Peter MacKay

[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.

[Public Works And Government Services, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once again a complete non-answer from the government side.

In 1997 the former public works minister and defeated Liberal candidate, David Dingwall, raised $20,300 in donations from companies that received public works contracts; one-third of his campaign budget. These same companies turned around and received a total of $1.5 million in untendered contracts. That is a pretty good return.

Will the minister call in the auditor general, which he can do under section 11, to investigate these untendered contracts? First there was HRDC and now we have the same shenanigans going on in public works.

[Public Works And Government Services, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Transelec, a Laval company, gave $5,000 to the Prime Minister's election campaign in 1993 and another $10,000 in 1997. It also gave $28,000 to the Liberal Party; a total of $43,000.

Shortly after the 1997 election, Transelec received untendered public contracts for $27,000 and a CIDA contract worth $6.3 million. Since the election the company has evaporated. It has no listed phone number for the company or its owner Claude Gauthier.

Will the government call in the auditor general to investigate this highly questionable use of taxpayer money?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting and timely debate that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Wanuskewin. Private member's motion No. 341 talks about defending the constitutionality of section 43 of our criminal code and, if necessary, taking the legislative action to reinstate section 43, including invoking the notwithstanding clause of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am very supportive of the upholding and the reinforcement, if necessary, of section 43 of our criminal code. I think the member opposite and previous speakers have spoken quite eloquently and have set out before the House the necessity and the background with respect to why we have section 43 in the criminal code. It is there essentially to set very much a standard for the reasonable force that can be used to take corrective measures or to take action when necessary to discipline a child in a situation, whether it be at home or at school.

That section of the criminal code has been in place for a number of years. It has been tested in the courts. It has been examined extensively by courts and by litigators across the country.

I want to thank the hon. member for Wanuskewin for bringing this motion forward.

Unfortunately, I have some difficulty with respect to invoking the notwithstanding clause with respect to this type of criminal code section. That is not to diminish the importance of what the hon. member is seeking to accomplish. I think it is a productive opportunity here in the House to examine the situation, to flesh out this issue further and to look at the issue of discipline, in particular with respect to parents, teachers and community workers, those who are in regular contact with children. It is a very trying time.

It goes without saying that adults are very much in a situation at times where they are forced to make the judgment call to decide whether to take the appropriate physical action, which they must measure, and somehow try to apply a standard of restraint when it comes to physical coercion or restraint of a child. It becomes a very dicey and grey issue. This type of debate is helpful in that regard.

Parents are in a unique position because they know their children best and they know when they have to take that type of extraordinary measure in terms of controlling a child in certain instances. Children, obviously, at times need discipline and parents need the power to invoke this type of reasonable corrective action. Parents know best. They know the unique characteristics of their children and they know the most effective way, for the most part, to raise their child, including discipline in that process.

There is obviously a need to protect the bodily integrity of everyone, and our criminal code does so. It goes without saying that children are more informed about their rights than they have ever been at any time in our history. That is a good thing. The education system teaches children and teaches our citizens generally more about the law than in previous generations. It is very important that Canadians know and understand their legal rights and the obligations which flow from those rights.

Section 43 would help to defend the right of a parent or an adult to intervene in certain circumstances and apply measured, reasonable, restrained physical force. Thus, the issue becomes, is there a necessity to protect that right? Yes, there is. That is what is at the very root of this motion. It is a genuine, sincere attempt to protect and uphold a section of the criminal code that has a very important and productive background and necessity in this country.

That is not to say that there should ever be any indication that this section should be misused or that this section should be construed in some way as to condone or encourage any sort of excessive physical force.

There have been some high profile cases before the courts. The one that comes to mind is a recent case in which an American citizen, in this country, was seen to be using what was perceived, in a parking lot area, to be excessive force in disciplining his daughter. That case resulted in the police intervening and has become somewhat of a cause célèbre in this country.

The courts have been quite measured in examining these situations. They have, in their discretion, looked at the factual circumstances of each and every case. Again, as referred to by the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, it is very much an individualized situation. In every case before a court of law there is an ample opportunity to flesh out the circumstances, the factual evidence. The crown prosecutor, in conjunction with the police, is to present evidence that would support a charge of assault or a like charge that involved the use of force. Section 43 is very much there as a filter and a sword to protect the person who has been accused of exercising this type of physical intervention.

It is understandable that there is some trepidation. We have all received calls both in our constituency offices and here in Ottawa from concerned citizens every time there is a case before the courts. Every time this situation arises there is a concern that parents and adults, likewise, feel that they will not be permitted to use reasonable force.

The only trepidation I have in the wording of this particular motion is with the reference to the notwithstanding clause.

I have had discussions with the mover of this motion, who gives assurance, and I think it is implicit when we read it carefully, that it is very much not a pre-emptive strike, but it is there in its wording to suggest that if things proceed in the fashion that the hon. member anticipates, there may be the need for the government to intervene.

For that reason I find it difficult to justify the way in which it is presented. That is to say, at this time there is not an epidemic of abuse, where individuals are relying on this section to justify abuse. We are not faced with a situation where there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what type of force is appropriate.

Obviously, when physical injury results or when force is used in a very inappropriate way, sometimes it is not just the physical abuse that needs to be examined. We obviously know of occasions where a child can be berated, verbally abused, intimidated and scared, and that type of abuse also has to be examined when looking at like situations.

There is an important quote by Morris Manning that I want to put on the record. In his legal commentary, he said:

If our freedom of conscience or religion can be taken away by a law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our right to life or liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have.

He is obviously suggesting that we must tread very lightly when using the notwithstanding clause. Much akin to the idea behind this motion and behind section 43 of the criminal code, we must be very measured and careful before invoking such an extreme measure. It was referred to as the nuclear bomb of our legal system.

To use the notwithstanding clause essentially annihilates precedent. It annihilates the use of the courts to do their job and to exercise discretion and judgment over our laws. It suspends discussion on a legal principle and on a law. We have to be extremely cautious before going down that road. I know the hon. member who moved this motion is aware of that.

This is a very subjective and objective debate when it comes to the appropriateness of physical intervention. I suspect all members in the House feel very strongly about upholding the importance and integrity of section 43 of the criminal code.

For those reasons, I feel it is appropriate that we exhaust all avenues currently within our system and that judicial discretion be respected in each and every case. One would hope that this particular factual circumstance under section 43 will not be struck down by our courts. That is not to anticipate what any superior court or supreme court in the country will do, but at this time I do not feel it is necessary to invoke or at least threaten to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I again congratulate the hon. member on his initiative in bringing this forward. It is a useful debate and one that may have to be revisited at some time in the near future.

[Justice, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government's very liberal approach to crime has provided $450,000 in a grant to the Elizabeth Fry Society so that it could fully support and wish every success to Karla Homolka's bid for early release into a halfway house. Within the year the same society will provide favourable representations to the parole board for early release.

Rehabilitation support for prisoners is important, but where is the balance in our justice system which forces taxpayers to fund the early release of convicted sex killers while the rights of the French and Mahaffy families are ignored?

[Public Works And Government Services, May 2nd, 2000]

Once again he has contradicted the auditor general. We will see tomorrow who is right.