Rick Dykstra

[Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today on Bill C-25. The bill will strengthen the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to ensure that Canada continues to be a global leader in combatting organized crime and terrorist financing. This is just another example of Canada taking the threat of terrorism seriously.

Once passed by Parliament, these changes will make Canada's overall regime consistent with international standards. The bill targets either the financial rewards from underlying crimes, such as drug dealing, prostitution and extortion, or by stopping the flow of funds to terrorist groups.

Money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities are serious crimes that affect all Canadians. Criminals are constantly changing their tactics and finding new ways to avoid and evade the law. Therefore, we need to make laws that will keep up with criminals and, in fact, stay ahead of them.

The National Post has reported that Canada has long been a fundraising base for international terrorist groups, from the IRA and Hezbollah to the Iranian MEK. This can simply not continue.

The background on this is that the foundation of this tax regime was originally set out in the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and then adapted to the changing global reality of terrorism. It was renamed the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in 2001.

I would like to touch on the government's four key amendments that it has set out to accomplish the updating of what it needs to do.

First, we are enhancing information sharing between the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, more commonly known as FINTRAC, law enforcement and other domestic and international agencies. In fact, this group reports regularly through the House's finance committee and did so just this past month.

Second, we are creating a registry for money service businesses. This really speaks to ensuring we have some accountability within that registry.

Third, we are enabling legislation for enhanced client identification measures. We need to ensure we know who we are dealing with.

Fourth, we are creating an administrative and monetary penalty system to better enforce compliance with the act.

There is a need for why we need to do it. Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada reported in early October, as I mentioned, to the finance committee that terrorist groups funnelled an estimated $256 million through our country last year. This is up from $180 million the year before and $70 million the year before that. We are starting to identify and the bill enhances what needs to be done.

There are up to 34 terrorist financing networks operating within the country. Another $4.75 billion was laundered by crime groups, which is up from the $2 billion in 2005. Recently there was the case of four Canadians with links to the University of Waterloo accused of funnelling money to the Tamil Tigers. This shows that Canada has a responsibility to its international partners to continue to crack down on terrorist financing. Canada will not be a safe haven for those who support terror.

How did we come to this legislation? As a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force, we are committed to implementing its regulations, including new ones released in 2003, which require this update to be made. Canada has committed to implementing the 40 recommendations of the FATF on money laundering and 9 special recommendations on terrorist financing. The bill brings our standards in line with the Auditor General's recommendations of 2004 and the Treasury Board report of 2004.

Finally, it also fulfills demands of the interim report of the Senate committee on banking to implement tougher measures on money laundering and terrorist financing.

In Canada there is a need to balance increased vigilance and monitoring with the fundamental need to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens. This is an issue we take very seriously in Canada.

As we did with this legislation, we will continue to consult widely with Canadians. In the future, we need to ensure that a better system does not come at a price of a loss of privacy for all of our citizens.

As a prelude to the bill, the Department of Finance issued a consultation paper entitled, “Enhancing Canada's Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Regime” in June 2005. Over 50 submissions from stakeholders were received followed by further face to face consultations.

As a result, the proposed bill contains amendments that seek to address industry concerns and minimize the compliance burden by tailoring wherever possible proposed new requirements to existing business practices.

The proposed legislation serves to meet Canada's international commitments to combat money laundering and terrorist financing while ensuring that our domestic regime remains robust and up to date.

Those who benefit from crime and steal hundreds of millions of dollars should not be allowed to drive armoured vehicles full of money and waltz over to their local banks. That is the last thing Canadians want in their country.

Criminals who are laundering money should do one thing. They should stew in jail about it. The government and its law and order package and its agenda will help prevent organized crime and terrorism from organizing in any of our communities.

Speaking to that, I come from a riding that is very close to three access points on the border. One of the commitments that we have made, both before the election and since we have taken government, is to ensure that security, whether it be RCMP or our security officers at the border, is funded, prepared and supported in order to ensure that Canadians, both in Niagara and across the country, are safe.

[Petitions, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House signed by hundreds in my riding concerned with the age of consent. This petition comes from the people of St. Catharines and it asks the government to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16.

[The Environment, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday our government tabled the clean air act, which demonstrates our commitment to cleaning up the air we breathe for the health of all Canadians. Part of that act includes the development of the new national air quality health index.

Could the Minister of Health please tell the House what public reaction he has received on this new bill?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this has been something that from a finance committee perspective we have been talking about for a number of weeks and it has been presented. One of the interesting results is that since 1999 in this country numbers of those who attend university have increased from 19% to 25%, so they are attending school and they are getting the education to become better Canadians.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I spent a great deal of time meeting and speaking with the individual in his riding with whom we met a couple of weeks ago. I certainly enjoyed that opportunity and had a chance to understand the work she does.

However, there is something the member needs to think about in terms of what he said. He said that illiteracy rates are actually climbing for adults in this country while at the same time funding was increased. That speaks directly to the issue we need to deal with, that is, if we are going to deliver a program, if we are going to take responsibility for a program, it had darned well better deliver results, not only for taxpayers in this country and not only for the people in the hon. member's community, but for the people who are going to be receiving it.

What we have said is that we will make sure the core focus of literacy programs under the responsibility of the federal government delivers results and that those who need the help are going to get the help.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

I will begin by thanking my colleague from across the floor, the member for Markham—Unionville, for offering me the opportunity to discuss the importance of responsible budget planning.

While he and I may duel a little bit at the finance committee, he likes the GST and I happen to dislike it, we still can have a fruitful discussion about the nation's finances.

This topic raises an important question, a question that tells us a lot about our values and how best to translate them into a better economy for Canadians and for our families; an economy that can keep pace in the increasingly fast paced and advanced global arena; an economy with better job opportunities; and a higher standard of living and greater opportunity for Canadians to learn, to earn and to invest in the future of their want for themselves and their families.

I listen to the families in St. Catharines and Canadian families all over. What they tell me is that they want some basic budgeting principles applied when they manage their finances. First, they do not want the government to spend beyond its means. Canadians understand this and Canada's new government understands it as well. Not only do we understand this, but we are acting on it.

We announced significant spending control measures to ensure that the government does not spend beyond its means and that spending is effectively focused on the priorities of all Canadians. We have clearly indicated that a strategy is in place to secure $1 billion in savings this year and next, as we promised in the spring budget. We saw that federal program spending was down $1.1 billion from the previous year, the first year over year decline in nine years. This is a critical point.

I would like to use some quotes to support our focus. First, “The government plans to make a regular exercise of chopping low priority programs to fund the Liberal agenda”. Second, “When it comes to funding and savings”, this individual said, “philosophically I believe it's absolutely the right thing to do”. This gentleman went on to say that his initial goal of bringing in excess of $12 billion out of government departments was just a start. Finally, he said, “There's no doubt you can't find $12 billion or even a chunk of it without affecting jobs”.

I know the House is waiting in breathless anticipation to hear who said those things. It was not me. It was not the President of the Treasury Board. In fact, it was not the Minister of Finance. It was the member for Markham—Unionville, the very person who is moving this motion today.

In fact, what the government is doing is what my hon. friend from across the floor agrees should be done. We have secured savings by identifying unused funds for programs that will not proceed. These are funds in excess of what is required to achieve results.

The previous spend-happy government liked to have its hand in the cookie jar so much that it could not be bothered to put the lid back on the jar. In fact, it became known across the country as the sponsorship jar because it was so easy to get into it.

This government has thrown out the jar and put the funds where they belong the most, with the highest priorities of Canadians. We also confirm that Canada's new government is reducing the national debt by $13.2 billion, one of the largest pay downs of debt reduction in Canadian history. This means that federal debt is actually down $561 for each and every Canadian and that the federal government will save approximately $650 million this year and every year into the future.

This represents substantial progress. It is reflected in the favourable ratings we receive from investment houses and bond rating agencies, which will result in lower interest for all Canadians at all levels of government, including right here and starting right here at the federal level.

Paying down the national debt means lower interest payments for all Canadians, freeing up resources for real priorities like tax reduction, supporting our seniors, and funding our health care system.

Canadians understand how this works. They know that it is better to pay down our debts as soon as possible so that we can spend money on better things than interest payments.

That is how Canadians want us to proceed and that is how we will proceed.

Our approach is already paying dividends, dividends we are reinvesting into some of the highest priorities of Canadians, such as our universal child care benefit, which provides parents with $1,200 per year to support their child care choice, or investments in core federal responsibilities like public safety, national defence and border security. These are vital for ridings like mine in the Niagara region.

There are also the priorities of financial assistance that will help meet the critical infrastructure needs of the communities we call home, the integrity of our universities and our colleges, and assistance for those who need affordable housing in this country.

We have done all this and we will continue to do more for Canadians and their families, because the Canadian family is at the heart of our agenda. As I hope I have illustrated here today, it is also the inspiration for our approach to managing taxpayers' dollars.

Paying down the debt is an investment in a low tax, high potential future for our children. That is what my parents, who are sitting here in the House today, want for their children. That is what I want for my children.

St. Catharines residents often tell me how important it is that our local economy is able to provide high quality jobs. It is important because we want our kids and the students at Brock University and Niagara College to be able to stay in the area and raise families. We do not want them to leave because they have to find jobs elsewhere. By reducing the debt today, we are helping ensure that a bright future will be there for them tomorrow.

[Health, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the theme of good government, our government understands the important role that health research has within the medical community and the benefits that it provides to all Canadians.

Could the Minister of Health please inform the House on what Canada's new government is doing to support health research throughout our country?

[Government Surplus, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while the party across the aisle would like to live in the past, this government is focused on working toward the future. To that end, on Monday, this government announced that the $13.2 billion surplus would go toward paying down the national debt.

The former finance minister would like the money. Could the current finance minister please explain how Canadians and this country will benefit from that surplus being used to pay down the debt?

[Canada-U.S. Border, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while the ghosts of the Liberal Party were being haunted again yesterday, the Government of Canada was continuing to work on behalf of all Canadians.

The western hemisphere initiative concerns many Canadians. Would the Prime Minister please comment on the decision by the United States legislators to extend the deadline of new identification measures at the Canada-U.S. border for 17 months?

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would extend my compliments to my colleague for his support of the legislation. He has done a very good job in the time that he has had to explain that the legislation is necessary and that it is something he supports. I think that suggests in a minority government that good legislation will be supported and should be supported by any member of the House.

In terms of responding to his question with respect to the Prime Minister's position, the Prime Minister has stated over and over again that he has no intentions of having this government brought down for any reason whatsoever. What he has indicated, if the opposition is prepared in a motion of confidence to not support the government, that he is prepared to call an election and go to the voters of this country again. However, let us be clear that his mission and our mission as a government has been stated very clearly and directly: We are here to govern, not to bring governments down. We are here to build governments up.