear hon. members opposite becoming a little alarmed by the fact that we are pointing this out, but Canadians know what is happening and those members can say what they want. The indicators are there. The ears are closed. The message is going out but they are not listening.

We will see a byelection in Newfoundland which will indicate that Canadians have had it with the Liberal government. When that happens, maybe that message will start to penetrate those ears. The Liberals have big earmuffs on when it comes to listening to what Canadians have to say.

With money laundering legislation that is aimed at a specific problem perhaps finally we will be able to get the attention of the government. We hear about things like this happening in the country. Unfortunately the national media are not always the most responsible in reporting exactly how it is, but we know that the particular problem has been broadcast across the country. It has been broadcast clearly as an issue that has to be addressed and addressed now.

We hope that side of the House will continue to support initiatives like this one. Unfortunately more and more the initiatives that matter most to Canadians, whether it be tax reduction, health care, something to do with student debt or initiatives to help our law enforcement agents, are coming from the opposition side because the Liberals are bankrupt on ideas. We know that when it comes to principle there is another party in here that can be very bankrupt.

I thank the House for its indulgence and for the time to speak to the legislation. I look forward to seeing it passed through the various stages and becoming law.

[Division No. 1279, May 3rd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I thank again and recognize the efforts of the hon. member for Charlesbourg who moved Motions Nos. 2 to 7. These motions highlight a concern which I think we all have. Certainly we in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada share the concerns with respect to this new agency passing on unrelated information that it might have about Revenue Canada.

For example, if the agency had reasonable grounds to pursue an individual case of money laundering, that much is fine, but money laundering has become a very serious issue and one that should be considered a threat to national security.

Globally experts estimate that between $300 billion and $500 billion in United States currency is criminally derived from international capital markets or funds that are derived from outside our borders. In Canada the federal government estimates that between $5 billion and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are laundered in this country each year. If this new agency does not have enough power and enough evidence to pursue the case of money laundering, it could determine that there is not enough evidence to get the person on tax evasion and could conceivably release information to Revenue Canada. It is crucial that we ensure on behalf of Canadian taxpayers that this new agency is not swallowed up by the Godzilla tax collector out there, also known as the department of revenue.

What we saw happen in the House just a short time ago epitomizes how the government is flying by the seat of its pants. We saw a member on the government side try to amend an amendment. What was intended was to amend the act itself, which the Chair quite properly ruled out of order. The member rose and we had to delay the debate because of the fact that the government did not know what it was doing.

This shows there is no plan. The Liberals have lost the plot again with respect to a very important piece of legislation on which they should have taken the time to do their homework and prepare what they wanted to do instead of simply trying to hoodwink everybody that was in the House.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports the broad principles of the bill before us on debate. It is one of the most important efforts that we can all make with respect to law enforcement, with respect to the integrity of our country and with respect to the efforts of our law enforcement agencies to curtail and control a growing money laundering problem and criminal activity within our borders. The Conservative Party supports the broad principles.

When members of the RCMP call this legislation long overdue and say that it will make a significant difference, we have to take them at their word. The Canadian Bankers Association has spoken very favourably about the legislation. It similarly says that the legislation is long overdue and that organized crime will be much deterred by it.

International money capital markets annually are very much affected. We know that the bill is aimed at addressing fiscal problems that occur when money is funnelled through legitimate organizations like banks. We know as well that the amendments which have been introduced very much ameliorate and prop up some of the intended passages.

We feel the legislation will be an improvement upon the current situation in the country, but we have to hearken back to where some of the real problems lie. Where do the real problems stem from in terms of the ability of our law enforcement agencies to somehow control the situation?

We see a bill that is aimed at tightening up some of the legislative framework, but what we really need to do to improve the situation is to prop up the RCMP and CSIS by giving these law enforcement agencies the backup and resources they need to combat a very sophisticated organized crime syndicate in this country.

We know the government has a reputation for being laid back and very non-supportive of our law enforcement agencies when it comes to their ongoing uphill battle with existing crime syndicates, not only motorcycle gangs but the increasing presence of Asian gangs, Russian gangs and the traditional Mafia within Canada.

Compared to countries like the United States we pale in comparison in terms of the support that we give law enforcement agencies. The other message that should be coming out in this debate is that it is not enough simply to put a legislative framework in place. We have to pony up to the bar and put dollars on the table so that the men and women who are very much dedicated to our law enforcement services are not only seen to be given support but are given actual support. We need to do this right away.

The Progressive Party of Canada has always been very much supportive of agencies in the country that are tasked with this very important task. They are the thin blue line between the Canadian public and those who choose a life of crime.

The bill is one of which our party is supportive. The amendments as well are supported by our party. The reaction from the community, from the banking community and from agencies across the land, seems to be one that has embraced the intention of the bill. One would hope that there will be rapid passage of the legislation when it reaches the committee and when it comes back to the House.

Money laundering is but one part of the equation when it comes to organized crime. We know that drug enforcement has been a huge problem from our law enforcement perspective. We know that guns and other contraband material are coming across our undefended borders.

We know as well that child pornography and people smuggling are very much a problem. We do not have impenetrable borders, and that will never happen. The dismantling of the ports police which the government orchestrated by having weak border patrols was highlighted recently by the fact that we had an international terrorist cross into Seattle from Canada. This alarmed American law enforcement officials. They have called upon Canada to tighten up, to try to pick up the slack, because they are feeling very vulnerable as a result of Canada letting down the side.

All the indicators are there. All the signs are speaking out to Canada to do something about it. The legislation at least indicates that we are moving in the right direction, but sadly as we have come to expect from the government it is a baby step as opposed to a giant step or even a significant step in doing the right thing by propping up the men and women who are tasked with protecting the country's integrity, not only with respect to illegal funds but with respect to the whole gamut of illegal activity that is taking place.

We know that gangs are very much rearing their ugly heads not only in cities like Montreal, Toronto and Calgary. They are now making their presence known in rural communities across the country.

Because of the huge boundaries of water we have and because of the lack of resources that we have for the coast guard and the lack of resources that we have for the RCMP to actually partake in patrols on docks and in major ports, once again we are being very much left open to contraband materials entering the country. Money laundering is very much the focus of the bill, but we know that there are other very significant tasks, other very significant problems that are faced by law enforcement agents.

The government is letting down the side. It has not lived up to the billing. It has not responded to requests from the RCMP. It has not responded to requests to renew and bring back the ports police in this country. It is not listening, and we know it is not listening.

More and more we are getting the indicators that this is a tired, arrogant government. When the Prime Minister goes abroad and sticks his foot firmly in his mouth, it proves that time and time again. We knew that long before he went to the Middle East. He was doing the same thing in this country, but now he has demonstrated it to the whole world.

What we want to hear is that the government is listening. Canadians want to hear that the government is actually listening to them. This is an opportunity for the government to do so, but I do not think it is listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, on her speech.

I also want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. He worked very hard during consideration of this bill. I am very proud to have worked with him.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-22, the proceeds of crime bill. This legislation will, for all intents and purposes, create a new agency that will oversee and very much attach itself to the effort to prevent money laundering, a very serious problem in our country.

Again, I congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg who has worked very hard on this bill and is very conscientious as a member, a previous member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and in his current capacity as he works equally hard for his constituents.

This amendment would add to a new clause to the bill. It would read:

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

This is a very positive, common sense amendment and one that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will be supporting wholeheartedly. The main purpose of the amendment is obvious. It would protect the average citizen from the various organizations concerned effectively passing the buck on to them, that is, using citizens very much as a dupe for some organized crime unit.

For example, in the banking sector consumers are already faced with relatively high service charges and further increases would not be desirable. As we all know, money laundering is a process by which revenues derived from criminal activity are converted into assets that cannot easily be traced back to their origins. It is something that is happening at an alarming rate in Canada.

Bill C-22 would bring Canada up to date with the standards of our G-7 trading partners. It does not take us beyond the minimum standard, but it does take us at least to the standard that G-7 countries have set.

In the United States I had the pleasure recently of visiting with an organized crime unit in the state of Massachusetts where they are doing a great deal to address this problem, and they are putting resources into it. That is the number one problem facing this government and this country. We are not arming our policing agencies, our internal security agencies, with sufficient resources to combat what is a very sophisticated and very well armed organized crime syndicate operating in Canada.

The saying that crime does not pay could not be further from the truth with regard to money laundering. It is estimated that between $5 billion and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are laundered in Canada each year. It has become a very lucrative and profitable business.

Canada has long had a reputation of being one of the easiest jurisdictions in which to legitimize the proceeds of illegal pursuits.

The latest report of the Crime Intelligence Service of Canada indicates that money laundering has allowed, for example, the Sicilian mafia to continue to infiltrate legitimate business. Asian based groups are heavily involved in Canadian heroin and drug trafficking. We also know that the Russian mafia has become very prevalent inside Canada.

There has been discussion in the Chamber recently about the situation, particularly on the west coast, of the smuggling of humans. We know that the sidewinder project has received a great deal of attention in the media of late. This again demonstrates, sadly, our lack of resources when it comes to law enforcement, our internal security services, and their ability to combat organized crime.

Money laundering is but one aspect of this growing concern we have about protecting the integrity of our citizens and our money system. Money laundering poses to law enforcement personnel one of their greatest challenges in the battle against organized crime. To fight organized crime effectively, law enforcement agencies and we, as legislators, must address the challenges posed by current trends in money laundering and adopt a strategy to respond to those challenges. This bill moves in that direction.

For example, several months ago United States officials uncovered the biggest money laundering operation ever inside their country. Federal investigators believe that Russian gangsters had channelled up to $10 billion through the Bank of New York, the 15th largest bank in the United States. This news sent shock waves throughout the entire financial services sector and proved that money laundering can affect even the biggest banks, those big commercial banks who would have us believe they are impenetrable.

The United States has moved ahead very quickly with its own tough, new money laundering legislation. It is very concerned, and we have seen it time and again, because the American economy and law enforcement agencies are very much tied, and therefore vulnerable, to our weaker internal security services. The U.S. has expressed concern repeatedly about the situation.

Since the Liberals took power in 1993 our internal security has diminished and has continued to be weakened. The Liberal government has given the United States much evidence to validate its concerns. In December 1999 U.S. customs officers discovered an Algerian Canadian, with Algerian terrorist connections, attempting to enter the United States through Seattle with a carload of explosives. This touched off a very serious concern within the United States and it continues to this day.

On February 25, 2000 the U.S. government suspended firearm and ammunition sales to Canada, which was done at the request of the Canadian government, and legal import licences were being used to import large quantities of handguns, rifles and ammunition. Firearms were then smuggled back into other countries. Many of them went back to the United States. This was very much an embarrassment for Canada. The soft approach on crime is highlighted by these inadequacies. It was another blow to our good relationship with the United States, because of our open, undefended border.

Since 1993 the Liberals have talked repeatedly about increasing penalties for money laundering in a manner that would be consistent with public safety, yet the RCMP still lacks the proper budget to deal with today's very sophisticated crime. For example, we saw that only $810 million had been set aside over the next three years. Much of that has been earmarked to fight organized crime.

Unfortunately, the usual sleight of hand has to be uncovered, and that is that 62% of this new money will not be available until the year 2001-02. This will be added to the RCMP base budget of about $2.1 million. That is still not enough, given the level of the problem and the years that the RCMP, CSIS and other services have been underfunded.

The mounties have already had to curtail their activities with respect to undercover operations which targeted organized crime. Reduction in training and the inability to conduct fraud investigations in British Columbia and undercover operations seriously jeopardizes the RCMP's ability to effectively do its job.

To correct these problems it is proposed that 5,000 new RCMP officers would be needed. Also lacking is staff at the forensic laboratory, the need for DNA databanks and the need to update the CPIC system. Police forces need this type of technology, and yet the government cannot even afford and will not commit the money that is needed to deal with these very serious inadequacies.

The government gave $115 million to the CPIC program when it was stated quite clearly that what was needed was $283 million. Once again, a pittance. It is an insult to our brave men and women who are in the mounties and in the secret service to have to work under these conditions.

British Columbia mounties alone may shift away from organized crime to deal with more pressing needs of fulfilling police vacancies and paying their officers. Basic policing needs have to be attended to and, therefore, organized crime needs are being neglected. In rural areas there is a very serious problem of losing RCMP documents and losing municipal police forces in small communities.

The riding of Shefford, represented by the Progressive Conservative member from Granby, is dealing with the very serious threat of losing its detachment. Biker gangs are terrorizing farmers and forcing them to grow marijuana in their fields.

There is a Bloc member who is currently being threatened by members of biker gangs and organized crime.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the broad purpose and principles of this bill, that is, to remedy the shortcomings in Canada's anti-money laundering legislation as identified by the G-7 financial action task force on money laundering. We support this amendment and we will be very supportive of this bill as it proceeds through the House and the various committee stages.