36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 79
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 5, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| FRANCOMANIA
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1405
| COASTAL SOUND MUSIC ACADEMY
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| IRINI MARGETIS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| BERNARD LAJOIE
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| MISSISSAUGA SOUTH ESSAY CONTEST
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| ERIC BISHOP
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1410
| VIMY RIDGE
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| HOUSING
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1425
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1430
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1440
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| STOCK MARKETS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1450
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Mr. John Herron |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1455
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TRANSPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| ETHIOPIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1500
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| MEMBER NAMED
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| CANADA WELL-BEING MEASUREMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-469. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1510
| BROADCASTING ACT
|
| Bill C-470. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Mammography
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1515
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Pesticides
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1520
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Transferred for debate
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill C-22. Second reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1525
1530
1535
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1540
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Mr. John Solomon |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1725
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-276. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 1
|
1735
1740
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1745
1750
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1755
| Mr. John Solomon |
1800
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1805
1810
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1815
1820
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1825
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
| The Environment
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1835
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Shipbuilding
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1840
| Mr. John Cannis |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 79
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 5, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[Translation]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday, we will now sing O
Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.
[Editor's note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's economic upturn is indeed a reality.
According to a recent Statistics Canada report, the gross
domestic product rose 0.5% in January. This is the 18th month
in a row in which there has been an increase, the longest
uninterrupted series since 1961, when the GDP began to be
measured.
The economic and budgetary choices made by the Liberal
government are now bearing fruit. Despite the opposition
raised, of course, by the opposition, we have done the job.
There are now some truly concrete results.
Everyone, including the opposition parties, is clearly forced to
acknowledge that we have come a long way from the distressing
situation of 1993.
The results are great, but what is still more important is that
they are so full of promise and of hope for everyone in Canada.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, thanks to the government's tax them until they drop
policy, the EI surplus will hit a whopping $35 billion this year.
Since only about $15 billion is needed as a hedge against a
recession, Canada's premier payroll tax will be used to fund the
government's pre-election spending spree. Workers and small
businesses who struggle to feed this government's insatiable
appetite for taxes are outraged that their EI premiums will be
used to prop up Liberal electoral fortunes.
Debt reduction and tax relief are needed immediately to stop the
brain drain and to stem the exodus of our homegrown industries.
But these Liberals are so out of touch with reality that they
think they can buy the hearts and votes of Canadians by simply
reversing the changes they made to the EI rules.
Canadians want lower taxes and real jobs, not make work
projects, grants or EI. Liberals are not going to give that to
them, but a Canadian Alliance government would make it a
priority.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOMANIA
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to congratulate the team at www.francomania.ca,
who have just won an award, the Mérites du français dans les
technologies de l'information 2000, in the category of Internet
site in French and encouragement of the use of French in
cyberspace. This is one of the awards given by the Office de la
langue française of the Government of Quebec, as part of the
festivities for Francofête 2000, the week celebrating French and
the Francophonie.
Francomania doubly deserves congratulations, for it also won the
Grand Prix Boomerang in December 1999 in the category of
Internet site, cultural product. Francomania was created at the
time of the 8th Francophone Summit in Moncton and the Year of
Canadian Francophonie, by and for young francophones aged 16 to 25.
This recognition of the excellent work done by this team is a
victory for the development of the Internet in French, an honour
shared by its partners: Radio-Canada, the Department of Canadian
Heritage and Industry Canada.
* * *
1405
[English]
COASTAL SOUND MUSIC ACADEMY
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the musical
choir of the Coastal Sound Music Academy on Saturday evening in
my constituency.
The students in the choir range from 5 to 19 years of age. Ms.
Donna Otto is the musical director. I applaud the efforts of Ms.
Otto and the students of the Coastal Sound Music Academy.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday members of the House had the opportunity to
give rank and file Indians an effective tool that would enable
them to hold their band leaders accountable for their actions.
My colleague, the hon. member for Wild Rose, had created a bill
called the first nations ombudsman act that had the potential to
empower Canada's most powerless people, those who live on
reserves. The legislation was launched after extensive coast to
coast consultations with grassroots aboriginals and was supported
by them.
Last night the aspirations of those people were crushed when the
Liberal, Bloc and New Democratic parties ganged up to defeat the
legislation. Members of those parties have forgotten that the
primary goal of government is to protect and serve the people.
Grassroots aboriginals will not forget this setback. Their
struggle for accountability will go on and members of the
alliance will continue to support them.
* * *
[Translation]
IRINI MARGETIS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on February
26, the Navy League of Canada awarded the title of sea cadet of
the year 1998 to Irini Margetis, a young woman from the riding
of Laval West, who has been a model of exemplary behaviour for
the cadets in her charge.
Through her perseverance, self control and leadership, she
inspired the young people in her charge and carried on the
mandate of the sea cadet movement with young Canadians.
Thanks to the initiative and work of people like Irini Margetis,
young people become Canadians better prepared to take an active
role in our country.
* * *
BERNARD LAJOIE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March
26, the night of the Oscar awards the people of greater
Trois-Rivières swelled with pride.
Bernard Lajoie, the son of one of Trois-Rivières' best known
families, gained world recognition for his work when the film
The Old Man and the Sea, which he produced with Tatsuo Shimamura
of Japan and Alexander Petrov of Russia, was awarded an Oscar as
best animated short.
In addition, having won the Jutras award for the best film in
its category a month ago, this work, inspired by Ernest
Hemingway, is destined to have a brilliant international future.
Indeed, it is already playing in four languages, and some twenty
countries are expected to soon fall under the spell of this
Quebec production.
It is therefore with pride that the people of Trois-Rivières and
the Mauricie will welcome Bernard Lajoie himself, who will
honour us with his presence at a showing of his film at the
Trois-Rivières ciné-campus.
* * *
[English]
MISSISSAUGA SOUTH ESSAY CONTEST
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
each year I have the pleasure to co-sponsor an essay contest for
primary school students in Mississauga South. The topic for this
year's contest was “The Place I Would Most Like to Visit”.
Today I am pleased to congratulate Ms. Sandra Falcone, the grand
prize winner, who is here this afternoon with her sister Lucy to
present her winning essay to the Prime Minister.
Sandra wrote an inspirational essay about what she describes as
the magical land of Prince Edward Island. From Anne of Green
Gables, to beautiful historic sights and landscapes, to potatoes,
Sandra's essay painted a beautiful picture of one of Canada's
great treasures.
Thank you, Sandra, for sharing your artistic work with us.
Canada is indeed full of treasures from sea to sea to sea.
* * *
ERIC BISHOP
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the sports community across Canada and all of Calgary
bids farewell to a legend today.
Mr. Eric Bishop, an institution in Calgary for decades, passed
away last week. Today is the day that his legion of friends will
gather to reminisce and swap stories about one of sport's most
colourful and insightful media personalities.
Eric Bishop was born in Lacombe, Alberta 74 years ago and very
early on established himself as a pillar in the sports world.
To quote George Hansen, “One way or another, everyone knew who
Eric Bishop was”. He was one of the best broadcasters to ever
sit in front of a microphone and one of the most insightful
sportswriters to ever sit at a typewriter.
We all have our own idea of what heaven will be like. Those who
knew Eric Bishop say that for him, there will be green felt
covered tables, plenty of good cigars, unopened fresh decks of
cards, and rooms full of family, friends and fans.
1410
Our sincere condolences to his loving wife Joan, their seven
children and nine grandchildren. He enjoyed life and was a good
man who was well loved by all who knew him. He will be missed.
* * *
VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Vimy
Ridge, April 9, 1917: Canada's nationhood was forged by the
tremendous efforts of its soldiers. More than 66,000 Canadians
died in action or of their wounds after the war, more than one in
ten of those who had worn uniforms.
There are many memorials to this great battle of the first world
war, from a simple stone plaque on the west side of this building
near the Speaker's entrance, to the grand Canadian National Vimy
Memorial in France which took 11 years and $1.5 million to build.
At the base of the memorial in English and French are these
words:
To the valour of their countrymen in the Great War and in memory
of their sixty thousand dead, this monument is raised by the
people of Canada.
Whether grand or modest, in English or in French, one thing
remains true: the respect that we must show for those who fought
and were wounded. I would ask all members to remember the
veterans of the first world war and of this battle on the
anniversary of Vimy Ridge.
* * *
UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to express the objection of the NDP to the fact that
Canada Post has turned down a request to issue a stamp in honour
of the 75th anniversary of the United Church of Canada.
Census figures show that almost three million Canadians identify
themselves as United Church members. Refusing a stamp that so
many Canadians could relate to shows bad judgment at best on the
part of the stamp advisory committee or at worst, more evidence
of what one United Church spokesperson has called “the tendency
to marginalize the place of an historic Christian communion in
the cultural life of the nation”, in this case, the largest and
most uniquely Canadian Protestant denomination in Canada.
I urge my former colleague, André Ouellet, chairman of Canada
Post, to right this wrong against the United Church and restore
some perspective to the issuing of commemorative stamps.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, I am
pleased to introduce in the House the first bill aimed at
reducing violence on television.
On December 18, 1992, Virginia Larivière, who was 13 years old
at the time, delivered a petition to the government bearing the
signatures of 1.3 million people calling for legislation against
violence on television. This was a reflection of the desire of
Quebecers and Canadians to take the necessary steps to reduce
violence on the small screen.
As far back as 1993, the television industry created a voluntary
code on violence on television. Among other things, it refused
outright to show gratuitous violence. As well, programs
containing scenes of violence intended for adult audiences were
not to be broadcast before 9 p.m.
Today we are forced to acknowledge that this approach appears
not to have resulted in any reduction in the amount of violence
being shown on television. That is why action must now be
taken.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
April is New Homes Month, an annual Canadian Home Builders'
Association event. For Canadians it is a good time to buy
because our government has created a solid economic foundation
through our deficit and tax reduction plans and low inflation
rate.
In my riding of Kitchener Centre, building permit construction
values are at a $190.8 million high. Over the past four years
housing starts have ranged from 769 to 1,057 new units.
For decades CMHC has been helping Canadians become homeowners
through its mortgage loan insurance plan which allows purchasers
to buy with as little as a 5% down payment and by providing
information to help sort through the choices and decisions
involved in buying a home.
I encourage Canadians to visit the Canadian Housing and
Information Centre and CMHC's website. One in twelve Canadians
are directly or indirectly employed in the housing field. No
other Canadian industry has such a large impact on our economy.
CMHC is committed to helping improve the quality of life in
communities across the country.
* * *
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Cancer Society has been working to
eradicate cancer and better the lives of sufferers for more than
60 years. It is the single largest provider of money for cancer
research in Canada. It supports the work of doctors and
researchers across the country who seek to improve treatment
methods and increase survival rates.
In 1999, 130,000 new cases of cancer were diagnosed in Canada
and 64,000 Canadians died of the disease.
1415
As we begin April, the Canadian Cancer Society's campaign month,
please join me in wishing the society all the best in its
fundraising activities, and in congratulating doctors and
researchers in Canada for recent and continued progress in cancer
research.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister sat on the board
of the Canada Development Corporation during the years that its
subsidiary, Connaught Laboratories, was importing tainted blood
products from the U.S.
After we raised this issue last spring, the ethics counsellor
launched an investigation which took him to the new owners of the
CDC in Calgary. Strangely, a finance official went along. Why?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance referred the problem to the
ethics counsellor. A spokesman for the office of the ethics
counsellor told journalists that the examination of the matter
was conducted without any trace of interference by anyone.
They had to look at all the files and they had to check with
every department, which included the Department of Finance. They
have done that and there will be a report by the ethics
counsellor.
I said before, and I will repeat to the House of Commons, that I
know there was absolutely no conflict of interest with the
Minister of Finance.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not agree.
Any cabinet minister who had even the slightest involvement with
the blood products industry in the eighties would have been in
conflict sitting at the cabinet table when they were discussing
compensation packages for tainted blood victims.
The finance minister sat on the board of a company whose
subsidiary was cited by the Krever commission for 10 counts of
misconduct.
The minister must be concerned about what is in those minutes
and why they are being sat on. Why else would he send a finance
official to Calgary along with the ethics counsellor?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Finance, like any other department,
had to be consulted to make sure that all the facts were known.
There were no demands or instructions by the Minister of Finance
to send anyone there. The ethics counsellor wanted to have some
information from every department, including the Department of
Finance. The information was provided to the ethics counsellor
by the official of the Department of Finance, as requested by the
ethics counsellor himself.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one would think the Department of
Health might have gone along for the ride too.
The finance minister had a huge interest in boosting profits at
Connaught Laboratories during the year it imported tainted blood
from U.S. prisons.
Years later he sat at the cabinet table and denied the victims
of that tainted blood scandal the right to compensation from his
government.
While they discuss it over there, this is clearly a conflict of
interest and he knows it. We can see that. Is that not the real
reason he is so concerned about these minutes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always the same thing.
This company was not a company with shares. It was a Canadian
government corporation and the Minister of Finance, if he had any
shares, had shares for qualification purposes only. There was
absolutely no profit to be made by the Minister of Finance in his
participation on the board of this corporation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the ethics investigators went to
Calgary to investigate a conflict of interest situation involving
the finance minister, Connaught Laboratories and the Canada
Development Corporation.
They must have found something interesting because we know from
a memo concerning that investigation that they faxed copies of
certain CDC minutes to the finance department, but when we asked
for this information under an access to information request the
finance department denied that it had such minutes.
What is it that the finance minister does not want us to know
about this conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope that the deal cooked up by the Reform Party
yesterday which led to the withdrawal of one of the candidates
because of pressure under the table does not distract the hon.
member. He should be the last to talk about lessons of ethics
today.
I said that it was a crown corporation. The Minister of Finance
was a private citizen. He was sitting on the board. There was
absolutely no possibility for him to make any profit for himself.
1420
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the memo from the office of the
ethics counsellor dated July 6 noted that finance had undertaken
to provide relevant documents should they come into its
possession.
It then said “Finance cannot omit that we did fax a copy of the
CDC minutes, and should work on the basis that it is probably
known we faxed the minutes to them”.
It is known that finance had these documents which shed light on
this conflict of interest situation. Why then on July 8, in
response to our access to information request, did finance deny
having any—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all of the documentation that was needed has been given
to the ethics counsellor, and I said that the report would be
made public.
I understand that members opposite love dirt. They like to
throw dirt. No wonder they decided that their name was to be
Canadian C-R-A-P.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not
satisfied with interfering in the provinces' jurisdiction over
health, the Minister of Health has decided that education will
be his next target, and wants to have a say in the training of
nurses.
When will the minister understand that what the provinces want
him to do is restore transfer payments to their 1994 level?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada recognizes that Canada's health care system
is facing challenges.
Last week, I met with my provincial counterparts to discuss a
joint approach to these important challenges. It is in this
spirit that we must continue to raise questions and propose
solutions together, in order to have a health care system that
can meet the needs of Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
minister has no expertise in health administration. It is not
the federal government that is looking after hospitals or direct
services to the community. They have quite a nerve telling us
what to do. The only hospitals run by the federal government
are army hospitals, and they are in a mess.
The question is a very simple one. The federal government cut
transfer payments to Quebec from 29% to 13%. When is it going
to restore the money it cut the provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to repeat in French what I have said on more than one
occasion in English: in 1993-94, provincial transfer payments
were $28.9 billion; in 2000-01, they will be $30.8 billion.
Some hon. members: No, no.
An hon. member: That is false.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: In addition, Quebec qualifies for
equalization payments. These were $8.6 billion—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien:—and in 2000-01, they will be $9.5
billion.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to listen
to the answer.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Health made a statement confirming
once again Ottawa's desire to invade provincial jurisdictions.
What kind of claim is the minister making to justify his
meddling in the field of training? What claim is he making?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
delivery of health care services is a provincial matter. But
the health care system itself is a national concern.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Allan Rock: The Government of Canada has a role to play in
this area. We intend to honour our responsibilities.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Allan Rock: What I suggested to my counterparts last week
and will do so in the future is that all governments, including
the Government of Canada, work together to develop a co-ordinated
approach to all these problems.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
is not fooled by the intentions of the Liberal government in
Ottawa.
1425
Can the offensive of the federal government not be explained by
the fact that it is using money accumulated on the backs of the
provinces through its cuts in order to unfairly invade their
jurisdictions?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
not talking here about meddling in areas of provincial
jurisdiction. The Government of Canada has an important role to
play in this area and we intend to play it.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pharmaceuticals represent the fastest growing cost in health
care—$13 billion last year, which is more than we spent on
doctors.
The National Forum on Health recommended that drugs be included
as part of our health care system, publicly funded.
Given the government's promise to bring in a plan for
pharmacare, where is the plan?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the election of 1997 we made an undertaking which we are
respecting. In the red book that year, during the election
campaign, we undertook in this mandate to develop a plan and a
timetable for pharmacare nationally.
That is exactly what we are doing. In fact, last year we
convened a national conference on the question of pharmaceutical
coverage, brought all the stakeholders together, amassed all the
relevant information, and began building the framework toward a
plan. We are working toward that now and by the end of this
mandate we will have achieved our objective.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government's talk about a pharmaceutical or pharmacare plan has
been absolutely vacant. It has been virtually silent. The
government's main strategy for health care seems to be to delay.
Why did the minister not bring forward a plan for pharmacare at
the Markham meeting? If there is a plan, where is it? What is
the government waiting for?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I said, our undertaking was to develop a plan and a timetable
by the end of this mandate, and we will do that.
With respect to Markham, try as I might to introduce the subject
of substantive health policy renewal, the minister of health for
Ontario, for example, refused to discuss it. Being on a tight
script provided by Premier Harris, she insisted on speaking only
about dollars.
Perhaps the NDP thinks the problems can be solved by dollars
alone. We on this side of the House know it will take good
planning too, and that is what we want to achieve.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The ship brokerage community operates internationally but is
relatively small in numbers. Those in the community tend to know
each other. However, nobody seems to know who brokered the deal
for the new gulf ferry for Marine Atlantic, and Marine Atlantic
will not give out that information.
Will the Minister of Transport tell us why Marine Atlantic is so
determined to keep this information hidden?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic is determined to negotiate the best
deal possible for the Government of Canada to get a new ferry
fast on the gulf service.
That is the priority and we have every confidence in the
chairman, Captain Sid Hynes, of the Marine Atlantic board, who
knows the shipping industry, to get the best deal so that we can
get the ferry up and running.
It seems to me that the Conservative Party is more intent on
making political points than getting passengers served this
summer on the gulf.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): By George, I
smell a rat here, Mr. Speaker.
We have information that if the identity of the broker on this
transaction were known there would be an immediate perception of
a conflict of interest. Will the minister tell us who the broker
is? Will he assure us that there is no conflict of interest,
either on the part of a person or persons in Marine Atlantic, or
on the part of any member of the government?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely satisfied that all of the normal
procedures have been followed.
The hon. member says that he can smell a rat. Perhaps he is
talking about rats leaving a sinking ship, the caucus members
from the Tory party abandoning that party.
* * *
1430
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in May 1999 we submitted an access to information
request asking for minutes from CDC that would show if the
minister were involved in the tainted blood scandal.
A memo on July 6 showed that these minutes had been faxed from
the ethics counsellor to the Department of Finance. Let me quote
from that memo. It says:
We did fax a copy of the CDC minutes we received from Nova
Corporation. She should work on the basis that it is publicly
known we faxed the minutes to them.
In other words, the ethics counsellor warned the finance
department that it had these potentially explosive documents in
its possession. Why did the minister not release these documents
to the opposition and to the public?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the CDC was a government owned corporation. It was a
corporation as well that was involved with the Department of
Finance, the Department of Industry and a number of government
departments throughout the eighties, long before this government
took office.
Because the company involved was a subsidiary of a subsidiary of
the CDC, companies which had been sold, in order to find those
minutes an exhaustive investigation was required, which I believe
is still ongoing but I believe now very close to completion.
The Department of Finance was one of the departments that was
involved but it was all handled by public servants.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the rest of the relationship between the finance
minister and these corporations will be explored later on. Right
now what we are talking about is the finance minister's own
department.
On July 8, two days after the ethics counsellor had warned the
finance department that it had those documents in its possession,
the very same finance department wrote back to us and said the
following:
I must inform you that after a thorough search no records were
found to respond to either of your requests.
Why did the finance department deny that it was in possession of
these crucial documents when these documents were sitting on the
finance department's desk?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for obvious reasons as the ethics counsellor continued
his investigation into this matter I was not informed and was not
kept up to date.
Therefore, I really cannot answer the question except to say to
the hon. member the documentation that was largely existing in
the finance department was not of a kind that would convey any
such information. That is why the investigation had to go beyond
the finance department into a whole series of other government
departments and agencies.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have asked a considerable number of
questions about Placeteco. The President of Treasury Board even
gave some thought to placing Human Resources Development Canada
under trusteeship. However, she finally decided, no doubt so as
to spare her colleague at HRDC further embarrassment, just to
send over one of her employees to provide some monitoring of the
situation.
Can the President of Treasury Board tell us whether that person
has looked into the Placeteco case and made a report to her on
it?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would point out to begin with, if I may, that the hon. member's
introductory remarks are incorrect.
Treasury Board has available to it a series of tools for
controlling this government's expenditures, including providing
opinions and advice to departments and providing them with
experts. It can even go so far as to withdraw delegation of
authority.
Before selecting the appropriate tool, however, we assess not
only the scope and origin of the problem but also, and above
all, the department's ability to deal with it. The Department
of Human Resources Development was fully capable of dealing with
the present problem.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, even the President of Treasury Board is
refusing to answer our questions on Placeteco.
At any rate, as the Minister of Indian Affairs suggested
yesterday in connection with another matter, I have written to
the solicitor general asking for an investigation into the
Placeteco matter. Can the solicitor general give me the
assurance that he will follow up on my letter and take the
appropriate steps to launch an investigation into Placeteco in
order to finally bring the facts out in the open?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can do is to indicate to my hon.
colleague that I will read the letter and respond to him.
* * *
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the issue of the finance minister
having found himself in a potential conflict of interest due to
his past directorship with the Canada Development Corporation is
hardly new.
1435
On May 25, 1999, when questioned in the House he replied, and I
quote from Hansard:
We now know that his department had copies of CDC minutes by
July 8 yet replied to our request that it did not. Why did the
Minister of Finance not keep his word to the House?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding, and I would ask the hon. member
to verify this with the ethics counsellor, that the ethics
counsellor will make all documentation available when he makes
his report.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about documentation
sent by the minister's own department. Reading once again from
Hansard, May 25, 1999, at page 15255, the Minister of
Finance stated:
We know the Department of Finance had a faxed copy of the CDC
minutes by July 6 yet on July 8 advised that it did not possess
these documents.
Six weeks after the finance minister said they had found
nothing, they still said they had found nothing. Did they
conveniently lose the documents, or did they fail to obey the
finance minister's instructions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is absolutely ludicrous what they are doing. Here is
a problem dating from years before we formed the government, when
the Minister of Finance was serving on a board where he had no
shares. It is related to a subsidiary of a subsidiary. He
himself asked me to ask the ethics counsellor to look into it and
he is doing that at this time.
They want to stir up something based on nothing. Let us wait
for the report. The report will be made public. I have
discussed this with the Minister of Finance and he has absolutely
no conflict of interest.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there is concern that the fishers in Quebec are
paying for the agreements the federal government is about to
sign with the first nations of the maritimes, and the minister's
responses in the House have provided no reassurance.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reassure the fishers
in the Gaspé by confirming for them unequivocally that the
licenses to be bought back from Quebec fishers will be given to
native fishers in Quebec and not in other provinces?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has all his facts
totally wrong. He should do his research and then he would get
to the facts.
It is very interesting that we have heard in the House from
opposition members about the social problems with our aboriginal
communities on the reserves, but when it comes to solutions they
do not want to be a part of the solution. They want someone else
to be part of the solution.
Do they really care about aboriginal people? Are they really
interested in helping them? From the questions I hear, I do not
think so.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, once again the remarks of the minister provide no
assurance, but I would first have him understand that he must
consider the human factor in the impact of his decisions.
My question is very simple question: will he commit to ensuring
that Quebec fishing quotas remain with Quebec residents and
protect the fish plant jobs in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is the parochial view of
this member and his party. They want to make sure that no one
else can benefit.
To ease the hon. member's concerns, I can assure him that the
quota acquired in Quebec will go to Quebec bands. Is he against
that? If he is, he should stand and tell us.
* * *
1440
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance has denied that CDC was connected
directly to Connaught. In fact, on February 5, 1985, when the
Minister of Finance was on the board of directors of CDC, CDC cut
a $4 million cheque for a blood fractionation plant for Connaught
Labs.
When the board of directors authorizes a $4 million cheque it is
pretty hard to believe that someone on the board would not know
what it was for. How can the minister deny that he did not know
what Connaught Labs was doing with the $4 million?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Connaught was a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the CDC.
Also there were joint ventures involved.
If the hon. member had sat on boards he would understand that it
is quite conceivable that kind of thing might or might not have
come about. The fact is that the whole matter has been referred
to the ethics counsellor who has conducted a thorough
investigation. We are all looking forward to his report.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is close to a year ago that the ethics counsellor was
doing this report. How long do we have to wait for a report and
how incriminating is that report?
It is hard to believe that someone on the board of directors of
a business would authorize a $4 million cheque and not know what
it was for. I do not care what kind of business it is.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I have been very clear that
there will be a report. Now they are complaining because the
ethics counsellor is doing a thorough job, analyzing everything
and going into all the companies.
The Minister of Finance could not have had any interest in that
company because it was a crown corporation. He had perhaps one
or two shares or a few shares to qualify to be a director, but
all the shares belonged to all the citizens of Canada at that
time. He obviously did not have a personal conflict of interest.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec has
developed a parental leave policy that is better suited to the
new realities of the labour market that the federal government's
policy.
The minister sees herself as being very generous with her
doubled parental leave, but does she not realize that by
stubbornly refusing to reduce the eligibility threshold to 300
hours, increase coverage to 70%, eliminate the waiting period
and include self-employed women, she will continue to impoverish
thousands of women by denying them access to parental leave?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at what we have done. First
and foremost, we have doubled the parental benefit to a year.
Parents can be home for a year.
We have reduced the number of hours required to get special
benefits from 700 hours to 600 hours. We have tripled the amount
of time that adoptive parents will be home with their children.
We have taken away the second waiting period required. Then
perhaps the dad can be home with the child.
We are making it very clear to Canadians that we understand the
challenges between workplace and family. We are doing something
about it for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Trade.
The United States recently published a document entitled
“Foreign Trade Barriers” listing obstacles to international
trade for American companies. Does the minister intend to
provide a similar list for Canada and will he release details on
our companies' access to international markets?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauce for his
interest in this issue.
This morning, I released the government's annual report on
Canada's priorities for 2000 to improve access to foreign
markets. Our government wants to improve the performance of our
exports and to eliminate the barriers to trade for Canadian
enterprises.
Canadians can be very proud. In 1999, our exports set a record
high of $410 billion.
* * *
1445
[English]
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
on the issue of a conflict of interest for the finance minister
relating to tainted blood, the minister sat on the board of a
company that financed Connaught Labs. Blood from that lab was
tainted. Should the minister not have excused himself from
decisions relating to tainted blood since there is an obvious
conflict of interest here?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have only to repeat exactly what the commissioner on
ethics is looking into. He will report to the House. He is
doing a thorough job. I have discussed that with the Minister of
Finance. He himself has asked me to refer it there. I am
completely convinced that there was absolutely never any
conflict of interest.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have already got the documents that implicate this
finance minister in this issue.
Might I ask again, is this not the reason that this finance
minister would not support compensation for victims of hepatitis C—
The Speaker: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again they use a word like “implicate”. They try to
tarnish reputations, destroy people. We saw how they dealt with
the ethics of their party yesterday when one of the two
candidates tried to buy off the other one. They get up today and
talk about ethics.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle.
* * *
STOCK MARKETS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. It
concerns the volatility in the current stock markets in this
country.
A larger than ever number of Canadians are borrowing money in
order to speculate on the stock markets and we have also seen an
explosion in unregulated derivatives which could threaten the
stability of our financial system.
In view of the excessive exposure of our system to speculation,
can the minister assure the House that the Canadian financial
system is secure and that the public will not pay for speculation
through a rise in interest rates which will affect every single
Canadian in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I can assure the hon. member that our financial
situation is sound. In fact, it is my understanding that quite
some time ago financial institutions began to cut down on margin
loans. Obviously there are individual investors who may well
find themselves in a difficult situation, but I can assure the
hon. member that the system, the structure and the financial
institutions are sound.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not make any reference to interest
rates. I think we all know now that the excesses in the stock
market which are largely in the high tech sector are being caused
in the main by the banks, the finance companies and the mortgage
companies extending too much credit to people who just want to
speculate in the market.
The banks have created much of the problem and the higher
interest rates that might come would of course benefit the banks
that helped create the problem in the first place.
Would the minister consider asking the Bank of Canada to impose
a special reserve requirement on bank loans that are taken out
for the sole purpose of speculation in the market?
1450
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that implies that an exact delineation of the nature of
those loans for that purpose could be made, which might be more
difficult than one would think. The hon. member knows that I am
not in a position to comment on interest rates, that finance
ministers do not do that.
If we look at the reasons for which interest rates rise or fall,
this would have to be a relatively minor part of any
consideration that a central bank would take into account.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
week representatives from the species at risk working group
graded the Progressive Conservative position paper with an A,
with the government paper receiving a mere D. This is
essentially because the government's paper would make the
designation of species at risk discretionary and not based on
science.
Why is it that a consortium of environmentalists, wild life
biologists, mining representatives, woodlot owners, pulp and
paper and agricultural groups can all agree that the listing of a
species should be based on science and not on political choice
and this government believes cabinet is best fit to make the
call?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have suggested
that was the voice of an endangered species.
This government fully intends to bring in a holistic approach to
protecting our species at risk in Canada. We have a solid
approach and that member and all members of the House will know
about that plan very shortly.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
beginning of our recovery plan will be our policy conference in
Quebec and this party is anything but a species at risk.
The protection of a species at risk is a value that all
Canadians—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy
Royal may begin his question.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, the protection of a species
at risk is a value that all Canadians share. It should be the
responsibility of all Canadians and not just a few. That is why
the Progressive Conservative Party, industry and
environmentalists all agree that social and economic
considerations should be taken into account when designing the
recovery plan for a species and not whether a species is at risk
or not.
Why is it that this coalition of stakeholders agrees on a common
front and this government believes that cabinet should determine
whether a species is at risk or not?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member
opposite believes he is clairvoyant, but the bill has not been
tabled so I do not know how he is managing to presuppose the
outcome of what the government is planning to do.
It will be individuals and it will be stewardship right across
the country that make the difference—people taking voluntary
action. The last budget from the finance minister will encourage
that process.
The bill will be tabled in a short time. I think he should wait
and actually see what is being proposed.
* * *
BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
April 9 is the 83rd anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
Will the minister inform the House of her efforts to recognize
this important date in Canadian history?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member and all Canadians know that at Vimy
almost 4,000 boys were lost to their families, their friends and
their communities.
[Translation]
But from this loss was born a spirit of solidarity, of helping
others, and of belonging to a country called Canada.
[English]
In support of the private member's bill of my colleagues, the
members for Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma—Manitoulin, I am
announcing today that this Sunday, April 9, 2000 the flag on
parliament's Peace Tower will fly at half mast in honour of the
sacrifice made at Vimy Ridge, a corner of France that is forever
Canadian.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I believe there will be many hepatitis C victims who are
very interested in the finance minister's answers on this issue.
The bottom line here is this: The finance minister promised the
House that he will release all CDC minutes, but when the official
opposition asked for them under the Access to Information Act,
the finance department withheld these documents.
1455
Why did the minister not keep his own promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the ethics counsellor submits his report, we will
make all documentation available. All pertinent documentation
will be submitted.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
American plutonium was transported to Chalk River in Ontario, it
made part of the journey by air.
This method of transportation is strictly prohibited in the
United States for reasons of safety. In addition, the Minister
of Natural Resources has broken Canadian law because he did not
submit this transportation plan to the public.
How can the public trust the Minister of Natural Resources when
he breaks his own law and, worse yet, gives the go-ahead for a
form of transportation prohibited in the United States for
safety reasons?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on this side of the border we operate under Canadian
law, not American law.
During the public consultation process regarding MOX, we
received several public representations to consider air
transportation. We took those representations seriously.
During all of our consideration of this matter, our questions
were directed to whether this can this be done safely and legally
in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the
Canadian Transportation of Goods Act and the Canadian Atomic
Energy Control Act as well as the International Civil Aviation
Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The answers to those questions—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.
The government recently announced a blue ribbon scientific panel
to ostensibly address growing consumer concerns about the safety
of food biotechnology. Now we learn the government is spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars to send every household in
Canada a 24 page full colour leaflet asserting the safety of
genetically engineered foods.
Why has the government prejudged the outcome of its own review
by spending money on this kind of propaganda? Is the panel a
farce or is the government truly listening to the concerns of
Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is very proud of the quality and safety of
Canadian food. Together with my colleague, the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have sent factual information to
Canadian households as to why they should be satisfied with the
safety and quality standards of our food.
At the same time, because biotechnology continues to push back
the frontiers of science, we have appointed a blue ribbon panel,
including the Nobel Laureate, Dr. Michael Smith of British
Columbia, to work with us in ensuring that in the future we will
have the science capacity necessary to keep on the cutting edge
of science and safety.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Defence is just a few hours away from making
another announcement with the diesel division of General Motors,
despite the fact that the minister has not addressed the very
serious equipment concerns raised by Colonel Jones, the Canadian
commander in Bosnia, who said that the existing Coyote
reconnaissance vehicles were clearly never brought up to Canadian
standards.
What has the minister done personally to ensure that the new
equipment that he will purchase today will meet Canadian
standards in the field?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it wrong. What we
have here is state of the art equipment. What she is talking
about is the fact that when the state of the art equipment was
sent over, it was not properly prepared in terms of its mission
in Kosovo in the initial instance.
The memo that the hon. member notes was sent last fall. In
fact, a course of action was taken very quickly.
We do have the best possible equipment. In fact, the American
army wants to borrow some of it because it thinks it is the best
in the world.
* * *
ETHIOPIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of International
Co-operation.
Many people are starving to death in Ethiopia because of drought
and extreme weather conditions. Crop failures, loss of livestock
and grazing land are contributing to the misery facing these
innocent victims.
Can the minister tell the House what efforts have been made by
the Canadian government to provide assistance to the victims of
this famine in Ethiopia?
1500
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very concerned about the
escalating famine in Ethiopia. In response to this crisis, I am
announcing that Canada will provide an additional $6.25 million
for emergency food in Ethiopia. The funds will be used to
purchase, transport and distribute emergency supplies. Monitors
will be hired to ensure the aid reaches the most needy. We will
be working with the World Food Programme.
This is an ongoing commitment we have in Ethiopia. Over the
last three years we have spent $45 million in the region. We
will continue to monitor the situation and support it.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency
Janis Straume, Chairman of the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia,
and his delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER NAMED
The Speaker: I have to deal with an issue in the House. I am
directly addressing my colleague, the hon. member for
Rimouski—Mitis.
On Friday, the hon. member used in this House the words “Stop
lying”, as reported in the Hansard.
At that point, I asked her to withdraw these words, but she
refused. The hon. member has had a few days to, I hope,
reconsider her position. I am asking her again today in this
House to please withdraw these words.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry but I
cannot comply with your request. This is the 21st century and we
are entitled to the truth in this place—
The Speaker: Mrs. Tremblay, I must name you for disregarding
the authority of the Chair.
Pursuant to the powers vested in me under Standing Order 11, I
order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of today's
sitting.
[Editor's note: And Mrs. Tremblay having withdrawn]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 24th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and
Government Operations. If the House gives its consent, I intend
to move concurrence in the 24th report later this day.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship
Group, I am pleased to present, in both official languages, the
report of the January 2000 parliamentary delegation to Taiwan.
As the Chair of the delegation, I am pleased to report on this
very successful all party delegation that concentrated on
bilateral agricultural issues.
Specifically, I had an audience with President Lee and other
officials and had discussions on Taiwan's anticipated ascent into
the WTO. The delegation drew attention to the importance of the
agriculture sector to an overall bilateral relationship.
The delegation requested that there be a renewal of the quotas
for meat products which came to an end in December 1999. It
visited research and production facilities.
A copy of the report has been circulated to all
parliamentarians. I thank members of the delegation for their
constructive participation.
* * *
CANADA WELL-BEING MEASUREMENT ACT
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-469, an act to develop and provide for the
publication of measures to inform Canadians about the health and
well-being of people, communities and ecosystems in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table my private
member's bill entitled the Canada well-being measurement act.
This bill provides the legislative framework for the development
and annual publication of a set of sustainable indicators in
relation to our economy, our society and our environment.
The Canada well-being measurement act would provide for a far
more accurate and comprehensive measure of progress than we
currently possess, and aid us greatly as we reconcile public
policy with the impacts our actions are having on the well-being
of all Canadians.
I thank and recognize the participation of Mike Nickerson in
this project and my seconder, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
[Translation]
BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-470, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of
violence in television broadcasts).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce a private
member's bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, and more
specifically, to reduce violence in television broadcasts.
I would remind members that, on December 18, 1992, Virginie
Larivière presented a petition here in Ottawa signed by over 1.3
million people in support of legislation to reduce violence in
television broadcasts.
One year later, the industry adopted a voluntary code.
The purpose of this bill is to turn the situation around and
reduce violence on television.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade.
[Translation]
In this report, the committee looked at the issue of human
rights in Burma.
[English]
The committee recommends to the Parliament of Canada to
recognize the committee representing the peoples' parliament as
the representatives of the people of Burma and further urges the
Government of Canada to consider the imposition of investment
sanctions on the regime of Burma.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives it consent, I move that the 24th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
MAMMOGRAPHY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to
present on behalf of my constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore a
petition on mammography assurance standards.
Canada has the second highest incidence of breast cancer in the
world. One in nine Canadian women will develop breast cancer in
their lifetime. In Ontario, only 22% of all mammography units
are accredited and only 37% of all mammography units in Canada
are accredited. Early detection remains the only known weapon in
the battle against breast cancer.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
BILL C-23
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to present this petition on behalf of
Canadians.
The petitioners state that, whereas on June 8 the House of
Commons passed a motion which stated that in the opinion of the
House it is necessary in the light of public debate around recent
court decisions to state that marriage is and should remain the
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and
that parliament will take all necessary steps within the
jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this
definition of marriage, therefore, the petitioners pray that
parliament will withdraw Bill C-23 from its agenda.
1515
TAXATION
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to present a petition which states
that the Minister of Finance has raised taxes in six budgets out
of six and that the burden on Canadian families has skyrocketed
by 30%, and also that in six budgets out of six business taxes
have grown from $9.4 billion to $20 billion.
Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to give taxpayers
a break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal
taxes over the next three years.
PESTICIDES
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present a petition that has been signed by 67 of my constituents
from Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, which calls on parliament to
enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical
pesticides until such time as their safe use has been
scientifically proven and the long term consequences of their
application is known.
CANADA POST
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition which calls on parliament to
repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act,
prohibiting rural route mail couriers from having collective
bargaining rights.
The petitioners draw to the attention of parliament that due to
this subsection rural route couriers are prohibited from
bargaining collectively to improve their wages and working
conditions.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition today, adding 400
signatures to the thousands of signatures which have come in.
There is a good rationale for the petition, but I will cut to its
main point.
The petitioners are praying, along with thousands of others,
that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm the opposite sex
definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is
recognized as a unique institution.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition
on Bill C-23. The petitioners call on parliament to withdraw
Bill C-23, to confirm the definition of marriage in law as the
union of two people of the opposite sex and to ensure that
marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to table a petition that deals with
Bill C-23.
My constituents call upon parliament to withdraw Bill C-23, a
bill which fails to define marriage in legislation as the union
of one man and one woman, a definition which was affirmed by the
House on June 8, 1999.
They state that the bill would remove any sort of unique public
policy recognition of the institution of marriage, despite
significant empirical evidence about the value of marriage as a
cornerstone of public policy, and that it is an inappropriate
intrusion into the personal lives of Canadians and extends
benefits to only those relationships of a sexual nature, to the
exclusion of all others dependent upon a relationship.
The petitioners sincerely hope that the government would take
these words to heart and withdraw Bill C-23.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition
from the good people of Dauphin—Swan River.
The petitioners pray that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm
the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure
that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 79 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 79—Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:
With regard to the reception held in the Parliament Buildings on
December 13, 1999 to celebrate progress made on the Nisga'a Final
Agreement Act: (a) did a government department or agency pay
for this celebration; (b) if so, which department or agency
paid for it; and (c) what were the costs incurred to hold this
reception?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Insofar as the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development is concerned, the response is as
follows:
(a) and (b) Because of the short timeframe for the organization of
this reception, the budget for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development was used to provide interim funding and was
immediately reimbursed by private donations. Total cost to the
department was, therefore, nil.
(c) Catering costs of $2621.54, including GST, were incurred and
paid for by the private donations.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask you to be so kind as to call Motion No. P-2.
That an order of the House do issue copies of the most recent
band audits at all reserves in Canada that showed a deficit or an
accumulated debt on their last band audit.
1520
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the financial statements of
first nations and their organizations are treated as confidential
and exempted from disclosure by paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access
to Information Act. Portions are mandatorily protected under
subsection 19(1), which protects personal information. A federal
court decision of April 15, 1988 judged that information on
Indian band financial statements was confidential and not subject
to public release under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to
Information Act by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. Subject to further direction from parliament, the
department follows this law and policy.
First nations are required to make their audited financial
statements available to members of their community.
Individuals interested in reviewing a first nations audit can
contact the chief and council who will decide whether to disclose
audits to non-band members.
Information about public grants and contributions to first
nations bands is available in other records related to
departmental program spending.
I therefore would ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw his
motion.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a minister of the crown I would ask that this matter
be transferred for debate under Private Members' Business,
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion is
transferred for debate.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. Could I ask the parliamentary secretary to make inquiries
concerning Motion No. M-34, which asks for correspondence with
the provinces concerning the clarity bill. Surely the government
would want to make this correspondence public.
Mr. Derek Lee: The hon. member opposite has referred to
Motion No. M-34. I am not certain that I would, as parliamentary
secretary, have authority to deal with that particular motion at
this time, but we will certainly take the member's statement as a
representation.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
concerning what the Minister of Natural Resources just asked.
Did he ask for the agreement of the House to do what he was
proposing to do?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No. As a minister
of the crown he has the authority to transfer a motion for
debate. It was not permission, it was just a matter of fact.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-22, an act to facilitate combatting the
laundering of proceeds of crime, to establish the Financial
Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and to amend
and repeal certain acts in consequence, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would ask before I start that instead
of taking the 40 minutes of speaking time and 10 minutes for
questions and comments, that I be allowed to split the time. The
parliamentary secretary and I would take no more than 20 minutes
of speaking time with 10 minutes for questions and comments, but
I would need consent for that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would remind
members that the first three speakers do not have the opportunity
for questions and comments. Therefore, we will just be splitting
the time.
Does the hon. Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions have the consent of the House to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1525
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
co-operation of hon. members.
This bill on money laundering deals with an emerging crime, and
one that is getting worse. Dirty money is that money earned from
criminal activities, mainly drug dealing, but also such
activities as smuggling cigarettes and theft, and is often the
product of organized crime. Money laundering is the process by
which that dirty money is cleaned in such a way that it cannot be
readily or easily traced back to its illegal activities,
therefore allowing crime to profit.
The financial action task force, of which Canada is a member,
consists of 26 countries. It consists of the OECD countries,
plus Singapore. It estimated that the global amount of money
laundering is in the area of $300 billion to $500 billion U.S.
every year.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not think you heard, but there were members on this
side of the House who said no when you asked for unanimous
consent. I do not think you heard that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, the Speaker did
not hear that and we are not going to revisit it.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief so
that hon. members from other parties have as much time as they
would want to debate this important measure.
The financial action task force also indicated that the extent
of money laundering going on in Canada—and we will never know
for certain what it is—is somewhere between $5 billion and $17
billion a year.
This bill is aimed at doing one thing, and that is to help take
the profit out of crime.
What do we currently have in place in terms of law? We have the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, 1991, which does three
things. It requires that records be kept of cash transactions
over $10,000. It requires that client identification procedures
be followed, that is, financial institutions are required to know
the client. Third, it provides for the voluntary reporting of
suspicious transactions by the financial institution directly to
the police.
Why do we need this new bill in light of the existing law? This
new bill retains the record keeping and client identification
provisions of the old law. However, it has extended beyond the
current institutions which must report, such as financial
institutions, casinos, intermediaries, lawyers and accountants,
to other types of financial institutions.
Money laundering is not just a phenomenon which takes place
through financial institutions. There are expanded means,
including the Internet. This new legislation will apply to
cheque cashing businesses, crown owned institutions and crown
owned casinos.
The old law, as I said, provided for the voluntary reporting of
these suspicious transactions. We are moving beyond this to
mandatory reporting. Where there is a suspicious transaction, it
must be reported.
We will have three types of reporting. First, it will be
mandatory for financial institutions and others who have
reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction is linked to
money laundering to report that transaction.
Second, there will be mandatory reporting of prescribed
transactions. We are proposing that they be cash transactions,
or the equivalent, of $10,000 or more.
1530
Third, we want to deal with the importation and exportation in
and out of Canada of large amounts of cash or negotiable
instruments. We are proposing that one has to report any sum
exported or brought into Canada in the order of $15,000 or more.
Those are the guts of the new law. We have struggled. It is
not an easy task to balance the requirement to have an updated,
modern, crime fighting legal system in Canada with protecting the
privacy of individuals.
Having reviewed many international situations and examples and
after extensive consultations, we have proposed that in order to
safeguard individual privacy but at the same time ensure that
crime is stopped we would institute a financial transactions and
reports analysis centre of Canada, or the FTRACC.
The centre would be an agency reporting to the Minister of
Finance, who would be responsible for it. It would be run by a
director. It would have approximately 60 employees and cost
approximately $10 million a year. The centre will receive
reports from financial institutions or others required to report.
In other words, they will not report directly to the police or to
the government. They will report to the centre.
The centre will gather, collect and analyze all the information.
It will then refer the information to the appropriate policing
authorities, only when it is satisfied there are reasonable
grounds to suspect that the information would be relevant to the
crime of money laundering. The centre must satisfy itself first.
What does the centre pass on? It passes on only tombstone or
bare bones information: the name of the account, the date of the
transaction, the account number and the value of the transaction.
If the police authorities want to get more information from the
centre they would have to do so by virtue of a warrant issued by
a judge.
This information can also be passed on by the centre to CSIS, to
Revenue Canada and to immigration authorities. It cannot be
passed on willy-nilly. It can be passed on only in the event the
centre has determined there are reasonable grounds to suspect
money laundering and has determined that there may be, for
example, tax fraud involved as well.
Any individual who feels that privacy rights have been hampered
would be entitled to go to the privacy commissioner to have the
case looked at. The centre will not be exempt from examination
by the privacy commissioner.
Let us look at why it is important that we pass the bill
quickly. The financial action task force on money laundering has
pointed out that Canada, one of its members, is the only member
that does not have mandatory reporting. We have the commitment
of our Prime Minister at the G-8 summit in Birmingham in 1998 to
this type of law. This was reconfirmed again last year at the
Cologne summit.
We have had extensive consultations starting in May 1998 when
the solicitor general issued a consultation paper. We in finance
issued a consultation paper in December. We have considered wide
consultations with all interested parties.
1535
In conclusion, I believe that we have found a way to expand the
reporting requirements, to make them mandatory and at the same
time to balance the rights of individuals to privacy and freedom
from unjust or unreasonable search and seizure.
This is through using this unique concept of the centre. The
centre will be able to analyze trends in money laundering. It
will be able to work with international law enforcement agencies.
I think it will be a great addition to our war against crime.
By enacting the bill, Canada will be a much less attractive
target for money laundering. We will be sending a clear message
to the world that organized crime and criminals should not try to
do business in Canada. We will appreciate the support of all
parties.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of this House
for allowing me to take part in the debate on this very
important bill.
There is a lot we do not know about organized crime and money
laundering, but we do know, from informed sources, that it
involves a constant battle always in a state of flux. It is a
substantial problem.
According to independent estimates for the Department of the
Solicitor General of Canada, up to $17 billion is laundered in
Canada each year.
There are a number of other estimates that reveal the scope of
the problem.
No one knows exactly how much is involved, but everyone knows
that there is a real and serious problem, in Canada and
throughout the world.
According to a recent study by the financial action task force,
established at the G-7 summit in Paris in 1989, the way money is
laundered in Canada and in the other member countries has
changed in recent years.
Money launderers no longer limit their activities to banks and
other deposit institutions.
[English]
Other kinds of businesses are being used for money laundering
such as securities dealers, insurance companies, casinos,
currency exchange houses, money transmitters and non-financial
professionals including lawyers and accountants.
We know that proceeds of crime are often laundered through
legitimate businesses. Criminal Intelligence Service Canada
backed this up in its annual report on organized crime just last
year. The physical movement of proceeds of crime across our
borders is also part of this problem.
The new system proposed in Bill C-22 will be an important step
in helping to prevent cross-border money laundering through
airports and other border points. More than that, Bill C-22
builds on the excellent work that we continue to do in
partnership with the provinces, territories and law enforcement
agencies as part of a larger global network of countries fighting
this problem together.
[Translation]
Despite vigorous efforts the current government and its partners
continue to apply in Canada and abroad, we can still do much
more. Bill C-22 represents a major step forward in the fight
against organized crime.
[English]
I should remind hon. members that in the budget the government
devoted significant new resources to increase federal policing
activities, particularly in the area of organized crime. Over
the next three years the RCMP will receive $584 million in extra
funding. In the next fiscal year alone the RCMP will receive $59
million extra for federal policing services. This means more
resources to fight organized crime activities such as drug
trafficking, smuggling of commodities and people, telemarketing
and commercial fraud.
The bill is further proof of our commitment to giving our law
enforcement agencies the tools they need to do the job. By
implementing the bill not only will Canada be living up to its
international commitments to the G-8 and its financial action
task force, but we will also be making good on commitments here
at home.
The RCMP and police forces across the country will benefit from
the system proposed in the bill as information from the new
agency will go directly to the police to support investigations.
Other federal agencies will also receive information from the
agency to help investigate certain national security, revenue and
immigration offences, but only when they are also related to
suspicions of money laundering.
1540
Allowing the new agency with suitable protections to share
information with similar agencies in other countries will allow
us to play our full role against money laundering on an
international scale. It will also allow us to benefit from
information that foreign agencies may have about money laundering
going on in our country.
When dealing with global organized crime sharing information is
vital, but we are also aware of the need to respect privacy in
the process of investigating these crimes. We take these
concerns very seriously.
[Translation]
We must bring our investigative methods up to date to fight
against today's money laundering techniques. We need
centralized and automated systems to discover the links between
dubious financial operations and the movement of illicit funds,
and to ensure their follow-up. This is exactly what Bill C-22
does.
[English]
Our consultations have shown strong support for a new and
tighter anti-money laundering system. Officials continue to work
closely with financial institutions and other stakeholders to
make sure that the new requirements are clear and reasonable. We
are also consulting provincial governments, the police and others
to ensure that the new arrangements will address the needs that
have been identified.
Bill C-22 strikes a sound and effective balance between the
legitimate needs of law enforcement and respect for individual
privacy. It will also make Canada a less attractive target for
money laundering and send a clear message around the world that
this is a country where organized criminals should not try to do
business.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in the debate on Bill C-22, an act to facilitate
combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, to establish the
financial transactions and reports analysis centre of Canada and
to amend and repeal certain acts in consequence.
Canada is a party to international agreements asking us to
report transactions that may involve money laundering. The
official opposition believes that the vast majority of
law-abiding Canadians want legislation that will fight crime and
that will prevent crime.
The weak Liberal government introduced this bill as Bill C-81 on
May 31, 1999, and let it die on the order paper. Now we are only
at second reading of the bill and still it will have to be sent
to the committee for much study and amendment.
I listened very carefully to the comments of the Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions. I am convinced
that the government did not evaluate, did not look into the pros
and cons of the bill in depth. I would like to give an overview
whereby we will look into the gravity of the situation first and
then look into the problems and concerns. I would also like to
provide some suggestions and amendments.
Organized criminals, particularly in the drug trade, generate
and launder billions of dollars annually.
They have to do that to continue their illegal operations. They
move from jurisdictions with strong controls to jurisdictions
with weak or no controls. This criminal activity undermines
Canada's financial and social systems and increases the power and
influence of illegal businesses.
1545
Experts estimate that from $300 billion to $500 billion of
criminally driven funds enter the international market annually.
In Canada alone the ballpark estimate is around $20 billion.
The Financial Action Task Force estimates that about 70% of the
money laundered through Canada is derived from drug trafficking.
There are many ways to launder money, including through
financial institutions, foreign exchange dealers, significant
cash purchases, brokerage houses, foreign tax havens, real
estate, the operation of shell companies, travel agencies,
insurance agencies or companies, and dealing in gold and other
precious metals. Even some professionals such as lawyers and
accountants help in money laundering. Criminals launder money
through gambling and cross-border transfers. It is a wide open
area.
Some other methods are more sophisticated, for example smurfing,
human mules, over-invoicing for import-export purposes. I will
not mention the details for security reasons.
Canadian banks are reportedly favoured for the transfer of funds
because of their wide international presence, stability,
efficiency, strong tradition of banker-client confidentiality and
facilities of transfer such as wire transfers, currency exchange,
denomination exchange, savings deposit boxes, and please do not
laugh, even government savings bonds.
The foreign currency exchange houses being less regulated than
the chartered banks provide the second most common vehicle for
money laundering, at least in Canada. There is a potential for
concealing the identity of the launderers because the negotiable
instruments or the wire transfers are deposited in the banks and
the client is perceived as the currency exchange house, not those
people who are laundering the money. The perception is created
that the financial negotiable instrument comes from the currency
exchange house and is then deposited in the bank and the
laundering of the money continues.
Other illicit funds are also laundered through the purchase of
stocks and bonds in the securities market through a shell company
located in a tax haven somewhere where the laws protect the
anonymity of the owners. Therefore money is laundered through
the stock exchange.
Investing in a private company also is a way of laundering. The
private company will go public and then the earnings from the
sale of shares create an illusion that the profits generated are
legitimate.
These side issues of money laundering or its byproducts have
serious consequences. Street gangs channel criminal profits to
fund terrorism or military operations abroad.
Money laundering feeds armed conflicts and illegal activities
that threaten everything from our families to our society to our
national and international security and economy and perhaps even
world peace.
1550
A staggering variety of activities such as extortion, home
invasion, murder, theft, drugs and arms trafficking, counterfeit
currency and passports, migrant smuggling, prostitution, mafia,
casino and lottery frauds are additional costs to society at the
expense of the taxpayer and at the expense of our future. These
activities make our streets unsafe. It is not only money
laundering which affects our economy and undermines society, but
other criminal activities piggyback on it and affect our
children, our future and undermine our security.
These activities are escalating. It will likely become more
difficult for police to deal with them if the weak Liberal
government does not wake up. The Liberals can have a deep sleep
if they want to, if they are tired and cannot remain awake.
Someone else can sit in the driver's seat. We now have a licence
to do that and we could do that for them.
The House will remember that in 1997 one of the six key
platforms of the former Reform Party was to make our streets
safer. A Canadian Alliance government would do that.
Canadians are fed up and have had enough. We do not want Canada
to be a haven for money laundering. I urge the government to
look at this bill very diligently and look through lens of the
importance of the issue and not through the lens of politics,
selfishness or arrogance as it usually does.
The broad purpose of Bill C-22 is to remedy shortcomings in
Canada's anti-money laundering legislation. It was identified by
the G-7 Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering in its
1997-98 report.
The financial task force recommended that reporting requirements
in Canada be made mandatory rather than voluntary as is currently
the case. Why has the reporting been voluntary in the first
place? That means every honest person was supposed to report
whereas the criminals escaped reporting. This does not make
sense. The other recommendation made by the task force was that a
financial intelligence unit be established to deal with the
collection, management, analysis and dissemination of suspicious
transaction reports and other relevant intelligence data.
Bill C-22 proposes to bolster Canada's anti-laundering efforts
by making it mandatory for financial agencies to report
information relating to certain types of transactions. The
information is to be sent to a central data gathering and
analysis body called the financial transactions and reports
analysis centre of Canada. This analysis centre would authorize
the release of information to domestic and foreign law
enforcement agencies.
Bill C-22 will also establish in association with Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency a system of reporting large cross-border
transactions.
1555
The Liberal government not only lacks vision but it is also very
weak. It does not have the political will nor is it capable of
fixing the ailing departments. It thinks that the status quo is
the only option.
Even when international organizations tell it to fix something
serious it does it half-heartedly. It has a mentality and
culture of only doing a patchwork job. The patchwork does not
work, particularly when dealing with organized crime. The
criminals are light years ahead of our government. We need to
overhaul the whole system. Corruption and abuse in the system is
enormous.
Canadians suffer as a consequence of abuse and fraud in many
areas. These include the GST refund, welfare, employment
insurance, social insurance numbers, insurance, workers
compensation board, immigration, and so on.
Criminals are buying mansions, boats and luxury cars with the
proceeds from organized crime. They have hefty bank accounts.
What is the reason? The loopholes in the system and the law are
not plugged. There are so many loopholes and the criminals are
exploiting them. Tax evasion and the underground economy are
putting pressure on small businesses and legitimate taxpayers who
cannot bear the huge Canadian tax burden.
The tax burden is responsible for a poor quality of life, the
brain drain and so many other things. Due to the illegal
activities of some individuals, the legitimate taxpayers suffer.
The whole nation suffers.
There are criminals who do not pay taxes but they pay bribes or
political donations, and they continue to enjoy the government's
most favoured status. Many organizations enjoy charitable tax
free status only to rake in money to finance organized crime or
even wars in other countries.
A Canadian multinational trading company, which I will not name,
whose stock was valued at about $600 million, was found to have
very close ties to the eastern European mafia. It was laundering
the money through the stock exchange and sending the money to its
counterparts in other countries.
Canada is a candy store for these criminals. It is a shame that
the government cannot come up with legislation that would be
effective and would do the job.
The blurred vision of the Liberal government has caused the
dismantling of the Vancouver port police. This makes the port a
gateway for the importation of drugs and narcotics. It opens up
the way for the criminals and makes their jobs easier rather than
tougher. It is a shame the Liberal government gives
international organized criminals VIP treatment while those same
criminals according to the Immigration Act are supposed to be
inadmissible into Canada.
The human smugglers and criminals who live on organized crime
should be given the toughest penalties. That is what Canadians
are telling us. That is the only way to discourage them.
Otherwise unfortunately, they have the motivation to come to
Canada and commit crimes because they consider Canada to be a
crime haven.
How about stopping the federal government when it launders the
money?
1600
It appears that CIDA contracts and EDC loans have been given to
businesses which donated huge sums of money to the Liberal
campaign before the elections. We all know those figures. When
we ask a question, the government does not reply.
I am sure that everyone in Canada knows about the billion dollar
boondoggle. Do we need a bill to fix all that is wrong with the
government? No, I do not think so. Rather, we need to replace
the federal Liberal government, which we can and which we are
prepared to do with the Canadian Alliance.
Let us look at some other aspect of the bill. When Bill C-22
comes into force, it will replace the existing Proceeds of Crime
Act. However, the existing proceeds of crime regulations would
remain in effect until the mandate regulations are promulgated.
There are four key principles of the bill.
The first would provide tools for law enforcement agencies,
giving them the information to identify charges to be laid.
The second would strike a balance between privacy rights and law
enforcement needs. We need to place strict controls on the
collection, use and disclosure of personal financial information.
The third would minimize compliance costs for financial
institutions and other stakeholders. We have to minimize
compliance costs. We need to establish a workable regime with
the full co-operation of all stakeholders, without unnecessary
red tape.
The fourth would provide for contributions toward international
efforts to combat money laundering.
We need to see the government's definition for these efforts.
These definitions are not given in this bill. We do not know
what they mean. They are too vague. I will come to that later.
The principles are ones that any law abiding citizen would
support, but as always, we know we cannot trust the government
because it does not keep its promises.
Let me dwell on the concern we in the official opposition have
about the cautions we should take. One of the problems with Bill
C-22, other than what I have mentioned, is that while the policy
objective is laudable and Canada should not be a haven for
laundering the proceeds of crime, the bill raises many concerns.
The bill is too vague in many areas.
The official opposition is concerned that the bill is too vague
concerning who is affected by the act. The Liberals have to show
us clarity in this bill.
There is a lack of precision in this bill. There are no
definitions of many terms, for example, the definition of
“suspicious transaction”. What is a suspicious transaction?
There is no definition.
The United States of America opposed this legislation because it
presented problems of probable invasions of privacy. We in
Canada are also concerned that the privacy of Canadian citizens
could be unreasonably invaded inadvertently through overly
restrictive regulations defining transactions that must be
reported. There should be sufficient protection and freedom of
law abiding citizens should be preserved.
Another issue is that customs officers are being given broad
powers to search anyone they want when they have reasonable
grounds to suspect that the person has hidden currency or
monetary instruments which are of greater value than the amount
prescribed or declared.
1605
Also, we are concerned that the powers to search should have
safeguards to ensure that customs officers do not hassle persons
lawfully crossing the border. They should not be hassled. It
may grant customs officers the power to strip travellers of
undeclared cash. The financial transactions and reports analysis
centre of Canada could end up with a licence to harass innocent
and legitimate people.
If passed, Bill C-22 would give bureaucrats fresh authority to
trap the innocent, infringe on privacy, gather information on
citizens and put routine money transactions under suspicion.
There are broad delegations of authority to the cabinet,
including making regulations to define what transactions must be
reported and who must report them. The government has overall
authority to make those regulations.
Also, it will conscript lawyers, banks, accountants and others
into a national subculture of informants and snitches. Routine
legitimate business transactions could be disrupted as a result
of the bill. The bill will restructure the relationship of trust
between lawyers and clients.
There has to be a reasonable balance between entrapment of
innocent citizens and effective tools of law to help our law
enforcement agencies to do their jobs effectively and
efficiently.
Let us talk about securing a conviction of money laundering.
Securing a conviction of money laundering requires the crown to
prove four elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. It
must be proven that the accused dealt with the laundered property
with intent to convert or conceal it. The property must have
been derived from the commission of a predicated offence. The
accused must have had knowledge of this fact.
The enactment could now allow the police to arrange sting
operations even though the above may not be proven by the crown.
It could also help the police to get someone convicted of a
companion crime, the crime which is attached to the money
laundering crime, even if the laundering cannot be proved. That
is dangerous. The legislation should be driven by need and not
by police hype, political or international pressure. It should
be needs based.
The Department of Finance issued a consultation paper on January
17. The paper promises that after Bill C-22 becomes law,
proposed regulations will be published in the Canada
Gazette for 90 days to allow further public input. This
addresses some of the concerns about the broad discretion. But
the proposed regulations include cheque cashers, money order
vendors, crown owned or controlled deposit-taking institutions,
which are banks, credit unions, trust companies and so on, and
even Canada Post money order businesses.
Generally, transactions involving $10,000 would have to be
reported, as would any transaction involving five or more $1,000
bills. Cheque cashers, money vendors and money transmitters
would be required to retain a record of every transaction of
$1,000 or more.
Everything is hidden in these regulations. Nothing has been
clearly defined in the bill.
1610
Let us talk about regulations. As the House knows, I am
co-chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations, so I can talk about regulations. I can say that
this government governs by regulations only. The House will
recognize that 10% to 15% of the laws are made in this Chamber
and 80% to 90% of the laws are brought in through the back door.
Only 20% come through the front door and 90% are hidden in the
regulations. The regulations will hold the real story which no
one will know because they will be buried under tonnes of
paperwork.
My committee is responsible for examining and scrutinizing
regulations that accompany a bill which is passed by both houses,
this House and the other house, the Senate. This weak Liberal
government that lacks vision, like the Tories before it, crippled
our committee's work by not giving it the resources it needs to
scrutinize hundreds and thousands of regulations. The bill will
have so many regulations attached that only the courts will be
able to tell us about the mayhem and the damage done to our
economy by this bill's regulations. Every small business will
sue the government.
In the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations,
there are about 800 regulations in the pipeline. Those 800
regulations are on questionable files that have been backlogged
for years and years.
The House will be surprised to know that some of the regulations
have been operating for as long as 25 years against the wishes of
the committee which is supposed to be scrutinizing those
regulations. For 25 years those regulations have clogged the
pipeline and thus the work of the committee. Successive
ministers have kept the stonewalling going. The regulations that
the committee objects to are kept in place and are fully
operable. That is shameful.
I have criticized this bill enough. Let me now discuss some of
the suggestions for the government if it is listening. There are
only three members here in the House who are listening.
I will call them proposed amendments. Broad delegation to
cabinet to make regulations to define what transactions must be
reported or who must report should be restricted. There should
be precision in the legislation. The term, for example,
“suspicious transaction” should be clearly defined, otherwise
properties will be seized, like in the case of the flawed gun
control legislation under Bill C-68. Broad powers of customs
officers to search anyone or open mail should be limited and
carefully crafted so that legitimate citizens do not suffer.
Privacy and freedom of citizens should be respected. There
should be safeguards in place to curtail hassling of persons by
customs officers while lawfully crossing the border.
Witnesses before the committees must be representative of a
cross-section. Regional and provincial police authorities,
businessmen, federal and provincial government officials, all
should be invited so that the committee can hear their concerns
and ensure that the bill is crafted very carefully.
Law enforcement agencies should be prepared and equipped to deal
with sophisticated activities of organized crime. The government
does not put its money where its mouth is. We need to invest in
the facilities and the tools given to law enforcement agencies so
that they can effectively control crime in this country.
Hard positions, intransigence and thoughtlessness have no place
in our deliberations when talking about this bill.
1615
We must arrive at the best possible solution to this complex
problem. Therefore, all parties must co-operate in the committee
work. The committee work should not be like other committee
work, which is a sham and so partisan that everyone looks through
the lens of politics rather than the lens of issues. Sometimes
the actual issue is lost.
I remember once, when I was on the immigration and citizenship
committee, we introduced a motion to study fraud and criminal
activities under the Immigration Act for illegitimate immigrants
coming to this country, but the Liberal members refused the
motion. Even when we want to discuss the future business of the
committee, the discussion is based on partisan lines. In
committees, when we need a minister to appear to answer some of
the opposition members' questions, the motions are often
declined.
I urge government members and all members of the House to work
seriously at the committee on this serious legislation and come
up with a constructive solution that will be the best solution to
deal with this issue.
Another suggestion I have is to keep regulations to a minimum
because businesses and financial institutions have to deal with
so many regulations that they can cause serious problems.
In conclusion, we want to support the bill in principle but the
contents and details need to be worked out at committee. We
agree with the spirit of the bill but it should be workable. It
should offer effective tools to our law enforcement agencies.
The Liberals should take fair warning that we want to see
specifics during the committee hearings. The official opposition
wants to know exactly what is being done with the bill and what
the specifics are in the bill. As it is written, it is very
vague. The terms are unclear and will not help to contain the
serious money laundering situation. They will also not help the
undermining of our economy. The black market, which is another
byproduct of money laundering, affects our economy very seriously
and puts extra onus on law-abiding citizens who pay taxes.
If we do not define the bill very clearly, we will have the same
old story, the catch-22. If we look at the courts, lawsuits will
follow, businesses will be hurt and small businesses, which
create jobs in the country, will suffer. Jobs are not created by
contributions and grants. Jobs are created by small businesses
and we should support them by making sure we have clear
legislation that will work.
The Liberals have not done that so far with this bill and they
should have done that. Hopefully they will listen to the
witnesses who came before the committee and accept the amendments
that I just put forward which Canadians want us to make in the
bill.
In a nutshell, I ask the government and all members of the House
to support the intent of the bill. However, we need to look at
the substance of the bill, which is not clear at the moment. I
am sure at committee, with the hard work and diligence of all
party members, we will be able to produce effective legislation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for York North, The Environment; the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River, Human Resources Development; the hon. member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding.
1620
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak at second reading of
Bill C-22, which is, as hon. members are aware, intended to
remedy the flaws in the present legislation as far as money
laundering is concerned, which is the common term for laundering
the proceeds of crime.
It is estimated that, every year, up to $17 billion from the
proceeds of crime are laundered in Canada alone, most of that
amount coming from the drug trade, heroin, cocaine, cannabis and
hashish in particular.
It is estimated that, out of that $17 billion from the proceeds
of crime that are laundered in Canada alone, the bulk of it,
some $10 billion, is connected to the traffic in illegal drugs.
This is a major problem. Internationally, according to federal
government figures, the total proceeds of crime that are
laundered are in the order of $500 billion U.S., a considerable
sum.
Since our arrival in the House of Commons, we in the Bloc
Quebecois have been calling for money laundering to be
considered a violent crime and to be treated as such by judges
hearing money laundering cases.
I must say that the government listened to us—a first really for
the Bloc Quebecois since we got here—because, when the Criminal
Code was recently amended, the government paid heed and decided
that money laundering would now be considered a violent crime.
The word “violent” is not used lightly. As I mentioned, in
Canada, the laundering of proceeds of crime is a $17 billion
business, including $10 billion from drug trafficking. There are
human tragedies behind these figures.
For example, every year, thousands of children in Canada become
addicted to so-called hard drugs. Perhaps we should stop making a
distinction between hard and soft drugs.
For example, while, 100 years ago, cannabis was considered a
soft drug, it now has an hallucinogenic content 7 to 30 times
greater than the cannabis that was being sold in the 1970s.
Therefore, we can no longer talk about a soft drug. All drugs
are becoming hard drugs.
Associated with the laundering of proceeds of crime are human
tragedies, particularly in the case of illicit drugs. Thousands
of children become addicted to these hard drugs, with all the
social costs that this situation might generate.
Every week there are tragedies, such as killings between biker
gangs for control over criminal activities, including the drug
market. In the end, the laundered money is the product of these
tragedies, these wars between biker gangs, which often claim
innocent lives.
We must never forget or lose sight of the fact that, in addition
to the thousands of children who become addicted to hard drugs
every year, there was also an 11-year old boy who died in
Montreal in 1995 because a bomb exploded right beside him as a
result of this war between biker gangs to control the drug
trade.
Associated with money laundering are also murders. In 1994
alone, no fewer than 79 murders were committed in Quebec alone
to gain control over the drug trade. Ultimately, the proceeds
of such crime turn up as laundered money.
1625
There were 89 attempted murders, 129 cases of arson, and 82
attempted bombings. In 1998, there were 450 acts of violence
related to control of the drug trade. Such are the social and
economic ramifications of this laundered money. Just to help
children who have turned to hard drugs because of criminals get
off them is costing Canada a minimum of between $4 billion and
$7 billion annually. This is quite a sum of money.
Considering money laundering a violent crime and improving the
existing legislation concerning the laundering of proceeds of
crime is a step in the right direction.
As I mentioned earlier, without blushing, the fact that money
laundering is now considered a violent crime is the product of
the work of several members of the various political parties in
the House, but particularly those of the Bloc Quebecois, who
worked relentlessly to have this included in the Criminal Code,
with everything that resulted from that in terms of toughening
our laws.
Before getting into the provisions of this bill, I would like to
make an important comment. Justice in this country has always
been one of the Bloc Quebecois' main concerns. Our party has
always wanted to see justice done. It has always wanted justice
to be effective and to stop the real criminals.
Apart from money laundering, we have devoted our attention to at
least six other issues.
That has allowed us to progress in this parliament, with the
measures that were announced both recently and earlier. They are
the product of the work members of the Bloc Quebecois have done
in the area of justice.
Take for example the removal of the $1,000 bill from
circulation. Our colleague from Charlesbourg went on a crusade
to have those Canadian bills taken out of circulation. Why was
that so important?
First of all, Canada is the only country to have such high
denominations. When one looks at the United States or Europe—and
it has been demonstrated around the world—that having $1,000
bills in Canada facilitates criminal transactions. It also
facilitates money laundering.
In order to better illustrate the crucial need for the
elimination of the $1,000 bill, something the Bloc Quebecois has
worked to convince the government on, let me give the following
example.
A street sale of 20 kilos of cocaine generates profits of
between $2 million and $4 million, depending on its purity. How
much does a mix of bills of $10, $20, $50 or $100 denominations
weigh? The small denominations weigh 120 kilos. Imagine the
handling involved for the criminals doing the laundering, who
collect the proceeds of crime, of the sale of the 20 kilos of
cocaine, how much easier it would be for them to carry higher
denominations such as $1,000 bills and to launder them. It
would be a lot easier.
If they just use $1,000 bills, if they have them to convert $5,
$10 or $100 bills, they have to handle only two kilos worth of
bills. They start off with 120 kilos of bills of small
denominations and, with $1,000 bills, they cut the weight of the
proceeds of crime to two kilos. It is a lot easier to go around
with a two kilo bag of money from the sale of cocaine, heroin or
some other illicit drug than to have to handle $5, $10, $20 or
$100 bills.
1630
We worked very hard with law enforcement authorities to convince
this government that the $1,000 denomination needed to be
withdrawn. The Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions recently announced that he would soon be
withdrawing the $1,000 bill from circulation. That is good
news, and I would again like to congratulate my colleague from
Charlesbourg for his considerable efforts in this connection,
along with my leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie,
and all of the Bloc Quebecois. They have fought long and hard
to get this measure implemented, in order to have the $1,000
bill taken out of circulation.
Any measure—and we can never say this too often—that can hinder
organized crime is a welcome one. Any improvement to the
Criminal Code, like the other measures created to make the
police forces' work easier, is a welcome one, if the objective
is to fight more effectively against organized crime and to make
it harder and harder for them to operate in Canada and
internationally.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have addressed one other important
matter, on which we have also taken action: pawnbroking.
My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has done an admirable job
in this connection to ensure compliance with municipal bylaws
concerning record keeping by pawnshops. Such compliance
prevents these businesses from becoming a means of laundering
money, the proceeds of crime, or other crime related property.
This represents a considerable victory for the Bloc Quebecois,
and this action again arose out of a concern for greater justice
and for making it easier for law enforcement officers to collar
real criminals.
The efforts by the Bloc Quebecois member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve have led to tighter controls on pawnbroking
establishments.
Following these efforts, 70 pawnshops closed in Montreal. These
businesses did not comply with municipal bylaws and they
bordered on being illegal. These 70 pawnshops were probably used
to launder money.
The fourth issue that we in the Bloc Quebecois tackled because
we care about justice, which is also reflected in Bill C-22—and we
will get back to this a little later—is the fight against
organized crime. A few months ago, the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm, who is here today, tabled a motion in the
House to establish a justice subcommittee to find ways to fight
organized crime more effectively.
I was very pleased to see that, through the work of the hon.
member for Berthier—Montcalm and all members of the Bloc
Quebecois, we were able to convince not only the government but
all the parties in this House of the need to set up such a
committee. Incidentally, the subcommittee will begin its work
next week to report back in the fall, with a series of
recommendations on how to increase the effectiveness of our
fight against organized crime. These measures will not only
allow us to catch petty criminals, but also the leaders, for
crimes that they commit or that they ask others to commit.
I hope the work of that committee will be successful, because it
is in everyone's interest. I do hope that the consensus achieved
by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm and the Bloc Quebecois
is a guarantee that we will get recommendations that will take
us one step further in the fight against crime.
The fifth issue concerns the increase in the RCMP budgets,
particularly as regards the fight against drug traffickers.
1635
It is something that we have often talked about here. Recently,
under special circumstances which you know, I had the
opportunity to express to you the terror experienced by farm
families not only in my riding, but throughout Quebec and
Canada, particularly in southeastern Ontario.
That feeling of terror sets in every year as criminals
confiscate certain plots of farmland in May, at the beginning of
the farming season, to prick out cannabis seedlings and let them
grow until late fall. During that period, not only thousands of
farm families throughout Canada live in terror, but they can no
longer enjoy their property. These farmers receive death
threats. They are told their children could be harmed. They are
told they themselves could be physically harmed should they
venture too close to the cannabis planted by these criminals.
We had the opportunity to discuss that.
From the example we saw in the Montérégie region, particularly
in Saint-Hyacinthe, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, had the
opportunity to demand that the government increase the budgets
of police forces and give them the tools they need to do their
job.
It was ridiculous. Since 1994, the Minister of Finance, who
prides himself on being a good manager, had reduced the RCMP
budget to fight money laundering and drug trafficking by 12% or
15%, depending on the item.
While we were witnessing exponential growth in organized crime
activity, the Minister of Finance, with his usual wisdom—when
something does not concern him or his shipping companies and his
profits, I think he is less interested in the common good—had cut
budgets to fight criminals.
I want to make the point again that Bloc Quebecois members, who
are concerned about justice and brought pressure to bear, have
managed to get the RCMP budget increased this year and
additional resources allocated to the various RCMP detachments
in order to wage a more effective battle against drug
traffickers.
In addition, Bloc Quebecois representations resulted in the
maintenance of all RCMP detachments in Quebec threatened with
closure, in many cases because of bureaucratic decisions that
ignored the fact that an effective fight against organized crime
must be like a chess game. If there are gangs of organized
criminals in one location, there must be a strong police
presence nearby.
There has been such a presence for several years now. Trust
must be established between these police forces, which include
the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec and municipal forces, and the
public, particularly in a case where the law of silence reigns,
where there is a regime of terror surrounding the activities of
drug traffickers. It take time to build up this trust.
And yet the federal government threatened to close down many
detachments in Quebec when what should be done is to increase
the resources in order to wage a more effective anti-crime
campaign. It should not be forgotten that it is Ottawa that has
the means to increase budgets to wage a more effective battle
against organized crime.
Once again, because of the Bloc Quebecois' efforts, budgets were
increased and RCMP detachments kept open in order to wage the
battle against organized crime more effectively.
One more step remains—increasing resources in the short term—and I
will have an opportunity to get into this a little later on.
If there is to be another year this year of “agricultural”
activity by drug pushers in the fields of Quebec and Ontario,
and it takes two or three years before any action occurs, this
means two or three years more of a reign of terror threatening
whole families, with the billions these criminals pocket from
their illicit activities.
Another productive effort by the Bloc Quebecois in its concern
for improving justice and the means available to the government
and to justice to fight organized crime involved the requirement
to disclose any dubious transaction involving $10,000 or more
and increasing the number of institutions obliged to report such
transactions or any other dubious transaction.
1640
In its 1997 election platform, the Bloc Quebecois expressed its
concern at identifying all dubious transactions and ensuring
that all institutions and individuals suspected of handling
dirty money be obliged, in case of doubt about the amount of a
transaction, to report such a transaction.
The law was distinctly lacking in this regard. Under it, an
impressive number of financial institutions were and still are
not obliged to report dubious transactions of $10,000 or more or
any other transaction. They do so on a voluntary basis.
As far back as 1997, we were calling for this declaration to be
made mandatory, for there to be a ceiling above which all
dubious transactions of sizeable amounts, say $10,000, would
have to be reported, along with any other suspicious
transactions or transactions by suspicious individuals. We
called for the scope of this legislation to be expanded to other
institutions, bodies or individuals liable to be dealing with
such suspicious amounts or transactions.
We are pleased to see that, with Bill C-22, the government has
finally grasped what the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for
since 1997, out of concern for justice and effectiveness of
police and customs operations to nab criminals. The government
has finally understood that it was in the common interest, the
national interest and the interest of Quebecers and Canadians,
to implement these recommendations by the Bloc Quebecois.
Essentially, Bill C-22 does what the Bloc Quebecois had proposed.
This was essentially what had to be done, for the present at
least. There are some questions, but we are only at second
reading. Other steps are yet to come, including consideration
by a committee and report stage. We will have some questions to
ask, but overall what we find in this bill is satisfactory to us
in principle. It is also satisfactory in its application, with
a few minor reservations I shall go into later.
First of all, the bill makes it mandatory to report suspicious
transactions, at a level that has been set at $10,000 or more,
but also any other transaction where there are grounds for
suspicion about the origin of the funds, in other words
transactions which might involve the proceeds of crime, whether
drug trafficking or any other criminal activity.
The bill also broadens the scope of existing legal provisions.
Again, this responds to our repeated representations, since
1997, regarding certain flaws in the provisions dealing with
money laundering. The bill specifies that this reporting, which
is now compulsory in the case of suspicious transactions, has
been broadened to include all regulated financial institutions,
casinos, businesses involved in foreign exchange dealings,
persons engaged in the business of dealing in securities,
insurance companies and persons acting as financial
intermediaries, such as lawyers and accountants.
We feel this is an improvement. As I said, we will have
questions for the government, officials and numerous witnesses
who will soon appear before the Standing Committee on Finance,
but, on the face of it, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased with this
measure.
The bill also increases the penalties for illicit or criminal
activities, namely the laundering of proceeds of crime.
1645
As I mentioned earlier, since money laundering is now recognized
as a violent crime, these penalties are harsher than they used
to be.
A second improvement found in Bill C-22 is the series of
provisions dealing with transborder operations, such as imports
or exports of currencies or instruments, such as travellers
cheques, and any illegal trafficking of these currencies or
instruments. The provisions have been strengthened precisely to
catch the real criminals who engage in this type of illicit
trafficking.
First of all, the bill increases the powers of customs officers
to search people and vehicles. In this regard, we have certain
reservations but, overall, we agree with the principle that when
there is serious and reasonable suspicion—and customs officers
are well trained—with respect to the trafficking of such currency
or the failure to report such currency or monetary instruments—it
would be normal—let us be honest—to check whether or not such
instruments should be seized, the traffickers pursued and the
real criminals required to pay.
There are also provisions for co-operation with foreign
countries. Too often, discussions about globalization ignore
the fact that it is not just about trade and legal matters in
the noblest sense. One example given is international tribunals
trying war criminals.
Globalization also has to do with very close co-operation between
governments to catch criminals. We must never forget this.
Recently, there was a conference in Russia on the evolution of
organized crime. We must remember that organized crime is
becoming increasingly international. I repeat what I said
earlier: every year, world wide, approximately $500 billion
U.S. is laundered—and money launderers do not file tax returns.
This is the amount laundered internationally. Part of this
money falls into the hands of organized crime in Quebec and in
Canada.
This is a lot of money and it leads to some tragedies,
as I mentioned earlier. Co-operation between governments is
essential. Such co-operation, which was also called for in a
recent international conference on the subject, is made possible
by Bill C-22.
Finally, Bill C-22 provides another innovation. Following
consideration in committee and questioning of officials and
witnesses appearing before the committee, we will be more
certain of our final analysis. At first glance, though, the
third major clause of this bill, which provides for the creation
of a financial transactions and reports analysis centre of
Canada, is a step in the right direction in that, at the moment,
information on criminals, money laundering and interprovincial
transactions is spread here and there.
All efforts to centralize this information or to obtain the
co-operation of other police forces or between the investigators
of the financial transactions and reports analysis centre of
Canada, the various police forces and even Revenue Canada are
welcome.
In the future, with this centre, all information on suspicious
transactions and those that may lend themselves to money
laundering will be centralized. There will also be information
on individuals or institutions found guilty of failing to make
the mandatory disclosure in the case of a suspicious transaction
or of having been accused of money laundering themselves.
1650
I am pleased to note the bill provides that information
disclosed by the centre—very confidential information will pass
through it—will be carefully controlled and governed by the
Privacy Act. This is good news, but we would like to question
the government and the officials who worked on the bill, and
hear them as witnesses before the Standing Committee on Finance
to be sure this information will not be used and cast to the
four winds or, more importantly, sold for financial gain.
Very sensitive information will pass through the centre. We
want to make sure the requirements of the Privacy Act are met.
As I have said, we do have certain reservations about the bill
nevertheless. The first of these relates to increasing the
powers of customs officers. This may be beneficial. Often,
customs officers may have their hands tied by various
constraints that make it impossible, even if they are
suspicious, to carry out the necessary search in order to collar
real criminals.
We are concerned, at the same time, about people's rights and
freedoms. This will be one of our concerns during the next
stages of examination of this bill. We would like tight
controls over the work of the customs officers, with strict
regulations, so that there will not be any abuse relating to
searches of individuals or their vehicles. Customs officers
must have a framework of operation.
Second, a question arises, particularly in the light of clause
73 of Bill C-22: the extraordinary power assigned to the Governor
in Council, and the minister responsible, for making any
regulations relating to the legal provisions of Bill C-22.
We have misgivings about this. To give so much power to a group
of individuals, to the Governor in Council or the minister
responsible, on matters that might become criminal in nature,
without involving parliament, has always meant to us that the
powers of the departmental employees and the minister are
extraordinary. This has also come up in other bills.
We want to know if it would be possible to ensure that the House
has a say in the process, to make sure that the powers are not
concentrated in the hands of a few individuals when it comes to
such important issues, particularly as regards the regulations
that have yet to be drafted to implement Bill C-22.
This is another concern we will raise when a more in-depth review
of the bill is conducted by the Standing Committee on Finance
and at the various legislative stages.
We have a third concern regarding this bill, but also the whole
issue of organized crime. Next week, the justice subcommittee
will be meeting. It enjoys the unanimous support of the House of
Commons, with regard to what still needs to be done to give
adequate tools to police forces and what changes must be made to
the Criminal Code to fight organized crime more effectively.
Last year, I went through a harrowing experience, not just me,
but several other people too. Some people have been going
through that experience for years. I am referring to the reign
of terror, the law of silence imposed by organized crime on
people whose lands they invade. These people cannot say
anything, otherwise they are beaten or receive death threats.
I would like to send a message to the government. Will this
subcommittee get the government's co-operation so that, by early
fall, we can have measures that will truly help us fight
organized crime effectively?
Second, was the government's support for the establishment of
that subcommittee just a smoke and mirrors operation, or will it
truly help the subcommittee to propose a series of
recommendations with, of course, the input of opposition
members, including Bloc Quebecois members, to fight organized
crime more effectively? The hopes of several thousand people
rest on that subcommittee.
1655
I do not say that as a figure of speech. I have met people who
have been living in terror for the last three, four or five
years because of threats from organized crime. They place a lot
of hope on the work of the justice subcommittee, on measures to
fight organized crime more effectively and to protect them.
They also place a lot of hope on short term measures. I will put
particular emphasis on the illegal production of cannabis on
Quebec and Ontario farms, for obvious reasons.
I remind the government that, in the short term, before the
justice subcommittee can make its recommendations in the fall,
it is imperative that we take a series of measures immediately,
this year, to fight the illegal production of cannabis, with the
farming season that will start at the beginning of May and with
the pricking out of cannabis seedlings in our farmers' fields.
If we do not take action this year, we are giving one more
farming season, one more year of illegal profits to criminal
organizations in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and
throughout Canada, but particularly in eastern Canada and in the
westernmost part of Canada. It is one more year of extraordinary
profits, or proceeds of crime, that we are giving them.
It is also one more year to convince even more school
children—and the Standing Committee on Finance will have an
opportunity to hear from people involved in the schools who see
what is happening—to sell them not just cannabis or hashish, but
also heroin and cocaine. They will have another year in which
to damage the future of thousands of children in Quebec and in
Canada.
If action is not taken immediately in April or May to let
organized crime know that things will no longer be the same and
that, this year, measures will be implemented on the strength of
increased budgets, for the RCMP among others, I think that a
good opportunity will have been missed to show that we are
really serious about fighting organized crime.
As I said, starting with my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, there
are thousands of farm families and owners of woodlots who are
waiting for short term action from the government and who are
probably glad that money laundering provisions are being
tightened.
The more we cut the ground out from under organized crime and
money laundering, which is the key to the long term
profitability of criminal activity, the less it will tend to
increase its annual production or squatting on land in order to
grow cannabis, exchange it for cocaine or heroin on the American
market and so forth, and profit from the proceeds.
People are also happy that the continued pressure brought to
bear by the Bloc Quebecois has meant an increase in budgets to
fight organized crime. That is undeniable. But they are waiting
for short term action.
I bring this message to the government.
We must see improvements before the start of the next criminal
cannabis production season. We must see improvements. After
breaking the law of silence, and I am not the only one to have
done so, there were others after me in my riding and throughout
Canada, we have to improve the situation. Organized terrorism
in the fields of Quebec and Canada must stop this year or at
least there must be a marked improvement, because it cannot
continue. I have met farm families who are victims of organized
crime, and this has to stop.
If the government hears us as members, and I think that
opposition members are very aware of this issue, it must
announce, this year, in the coming weeks, that it is taking
steps to reduce criminal activities, beginning with those of the
drug dealers.
We will continue to analyze this bill considering it a step in
the right direction but recognizing that there are many things
yet to be done so that the freedom we were proud of in Quebec
and in Canada is not a false freedom, but rather true freedom
because we will deprive organized crime of the power to threaten
the freedom of the majority of the people.
1700
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
neglected to acknowledge the great battle against criminals and
crime that has been waged by the hon. member who has just
spoken, and I must congratulate him on behalf of the Liberal
Party and all members of this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point of
order, but never mind.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus I am
pleased to stand in this assembly and join with all of my
colleagues to trash money laundering and to say to Canadians that
we unanimously support eliminating criminal activity in this
country. Otherwise, it would be a very different debate, if some
of us defended the criminal activity that exists in our economy.
Bill C-22, which deals with the proceeds of crime from money
laundering, is a very important piece of legislation in many
ways, but it could be better. We have heard some of the speeches
from the minister and others who talked about the wonderful and
positive things it might do, and I believe that it will have a
positive effect on our economy. However, I am concerned about a
number of issues with respect to the bill.
The NDP supports this bill in principle. It is obviously
important to support the introduction of legislation that curbs
illegal activity.
However, there is a problem because of the wariness concerning
the lack of certainty and clarity in some parts of the bill.
Before I address that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with
you some of the concerns I have with this bill.
First, I am concerned that this is going to be a piece of feel
good legislation. The Liberals in the past have introduced
legislation which I classify as feel good legislation. I hope
this bill will not fall under same definition. What I mean by
that is that the Liberal government tends to address very serious
criminal activity in this country with a piece of legislation
that makes Canadians feel good that something is happening to
protect them, but in fact nothing ever happens to protect them.
There is a law on the books, but there are never any resources to
back up the legislation.
I would use two examples. There was cigarette smuggling in
Quebec and Ontario a few years ago when the Liberals were cutting
everything, including customs agents, police and security forces.
A certain group of individuals started smuggling cigarettes into
Canada, selling them in Quebec and Ontario. Rather than pass
legislation which supported the customs and duty officers and our
police forces in nabbing the people who were smuggling, they
introduced a piece of feel good legislation. They made people
feel good because they were doing something by passing a law
which took federal tax off cigarettes in Quebec and Ontario, but
that cost taxpayers $2 billion a year. Guess what. The
smugglers went from smuggling tobacco to smuggling guns.
Rather than dealing with legislation like the Firearms Act, they
should have committed resources to nab the gun smugglers. What
did the government do? It passed a gun registration law, which
has nothing to do with protecting Canadians, but it made them
feel good that the Liberal government was actually doing
something to protect Canadians. In fact, it was not doing a
darned thing. It was encouraging smugglers to continue to
smuggle.
We have these two pieces of feel good legislation which the
Liberals passed. One was on tobacco taxes, which cost us $2
billion a year, and which will probably add tens of thousands to
the debt because more people will be smoking in Ontario and
Quebec because of the low price of tobacco. Then they passed the
Firearms Act, which forces criminals to register their guns. As
we know, criminals do not register their guns. Nothing has
changed.
We now have Bill C-22, which is supposed to stop money
laundering in Canada.
If anybody believes this is going to be the epitome of
legislation, they are dreaming in technicolour. I hope it has
some effect, but if the bill is not backed up with some cash and
resources to provide our country with more security, more police
officers and more customs agents to look into these issues, then
the law will be useless. It is a feel good piece of legislation.
The government is trying to make Canadians feel good about it,
but nothing will ever happen. The same old story continues, the
money laundering, smuggling and all the criminal activities
committed by people who want to use handguns and other kinds of
illegal weapons.
1705
The potential in this bill is very great, but I want to raise a
couple of issues which I feel have to be addressed.
First, I am hoping the Liberals will put some money where their
mouths are for a change when it comes to a piece of legislation
which is in principle very good, but will not work unless there
are some resources put behind it.
Another problem we see with the legislation is the potential for
charter violations. The guarantees of reasonable search and
seizure in the charter are at risk in our view with this bill.
The Criminal Lawyers' Association argues that the standard of
suspicion outlined “fails to meet even the first and fundamental
requirements of reasonable grounds”.
The legislation may create an irreconcilable conflict for
professionals, such as lawyers, who remain subject to certain
codes of conduct that prohibit them from disclosing information.
It must also provide a mechanism to absolve an individual from
the potential liability that may result from disclosing this
particular confidential information.
The third issue in terms of our concerns is a possible pressure
on consumers. As the consumer affairs critic, I am very
concerned about every piece of legislation that comes before the
House which would cost consumers more money than it would benefit
them. We feel that the reporting regime set up to track and
communicate suspicious transactions from criminal activity have
at least two financial repercussions for consumers.
First, there is a cost to be borne by the taxpayers for the
establishment and maintenance of the financial tracking system
that will be set up. Second, in having to establish compliance
mechanisms, there is a concern that the cost for setting up
reporting mechanisms for financial institutions will be borne by
these institutions' customers. That means that the consumer
stands to pay the fare one more time.
The fourth issue of concern for us is the question about the
system's effectiveness. There remains a series of concerns about
the planned reporting scheme's effectiveness. There is a warning
that the new regime has the potential to create a bureaucratic
behemoth and the chance that organized crime could short-circuit
such a system through a series of shadowy sophisticated
transactions. Money might be better spent by granting law
enforcement investigative bodies additional resources to detect
and prosecute money laundering offences.
The fifth concern we have is that the bill does not address
technology based crimes. Technology based crimes include credit
card and debit card fraud, telephone fraud, stock market
manipulation, computer break-ins and so on. These are very
important because they are on the rise. More and more people are
using the Internet. There is a huge growth in the debit card
business. More and more consumers are using cards for instant
transactions. A lot of personal information is on the Internet
and is in the hands of tens of thousands of businesses in the
country.
Increasingly organized crime syndicates are using technological
and digital means of communication, such as encryption and
scanning devices, potentially circumventing the provisions of the
bill. People can buy a scanner for $200. Things can be scanned
quickly, and then that information is put into a computer, which
puts it all at risk.
What is more important is that money laundering is taking place
in many cash businesses, not just with card transactions. I
will not mention any particulars, but take for example a cash
business such as a fast food franchise.
I happen to know someone from New Jersey who owns a fast food
franchise. I asked him why he had it, because he was a very
wealthy person. He said he had a couple of other businesses, but
when his five year old daughter was asked what her father did he
did not want her to have to answer something that was really not
important or perhaps on the verge of not being legal. So he
bought a fast food franchise and his daughter can now say that
her dad owns a fast food franchise that sells ice cream. It is
actually quite nice.
1710
Of course, a cash business like that opens all kinds of
opportunities for people to launder money. I am not suggesting
that person is doing that, but it is one way to do it.
Another way to launder money would be for a family to buy five
or six business class airline tickets to Europe, decide not to
use them, cash them in and the money goes to the money launderer
who gave them the money to buy the tickets in the first place,
and then they split. I am not sure if that situation would be
covered by the bill, but there are thousands of ways to launder
money, more ways than I could recall.
We feel that we have to toughen up the bill and put some
resources behind it to assist the lawkeepers and the peacekeepers
in ensuring that the laundering issue is addressed in a tighter
way.
A clearer and more precise definition of what constitutes a
suspicious transaction is needed. The subjective nature of the
definition could provide an excuse for compliance failure and, as
a result, many suspicious transactions may not be reported.
In addition, the use of a vague definition could result in
institutions over-reporting for fear of involuntary
non-compliance, thus creating unnecessary and unwarranted
scrutiny of innocent individuals.
The proposed legislation must clearly address the issue of the
threat to the privacy of Canadians, specifically the possible
disclosure of information to Revenue Canada, should it involve a
taxation matter. Strict guidelines must be established.
It must also address the possible violation of the guarantees of
reasonable search and seizure under the charter or rights and
freedoms.
In addition, the issue of tax related offences should be
addressed. Tax offences occur when money is transferred to
offshore tax havens through offshore companies, trusts and bank
accounts when the purpose is to conceal assets from Revenue
Canada.
Money laundering, on the other hand, involves the intent to
conceal criminal profits to make them appear legitimate. We have
seen the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the Bank of Nova
Scotia and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce account for 80%
of local banking in the Bahamas. Both the Royal Bank and the
Bank of Nova Scotia have been implicated in money laundering
cases in the Caribbean on more than one occasion. In one case
the court ordered the Bank of Nova Scotia to pay $2,500,000 in
fines, noting that laws should not be used as a blanket device to
encourage or foster criminal activity.
What I am really worried about is that small aircraft and boats
can land in our country and in the U.S. at tiny airports or
marinas and they rely on the honour system when it comes to
customs declarations.
The federal government also has plans to implement signing
accords with major shippers that will allow them to cross into
the U.S. without stopping. Companies would provide computerized
updates to Revenue Canada of their shipments and custom agents
would make spot checks at company locations rather than at the
border.
The Liberal government has cut in half the customs enforcement
budget, and it is still cutting. I am concerned that if this is
not stopped and reversed, then this feel good legislation will be
just that; it will not solve the problem, but through the public
relations offices of the Liberal Party of Canada and the federal
government they will try to persuade people that they should feel
good because the legislation is there.
We heard that money laundering is the world's third largest
industry by value. Between $5 billion U.S. and $17 billion U.S.
is laundered in Canada each year. Money laundering extends far
beyond hiding profits from narcotics. It includes trade fraud,
tax evasion, organized crime in arms smuggling, and bank and
medical insurance fraud. I would hope the government would
provide the appropriate resources to address and look into these
issues further.
American tax collectors estimate that they lose about $9 billion
yearly to tax evasion. This comes from a book by Diane Francis
entitled Contrepreneurs. At a rate of 1:10, because
Canada's population is about 10% of the population of the United
States, we stand to lose at least $1 billion. That sounds like a
lot of money over a period of a year.
When we look at it in terms of how the Liberals have helped their
friends evade taxes, it is a drop in the bucket. Some members
may be wondering what I mean by that.
1715
If members will recall, the Liberals allowed the Bronfmans to
transfer billions of dollars in trust accounts to the U.S.
without paying taxes on the accounts. This created a loss to the
Canadian taxpayers of almost a billion dollars. I think it was
$750 million but we would not know because we were not told the
value of the tax evasion, which was supported by the Liberals and
the member for Wascana who also supported it front and centre.
The Liberals allowed the Bronfmans to take this trust fund, which
was set up in trust for the Bronfman family to use in Canada, and
move it outside the country, thereby avoiding taxes.
I think Canadians view this kind of legal money laundering or
legal tax evasion, which the Liberals support, as something that
is a very big concern.
If the hon. member for Wascana has some suggestions we would
appreciate his participation in the debate. I am sure he would
be able to provide more information on that than I can.
The other concern I and the NDP have is that we have a money
laundering bill that will be tough and that will addresses the
issue of criminal activity and proceeds from criminal activity.
Obviously if the government had the wherewithal it would try to
shut down all the criminal activity in this country. That would
be an honourable objective but I am not sure how the government
views that. It has not really undertaken, in my view, a
comprehensive attempt to do that.
In particular, the RCMP, which has really been choked for funds,
has been strangled in terms of trying to hire and train enough
officers in the country to handle just the bare, basic bones of
police provisioning. The Liberals have choked back funding to
the RCMP over the years to the point where in Saskatchewan alone
we are 200 RCMP officers short. Over the last three years the
Liberals have not provided enough funding to the Regina RCMP
training depot.
I am happy to say that in this budget the Liberals did provide
more money to the RCMP training academy, and I thank the member
for Wascana for that effort. I think it is a very important
initiative but it is too little too late. We are still waiting
for the weather station that the Liberals promised in the last
election.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: It is there. It is up and running
in Bethune.
Mr. John Solomon: It is up and running in Bethune?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: It has been there for two years
now.
Mr. John Solomon: It was in my riding and he never
invited me. He should have invited me to the opening. He has to
be more co-operative.
I am glad to see that is happening. One of his promises has
been completed.
I want to get back to the RCMP because it is a very important
institution in my riding. I know the RCMP were very concerned
about the lack of funding and the lack of money involved in
recruiting and training new officers. Hopefully the government
opposite will provide sufficient funding for these individuals.
While I am at it, I want to say that I am very concerned about
the privatization of the RCMP depot. Many of the workers there
have worked hard to support the RCMP and to make sure that it is
one of the best policing institutions in the world, but they are
not treated as fairly as we think they should be treated.
My final point is that if the bill can provide some sort of
controls on laundering money from criminal activity, why can the
government not introduce a bill that will provide a Tobin tax on
financial transactions that are legal?
By unanimous consent, the House of Commons passed a motion,
which was introduced by my colleague, the NDP member of
parliament for Regina—Qu'Appelle, that would undertake to
institute a Tobin tax for Canada and the rest of the world but I
have not seen any kind of initiative by the government.
The member for Wascana is here today and he has done a couple of
good things in the last while. He has not done as much as we
would have liked but he is progressing. We are training him well
and we are happy he is finally taking some of our ideas to heart.
I was wondering why he will not undertake with his colleagues,
the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions, to initiate the promise in
the motion that was passed in the House to support a Tobin tax
which is a financial transaction tax on all the stock market
transactions. There are no taxes on those particular
transactions.
Most members of parliament in Canada believe there should be a
tax. Most elected officials in the world believe there should be
a tax. The people who do not believe there should be a tax are
the people in wealthy corporations and in very wealthy families.
1720
The Liberals continue to support that kind of approach, that of
the very wealthy corporations and very wealthy families in this
country.
I am very concerned whether they will allow more tax evasion by
wealthy families like the Bronfmans, whether they will allow more
tax evasion by wealthy individuals and companies on the stock
market or whether they will undertake to do what Canadians want
them to do, which is to institute a Tobin tax, a fair tax on
financial transactions on the stock market and throughout
exchanges in the world so we can have a very controlled, steady
and stable system that would not encourage people who get money
through illegal means, such as money laundering, to use the stock
market for their particular advantage.
In summary, we support the bill in principle. It has many more
positive things to address. The government needs to put in some
resources to support the bill to make sure that the law it is
passing can actually be carried out by our law enforcement
agencies.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I want to ask the member a question because, unknown to
the House, he is an expert on laws around the world concerning
money laundering and has a great deal of background in this area.
In the member's opinion, why did the government leave out the
whole question of tax evasion? I see the member from
Saskatchewan across the way. The minister is in the cabinet and
I would ask him this question but I cannot because this is not
question period. Tax evasion is not addressed in this bill.
The Internal Revenue Service in the United States estimated that
the tax collector loses about $9 billion a year in the U.S.
because of tax evasion. Nine billion dollars a year is a lot of
cash. If one were to extrapolate that into Canadian dollars,
where we have one-tenth the population, it would mean, if we were
similar to the United States in terms of our loss of money
through tax evasion, that we would lose about $1 billion a year.
That is a lot of cash. It could pay for a lot of health care and
a lot of educational systems that we all need. It could also
address some of the farm crisis. It could address all kinds of
major problems that we have in the country.
In his very studied and learned opinion, why does the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre think this is not part of the bill.
Is it too complicated or just not a high enough priority? Why
would this not be part of the bill?
I also appreciated his comments on the Tobin tax. If we can
follow the flow of money in terms of criminal activity—and I
remind the House again that the third largest industry in the
world is criminal activity in terms of the flow of illegal money,
dirty money—by setting up rules and regulations in the OECD and
the G-8, then it puzzles me as to why we cannot do the same thing
on currency speculation in terms of what is called the Tobin tax.
I maintain that if there is a will, there is a way as well.
Anyway, I will go back to the tax evasion issue and ask why it
is not included in the bill.
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague,
the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, for that very important
question because I actually never addressed that in my remarks. I
ran out of time but I had many more things to say.
Tax evasion is not addressed in this legislation because it is a
possibility that many Canadians have a lot of flexibility in
terms of accessing sophisticated offshore companies. Trusts and
bank accounts can be set up in places like the Bahamas, which I
mentioned earlier. Canada's chartered banks all offer banking
services and tax savings, with most services offered in the
Caribbean and Switzerland. Money that is in an offshore tax
haven is not only out of reach of Revenue Canada, it is also safe
from creditors.
In my remarks earlier I said that the reason it is not in the
bill, I suspect, is because the government's very wealthy friends
do not want it to be in the legislation. One example of why I
say that is the Bronfmans. They had a trust account in this
country which was set up under legislation created by the
Liberals in the 1970s on a 20 year term. It was extended by the
Conservative government for a number of extra years.
When the term was coming to an end and they had to actually pay
taxes on the trust account, the Liberals encouraged and gave
permission for the Bronfmans to transfer this multibillion dollar
trust account outside of the country, thereby avoiding taxes in
Canada.
1725
It is estimated that we lose about $1 billion a year on tax
evasion. That one transaction that the Liberals undertook,
encouraged and allowed the Bronfmans to undertake, cost us about
$750 million in lost taxes on one transaction. I think the
estimate of $1 billion is really out to lunch.
The bottom line is that the reason tax evasion is not in the
bill is because the wealthy friends of the Liberals, the wealthy
powerful corporations who support the Liberals, do not want it in
here. Guess who pays the piper?
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the previous speaker on his recent
designation as world expert in the area of money laundering.
Bill C-22 is of course a very important bill before us today and
it is long overdue. In the final analysis it will bring about
some very necessary and important changes in the country.
Put quite simply, Bill C-22 will make it mandatory for financial
institutions to report suspicious transactions and will create a
new federal centre to receive and manage reported information
with respect to potential criminal activity, both inside and
outside our borders.
It is quite obvious that this should and is a priority for many
in the country. Sadly, the government has waited a significant
period of time before introducing the legislation, although there
was an outcry from around the country, particularly within the
policing sector, asking that something be done to assist them and
to give them the tools to address this growing problem.
We all know that this is but part of a larger problem. That
larger problem obviously being organized crime, again here in
Canada.
To reflect upon the government's addressing of that, it took a
motion from the Bloc Quebecois to bring this matter to the
forefront, based on the fact that one of their own members was
under threat of violence as a result of his addressing the issue.
This particular legislation focuses the efforts of the law
enforcement community and the entire system on addressing the
problem. The money that is often shifted between countries and
financial institutions, investments of that sort without a paper
trace, is something that opens the door to a significant ability
to launder money, which is highly criminal and obviously highly
attractive to criminal organizations.
We have to be more aggressive and more vigilant in addressing
this problem. I commend the solicitor general for the legislation
at this time because it does empower law enforcement agents to
address this. This centre I do hope will become a focal point
and will receive the funding necessary to do that good work.
Giving law enforcement agents the tools is the belief of the
Progressive Conservative Party. I know the member for St. John's
East, as do all members of our party, do support the idea that
law enforcement agencies throughout the country, sadly, have not
been given the resources and the support from the government to
achieve the very important task that they have before them. This
legislation does move in the right direction in that regard.
Canada has been under heavy criticism in recent years with
respect to the fact that the United States is feeling more
vulnerable as a result of our lax internal security measures.
When I am talking about trafficking, it is not only in money
that we see this occurring. It is often very much the illicit
drug trade, firearms, pornography and all those things which
Canadians want to feel a significant degree of protection from
and where we should be focusing our efforts to close down our
borders with respect to that type of material.
Money laundering, in and of itself, poses to law enforcement
personnel one of the greatest challenges in the ongoing battle of
organized crime. To fight organized crime effectively, law
enforcement agencies and we as legislators must address those
challenges posed specifically by current trends in money
laundering, and adapt strategies to respond to those challenges.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We must stop at this
time, but the hon. member will have approximately 15 minutes left
when the bill is again brought back before the House.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[Translation]
COMPETITION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-276, an act to
amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing), as
reported (with amendments) from the Committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is a motion in
amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of
Bill C-276, an Act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative
option marketing).
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-276, in
Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 2 the
following:
“(2.1) Subsection (1) does not apply in the province of
Quebec to an enterprise that provides or sells a new service in
Quebec.”
He said: Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-276 on
negative option marketing. This refers to the fact that, when
there are new television channels, consumers are charged for
them, and if they do not wish to receive the new channels, they
must say so, otherwise they will have to pay for the service.
Its objective is, in principle, a most praiseworthy one, but we
have a number of problems with it, which is why we have proposed
the amendment.
In Quebec, we have the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits
this kind of practice.
It is not as widespread a practice as some might think. It was
used mainly when new specialty channels were introduced to
promote a greater penetration rate. There was some public outcry
around that.
Obviously, when we indicate we no longer want to receive these
channels, the subscription fee is very different from what it
would be if we wanted the service.
When new channels are introduced, for cultural reasons, to help
French channels achieve greater penetration, it may happen that
these channels be part of a package. This kind of approach is
helpful to reduce costs and increase penetration.
A lot of people have criticized this kind of approach, arguing
that banks do it, among others, but we must dispel the myth.
Some people, and I am thinking of a number of Liberal members,
are saying that certain practices will no longer be allowed with
this bill, but it is not so.
For example, banks sometimes have a promotion. One can get free
life insurance or any type of insurance for three months. Anyone
who signs a loan contract or any other document also gets that
other service, whatever it is. It is free for three months. The
initial contract says that charges will start to apply after
three months unless the company is notified. That is not
negative option billing.
The bill will not prevent this kind of practice because consent
was given in the initial contract. Therefore, it must be clearly
understood that the bill will not solve this kind of problem.
The negative option marketing cases we have seen were mostly in
relation to the introduction of new channels.
The other aspect is that there is still a possible exemption
procedure, but the decision would be left in the hands of
political officials instead of the CRTC. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage will now have the authority to allow licensed
services to use that practice. Very strong political pressure
from the minister will be brought to bear on the CRTC, which we
would like to be much more independent.
For all kinds of reasons, we do not support that and our
amendment is designed to exempt Quebec. It is not because we
want Quebec consumers to be protected against that practice
generally, but because they are already under the Consumer
Protection Act. We do not want another piece of legislation that
will introduce different definitions and different recourses.
At present, we have the Consumer Protection Bureau. In Quebec,
anyone who feels he has been wronged may call on the Consumer
Protection Bureau. This bill will give powers to the Competition
Bureau, which is governed by a different act and has a different
approach.
The offence leads to different sanctions, whether it is an
offence against the Quebec act or against this new federal
legislation, if passed.
1735
It must be remembered that issues related to contracts, local
trade and consumer protection are provincial jurisdictions under
section 92.13 of the constitution. It is under this section that
Quebec passed its consumer protection act, which prohibits
negative billing in paragraph 230(a), which reads as follows:
(a) No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, through any
means, demand any money for a product or service provided or
sold to a consumer without the latter having asked for it.
Thus, the consumer protection act makes it very clear that this
kind of practice is prohibited. Some people will say yes, but
this bill applies to federal institutions, banks,
telecommunications and so on. For those who might say this does
not apply to federal institutions, I will quote some court
decisions, such as the one in Attorney General of Quebec v
Kellogg, which says in part:
The Kelloggs are not exempt from the application of restrictions
on advertising practices because they chose an advertising
instrument under federal control.
An individual who discloses defamatory material is not
exonerated under provincial law because the publication
instrument is under federal control. Moreover, this individual
could be prohibited from publishing any new material.
I believe that the Kelloggs are in a similar situation regarding
these regulations. They cannot justify a behaviour which has
become illegal by saying that they are using television.
Provincial legislation is not about television but about
consumers, trade and advertising. We are applying the terms of
the act.
We believe the same thing applies in this case.
The supreme court decided, in Attorney General of Quebec v
Irwin Toy Limited, that, and I quote in part:
There is no doubt that television advertising is a vital part
of the operation of a television broadcast undertaking. The
advertising services of these undertakings therefore fall within
exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction. It is well
established that such jurisdiction extends to the content of
broadcasting and advertising forms a part of such content.
However, ss. 248 and 249 of the Consumer Protection Act do not
purport to apply to television broadcast undertakings. Read
together with s.252, it is clear that ss. 248 and 249 apply to
the acts of an advertiser, not tothe acts of a broadcaster.
Cable television companies themselves have acknowledged that
they were under the jurisdiction of Quebec legislation. It is
precisely for that reason that some companies recently undertook
to abide by the decision of the Consumer Protection Bureau
regarding the establishment of new specialised channels.
We believe that this new federal legislation will complicate
measures available to consumers to obtain redress complicate
determination of what really applies to protect them, especially
since no one in committee was able to give a definition of new
service prescribed in the bill. Everyone had his own
interpretation and a different definition of what a new service
is. The bill purports to prevent those areas from applying to
new services.
Some people, including representatives of the Canadian Bar
Association and others, said “You are going about this in the
right way to achieve your goal. We already have a Bank Act, a
Broadcasting Act and a Telecommunications Act. These acts
already include means to prevent this type of practice and they
would be much more appropriate”.
Even those who would like to see federal legislation are saying
“Start by using the existing legislation, do not create new
legislation that will only complicate the process and the
capacity to implement it”. It is all very nice to make a show,
to make believe that we are doing something for Canadian
consumers, but if, at the end of the day, these people are not
better protected than they were before, we have not achieved
much.
There is one last issue that I want to raise because I know that
time is flying. We are extremely concerned about the
politicization of the exceptions that could be given to the
bill. Each of the ministers in his or her own area of
jurisdiction, be it finance, industry or heritage, will be in a
position to grant exemptions by virtue of an order in council.
This means that it would not be an organization like the CRTC,
independent from the government, that would evaluate this
anymore.
Those who are not satisfied with the decisions made by the CRTC
have legal remedy. They can submit their case to the Federal
Court for example. From now on, the decisions will be political
and they will or will not include exceptions. We are very
concerned, especially about the heritage minister, because we
know that she is very good at politicizing everything. As a
matter of fact, the situation is the same with the other two
ministers, because they will both be replaced eventually.
1740
While the intention may be laudable, this is not done at the
right level. As far as Quebec is concerned, we do not think it
will make it easier to achieve the objective, because consumers
are already protected.
In order to engage in negative option billing in Quebec, a
notice or an authorization from the Consumer Protection Bureau
is required. This is hardly ever done, the only exception being
the introduction of new television channels, which comes under
the CRTC with a whole different set of objectives.
I hope I dealt with the core of the issue. We will vote against
this bill for the reasons that I explained, but we do have one
hope. It may be that the other provinces want the federal
government to look after their affairs. If the rest of Canada is
happy to have the federal government look after that, let them
give up their jurisdiction, but Quebec will not. If the
amendment to exclude Quebec is adopted and it is recognized that
Quebec's Consumer Protection Act takes precedence, under those
circumstances, we might support the bill.
We were elected to protect Quebec's interests in this place and
that is what we intend to do.
We are proposing an amendment and we will see if this
government, which claims to be very flexible toward Quebec and
apparently recognized the Quebec society as a distinct society
in a motion—we are anxious to see the real weight of that
motion—will go so far as to support the amendment that would
exclude Quebec from the application of the act, since Quebec
consumers are already protected.
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the
amendment proposed by the Bloc to Bill C-276, an act to amend the
Competition Act. It is a sad day for consumers in the province
of Quebec because the member for Témiscamingue, as a member of
the Bloc Quebecois, has proposed an amendment to exempt Quebec
residents from the consumer protection measures contained in the
bill. It is difficult to imagine why on earth we on this side
would support such a cold hearted and callous proposal from the
member opposite.
The bill would protect consumers from the deceptive marketing
practice known as negative option billing which occurs when a
company forces its customers to decline or opt out of new product
or service offerings to avoid higher fees. This practice is a
perversion of the traditional buyer-seller relationship. It
relies on the concept of implied consent: if the buyer does not
say no or register an objection with the seller or the vendor, he
or she is deemed to have said yes and to have given consent to
the purchase.
It is a rather sick way of doing business because it takes
advantage of consumers from all walks of life whether they are
young, poor, elderly or people on fixed incomes. With the
proposed amendment the Bloc Quebecois would leave millions of
consumers in the province of Quebec vulnerable to such marketing
rip-offs.
I often have trouble following the twisted logic of the Bloc. In
an attempt to humour our friends across the way, I will try to
see how their amendment would benefit consumers who reside in
Quebec or any place else in Canada, for that matter.
If we look closely at Bill C-276, as amended by the Standing
Committee on Industry, we see that it has been improved. I would
like to take the opportunity to thank and commend members of that
committee for their hard work. In a four month period the
committee heard testimony from 28 witnesses, including consumer
organizations, industry groups, and officials from the government
departments of finance, industry and Canadian heritage who
appeared not once but twice before the committee.
The committee passed a number of amendments to bring Bill C-276
in line with recent changes to the Competition Act precipitated
by the passage of what was called Bill C-20.
Concerns over the viability of certain specialty television
channels were addressed. A change was made to deal with the
evolution of electronic commerce. Changes were made but the key
elements of consumer protection have remained in this bill.
1745
The bill still applies to federally regulated banks, telephone
companies and cable companies. Here we see the irony of the
Bloc's proposed amendment, the politicization of their proposed
amendment. They would give a green light for federally regulated
banks and others to essentially rip off consumers in the province
of Quebec by way of negative option marketing. I am certain the
Bloc's position has nothing whatsoever to do with their recent
change of heart when it comes to accepting campaign donations
from large corporations. I am sure this is simply a coincidence.
In any case, perhaps we should refer to what the experts who
appeared before the committee have said. At the industry
committee hearing on December 13, 1999 the head of the Quebec
based consumer organization Action Réseau, Ms. Nathalie
St-Pierre, was questioned by the member for Timiskaming. I will
quote his question:
You are a watchdog organization involved in consumer protection
in Quebec. At the present time, do companies under federal
jurisdiction and subject to this bill comply voluntarily with the
[Quebec] Consumer Protection Act?
Ms. St-Pierre in her reply stated “They do not comply with the
Consumer Protection Act”.
In a letter to the CRTC dated October 8, 1999, Ms. St-Pierre
exploded the myth that Quebec consumers do not object to negative
option marketing. She referred to the 1997 launch of new
specialty channels by the Quebec based company Vidéotron and I
quote once again from her letter:
When the channels were launched, Quebec consumer groups, the
Consumer Protection Bureau and Vidéotron all received numerous
complaints, particularly about the marketing method used, which
was negative option billing.
As the Bloc points out, Quebec's Consumer Protection Act
prohibits negative option marketing. However, the Bloc does not
say that it can only apply to areas of provincial jurisdiction.
What they do not say is that their act specifically exempts
federal jurisdiction. It in fact says it does not apply to
cable.
I can only surmise that the member for Timiskaming has finally
come to his senses on this jurisdictional question. Why else did
he ask a Quebec based consumer group if federally regulated
companies voluntarily comply with the provincial law? The fact
is that the Bloc knows that the Quebec law does not, cannot,
never has and never will apply to industries like banking,
telephone or cable.
Why then do Bloc members stand in this place and demand a carve
out, a big exculpatory clause for Quebec consumers? Why do they
stand with the Canadian Bankers Association and others who like
things just the way they are? No changes.
I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do see a ray
of light over the Bloc members. It is the member for Portneuf,
their official critic for Canadian heritage, who recently
launched a public campaign against the distribution of a French
language educational channel, TFO, which wanted to broadcast in
the province of Quebec and was made in the province of Ontario.
The member for Portneuf broke ranks with his pro-business
colleagues and stood up for consumer rights and explained his
views in a TFO interview which aired on October 28, 1999.
The member is going to try to shout this down, but I want him to
hear what his colleague said. I quote:
Look, I have no objection if a Quebecer wants to subscribe to
TFO. I have a problem with the CRTC, which is a federal
organization, forcing all Quebecers who get cable to pay for TFO,
whether they want it or not. That's wrong. That is not what I
would call a free market practice.
If the—
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. The member
who has the floor is right next to me, and I can hardly hear
him. I ask all members to show a little respect.
1750
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Madam Speaker, I have very little
time left, so I would say in conclusion that this bill has its
roots in the consumer revolt of January 1995, but has its eye
clearly on the future.
On a daily basis we are bombarded with the marketing campaigns
of these federally regulated businesses. With the explosion of
information technology, it is becoming far easier for these
companies to bundle packages and increase the number of services
provided.
Why must we as consumers remain ever vigilant to avoid paying
higher fees for their additional services?
By defeating the Bloc's amendment and passing Bill C-276, we can
protect all Canadian consumers from future negative option
rip-offs.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be speaking for
seven minutes in the hope that there will be a few minutes left
at the end for my colleague from Surrey Central, who has a keen
interest in this area and I know would like to have the
opportunity to speak.
This is report stage of the private member's bill, Bill C-276—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the hon. member
asking to split his time?
Mr. Charlie Penson: No, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Very good.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, this
is report stage of this bill. My understanding is that the Bloc
amendment would not address the issues that the member for
Sarnia—Lambton just alluded to, that these are federally
regulated industries which are involved and therefore it is
necessary to provide protection, even in Quebec, to have this
bill apply in the way in which it was intended.
It is our position that in principle we agree with the
philosophy involved here, which is to put the onus on companies,
the providers of services, to obtain the consent before offering
a service or starting to bill for that service. That is a
reasonable proposal to use and therefore we are supportive of
that concept.
We understand that there may be some problems with it and I will
talk about that in a moment, but currently the negative option
procedure as we know it puts the onus on consumers to advise
suppliers of a service, for example a television company offering
a cable service, that they do not want that service, otherwise it
would continue and the consumer would continue to be billed.
In principle I think it should be the other way around. I know
that is the intent of this bill. This would apply to federally
regulated industries and therefore banks and telecommunications
companies would be involved. We know that there may be some
consequences in requiring these institutions to obtain that
consent.
I do not think that it would be a serious matter. There are new
methods, including electronic options through the Internet and
various other ways available to those companies to obtain
consent, but in the event that it is too onerous on these
companies and provides too much of a problem, the member who
proposed this private member's bill has built into it a section
which says that if that were to be the case, for example if a
bank were not able to do this without incurring a tremendous
amount of debt to provide that service, there is a provision to
exempt those particular areas out of the bill.
The minister involved in that particular category, who might be,
for example, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Canadian
Heritage in regard to telecommunications, will be given the power
to exempt those companies in the event that it is too onerous on
them.
The bill is in proper balance. What it means is that the
minister involved would have to justify before the Parliament of
Canada why that exemption is being given. I think that is a good
check and balance which will be used very rarely. It seems to me
that the onus will then be on the company to try to obtain this
consent. That is a very good provision in the bill.
The negative option part of it would be reversed and it would be
up to the companies to obtain the consent necessary before they
expanded packages and provided that service.
1755
Why would the Bloc be opposed to this and why would any
consumers in Quebec be opposed to the idea? I have difficulty
understanding that, although I understand the member saying that
it is provided right now. I have the counterbalance from the
member for Sarnia—Lambton who says that is not the case.
In case the member for Sarnia—Lambton is right, I think this
should apply to Quebec. If it is already covered in its
legislation, what is the argument involved?
Although it is a free vote on a private member's bill, I am
supportive of this as the critic for industry. It seems to me it
is a good bill and should be considered. I will be voting
against the amendment put forward by the Bloc at report stage.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in the report stage debate on
Bill C-276, a private member's bill proposed by the member for
Sarnia—Lambton, which would curtail the use of negative option
marketing in industries subject to federal jurisdiction.
The bill is remarkable for several reasons. First, it has
survived so long in one form or another in spite of all of its
numerous attackers, detractors and opponents. More on that
later.
Second, it took a backbench member of parliament to introduce a
piece of legislation protecting consumers. In my time as a
member of parliament, I do not recall a single piece of consumer
legislation coming directly from the industry minister himself.
We have not seen any kind of progressive consumer legislation
come from the government. It has always been from private
members like the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Most Canadians do not realize that the department of consumer
and corporate affairs was long ago renamed the Department of
Industry, reflecting quite well the concerns of this Liberal
government and the Mulroney Conservatives before it.
Except for the member for Sarnia—Lambton, the Liberals care
only about industry and care nothing for consumers as we have
seen over and again, whether it is gas prices or all kinds of
other issues. Liberals are shoulder to shoulder with millionaire
hockey players and millionaire oil company execs to protect their
particular situations.
Consumer affairs is now a little branch tucked away in the
corner of the industry department. The consumer affairs minister
is the industry minister, not that one would notice.
We only need to look south of the border to see how things might
be different. There the U.S. attorney general is prepared to
take on a giant company like Microsoft and win. They have
anti-combine legislation which actually protects consumers. They
have competition legislation which actually encourages
competition.
We have an act which the Liberals have misnamed. They call it
the Competition Act. From all experience seen under that act,
everyone I know calls it the lack of competition act because
there is no competition this particular act encourages. It
encourages large, wealthy corporations to do whatever they want
at the expense of consumers.
In Canada, when the banks come calling, the finance department
and its various political flunkeys in the Liberal Party fall over
themselves to co-operate and basically they cave in. It did not
work, however, with this bill at the industry committee but it
will be interesting to see how the junior finance minister, and
the member for Etobicoke North, who both supported Bill C-276 at
second reading, vote on it at third reading. I would hope they
will support it as they did at second reading.
Will they vote for the bankers or will they vote for the
consumers? I suspect the bankers will be first on their priority
list, as they always have been, but we will be watching very
closely.
I say to the member for Sarnia—Lambton that I was not always
able to be at the industry committee hearings on this bill since
I was also responsible for Elections Act amendments which were in
committee at the same time in the procedure and House affairs
committee. However, I followed the evidence and various
amendments proposed, some of them constructive and some
destructive, and I speak on them today as consumer affairs critic
on behalf of my party.
As I said at second reading, banning negative option billing is
a way to tell enterprises that where there are consumers
involved, yes means yes and no means no. There is no implied
consent in silence.
1800
If they want customers to pay for a new service, they have to
ask first, nicely. They just cannot ram new fees down customers'
throats or sneak them in through the back door. Every consumer I
have spoken with agrees with this statement.
This bill follows similar legislation adopted by the NDP
government in British Columbia and by the Parti Quebecois
government in Quebec.
The bill, as now amended by the committee, changes negative
option marketing from a criminal to a civil reviewable offence.
This amendment comes at the suggestion of the Competition Bureau
which would be charged with administrating the Competition Act as
amended by this bill.
There are arguments in favour and against. The criminal route
has stiffer fines and can include every industry, but has a much
higher evidentiary threshold and so is harder to enforce. The
civil route amounts to a slap on the wrist, but it can be
administered more quickly and, one hopes, very publicly. Given
the public outcry against the cable companies back in 1995, we
have some good evidence to believe this can be effective.
Our party reluctantly supports these changes so as not to let
the purpose be the enemy of the good, but there is another
unfortunate consequence. While the criminal law can apply to all
industries, the civil reach of federal legislation extends to
only those industries under federal jurisdiction. This limits us
to the banks, the cable companies and the phone companies.
Unfortunately, the insurance and trust companies and the credit
unions have been dropped from the application of the member's
bill.
That is what is so confusing about the latest report stage
amendment being tabled by the Bloc member for Témiscamingue. The
Bloc wants to exempt the province of Quebec from the bill. It
claims the bill is not constitutional because it relates to
commerce and other fields which come under provincial
jurisdiction. If so, why does it not just exempt the whole
country? Why exempt just Quebec? This approach is quite
outrageous.
With all respect to my progressive colleagues in the Bloc, I do
not know how in all good conscience they can oppose this bill
which protects consumers in their own province. They apparently
believe in the fiction that federally regulated companies comply
with provincial legislation. I do not think they should rely on
that when push comes to shove, especially not with the banks.
Even the Quebec consumer group, Action Réseau Consommateur,
which testified at the Standing Committee on Industry, sees the
need for this bill in Quebec. The Liberal government will
sacrifice consumers at the altar of industry. The Bloc Quebecois
will sacrifice common sense at the altar of ideology. That is
appalling and, needless to say, we will oppose that amendment as
the New Democratic Party as I am sure all other federalist
parties will.
The banks could not defeat the bill in committee. The Bloc will
not defeat it in the House. But what about the other place, the
Senate, where friends of the Prime Minister are appointed to
ensure that the rich and powerful have veto over common sense
legislation which protects consumers?
In the last parliament the cable companies effectively sabotaged
an earlier version of this bill in the Senate. This time we can
expect the banks to take another try at it, unless of course we
can abolish the Senate before the bill gets there.
My party believes there is substantial merit in even this
modified version of the member's bill so we hope he has enough
friends in the chamber of so many second thoughts. We wish him
luck in the Senate.
In summary, the New Democratic Party will be opposing the Bloc's
amendment and supporting the member's bill at third reading.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise today to address Bill C-276, an act to amend
the Competition Act with respect to negative option marketing. It
is also with pleasure that I commend the efforts of the hon.
member for Sarnia—Lambton. His tireless work on this file is a
testament to his character and his commitment of upholding the
interests of the Canadian consumer, all of this despite intense
pressure from members of his own caucus and, in particular, from
his party's front bench.
Negative option marketing is a practice in which enterprises
offer clients new goods and services that clients must expressly
refuse in order to avoid being billed. If clients do not
expressly refuse the offer, they are deemed to have accepted it
and are therefore charged. It is usually common practice for
goods or services to be provided for a free trial period, after
which a charge is automatically levied, unless the vendor is
contacted directly and told to discontinue the service. Often
the free product is bundled with other services the customer has
already ordered.
Before proceeding to discuss the merits of this bill, I would
like to address the motion brought forward by the hon. member for
Témiscamingue.
It is certainly no secret that the member's party has opposed
this bill since it was first tabled. Last spring during the
debate in which the Bloc opposed this bill, the party argued that
French language broadcasting services need the protection of the
CRTC given the smaller market in Quebec.
1805
However misguided, the Bloc believes that the French language is
under fire across Canada and that its viability is increasingly
threatened. I will not go into the numerous reasons why the
Bloc's reasoning is flawed in this regard because there are
countless groups, organizations and political parties like the PC
Party, which are forcefully committed to ensuring the continued
vitality of the beautiful French language from coast to coast to
coast. Despite the PC Party's articulated pledge to uphold the
rights of all Canadians, the Bloc feels that the French language
must be protected and promoted as much as possible.
As such, the Bloc believes that negative option marketing, as
for instance in the case of cable companies that use negative
option marketing to introduce new French language services in
Quebec, must be protected. As far as the Bloc is concerned,
negative option marketing is a good thing which means that this
bill is a bad thing.
The story gets very interesting as we uncover its many layers.
It turns out that this past fall the Bloc member for Portneuf
articulated the opposite sentiment. He complained about the
CRTC, a federal organization, forcing all Quebecers to pay for a
service whether they liked it or not. Translated into English,
the member said “that is not right, that is not representative
of a free market”. The member for Portneuf declared it is not
right to force consumers to pay for something that they may not
want. It is not right, according to the Bloc, to make Canadians
pay for something that they have not explicitly said they want.
That is precisely what Bill C-276 does. The bill protects the
rights of Canadian consumers because it prohibits negative option
marketing, a tactic that forces consumers to pay for something
that they may not want in the first place. This is the same kind
of tactic, I might add, that the Bloc has most recently described
as not right.
I do not support the motion brought forward by the member for
Témiscamingue and, as we have seen, neither do certain members of
his own caucus.
With respect to this bill, I offer my support to the member for
Sarnia—Lambton because I realize the importance of consumer
rights and I recognize the value in upholding those consumer
rights. Bill C-276 protects the most fundamental of all consumer
rights: consent. Bill C-276 protects the right to express
consent before purchasing a new product or service. Consent,
which is an individual's expressed will to accept the offer to
contract, is an essential condition of contracting, one which
negative option marketing disregards.
This bill, if my colleagues see the wisdom in allowing it to
pass in this place, represents a large victory for Canadians.
Not only does it protect all Canadians, but it is truly
refreshing to see that it seeks to protect the little guy in an
age where the concerns of the little guy are always deemed
secondary, if not even meaningless.
I would like to take a moment to record my acknowledgement of
the concerns this bill poses to the Canadian banking industry.
Although, as I see it and as the banking industry itself does as
well, there are no valid principled objections to this bill,
there are examples which show that should the bill become law it
would be very difficult for banks to abide by its provisions. I
recognize these difficulties and I offer my assistance to the
banking industry in identifying possible solutions to the hurdles
it would face if the bill were to pass.
The bill proposes to eliminate what is known as default billing.
Default billing is an insidious practice that has plagued
unwitting consumers for years. If the bill does not pass,
default billing will continue to plague consumers in an
increasingly invasive and damaging fashion. What opponents of
the bill fail to recognize is that default billing upsets the
traditional buyer-seller relationship. This relationship is
simple. Basically, if we want something, we inquire as to its
availability and if it is available, we buy it from the seller.
This is only logical.
However, some crafty and, quite frankly, cunning individuals
have upset the harmonious balance in the buyer-seller
relationship by instituting the practice of negative option
marketing. This practice does not allow the buyer to even
consider purchasing a product. It does not allow the buyer to
even consider if the product or service is something the buyer
needs or that would be helpful in his or her life. Rather, this
practice imposes products and services upon the buyer without
consent, without even asking the prospective buyer if this is
what he wants. Madam Speaker, would you believe that right now
it is legal to do that?
Did you know, Madam Speaker, it is legal for shrewd individuals
to do this in certain instances? You, Madam Speaker, could be
billed for something that you did not even ask for, something for
which you did not even express an interest. Does this sound
fair? Does this sound right?
1810
As my colleague from Portneuf so accurately stated, this is
simply not right. Beyond the fact that this kind of tactic
inconveniences and troubles average Canadians, this tactic has
far reaching impacts upon those who do not represent the average
Canadian. For instance, negative option tactics penalize
customers who do not understand that they must cancel the
service, for instance, Canadians like the elderly or the aging.
It also penalizes immigrants whose first language is not English
and even those who are away on vacation and cannot respond in a
timely fashion to the new charges imposed on them during their
absence.
These are simply a number of many specific problems the bill
will address, problems I am thankful will finally be resolved.
In closing, Madam Speaker, please allow me to reiterate that
consent is a fundamental tenet upon which the consumer-business
relationship is founded. Here in Canada we have always thought
to preserve the privileges and uphold the rights of our citizens.
We must preserve the basic principle of consent and ensure that
that it continues to hold the same consequence and weight that it
has for ages. How can we do this? What role can this House have
in furthering the preservation of consent? We can start by
passing this bill, Bill C-276. I encourage my colleagues to
recognize the importance of this legislation and to look beyond
our party distinctions in order to offer a resounding commitment
to ensuring the security of the Canadian consumer.
I urge my colleagues to do as I will, that is to support Bill
C-276.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in this debate. Members
of the Standing Committee on Industry have discussed this bill,
and today, the arguments put forward in committee have been
summarized for us.
I would like to acknowledge the persistence of the hon. member,
even though I do not share his view, because this is the fourth
time he has tried do convince the House of the merits of this
private member's bill.
The objections of the Bloc Quebecois are in the same line as the
motion presented by the hon. member for Témiscamingue to exempt
Quebec from this bill.
I find it passing strange that a sovereignist member like me
should explain the Canadian constitution to federalist members
of various parties in the House. Our objections are based on the
constitution.
Some may wonder how that can be. Section 92.13 grants to the
provinces the powers over questions of property and civil law.
This is especially true for Quebec, because our civil code is
different from the legal system in the other provinces. The
civil code comes from the Code Napoléon, and it was accepted
when Quebec joined confederation. Its inspiration and
implementation differ from common law, which applies elsewhere
in Canada.
We constantly have to remind federalist members, who should be
more mindful of the Canadian constitution, of this. And it is
the Bloc Quebecois members, sovereignist members, who have to do
this.
Earlier, the member for Témiscamingue referred to two specific
cases where section 92.13 of the constitution was used, as well
as paragraph 230(a). These cases went all the way to the supreme
court, they are the attorney general of Quebec v Kellogg's and
the attorney general of Quebec v Irwin Toys.
1815
In both cases, the arguments put forward by the attorney general
of Quebec were accepted. Cable companies themselves recognized
that they were subject to Quebec's legislation, because
legislation exists, which established the Consumer Protection
Bureau and which, in section 230, prohibits negative option
marketing.
After meeting with officials of the Consumer Protection Bureau,
Vidéotron, Cogeco, Star Choice and ExpressVu all promised to
abide by the bureau's directive that they may not use negative
option marketing to sell their new package, as of January 1 of
this year. Therefore, the new package is offered on a positive
option marketing basis.
A lot of people do not want to hear about the constitution
any more but the constitution is about the rules that govern a
country, in this case the Canadian federation. If those rules
are not respected, what is the use of having them?
My colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party, the New
Democratic Party and the Canadian Alliance who spoke before me
used the same arguments than those used by the Liberal Party
with regard to the Bloc Quebecois' objection, saying that there
is nothing wrong with the federal government interfering in
provincial jurisdictions.
There is something that many surveys and studies have shown and
that those involved in teaching political science often talk
about. For Canadians outside Quebec, the main government is the
federal government. When it offers money or proposes measures
they find interesting, the objections raised by their provincial
government are regarded as secondary.
In Quebec, whether one is a federalist or a sovereignist, the
exact opposite is true. This has always been the case, because
the first government they think of is the Government of Quebec.
This is also clear from voter turnout. Turnout in provincial
elections in Quebec is always higher. In general, although
there are exceptions, the opposite is true in the other
provinces.
During my first term of office, I sat on the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities. This committee travelled across Canada and
Quebec, and I was particularly struck by one thing. When it was
a question of postsecondary education, the other provinces
wanted the federal government to step in and had no problem with
national education standards. Yet this is clearly a provincial
jurisdiction.
The same is true for health.
A debate is now going on in the House of Commons and, during
oral question period, the NDP kept coming back to the charge,
practically goading the federal government to step in with
certain governments, such as Alberta, which wants to limit
certain health criteria set by the federal government.
This important difference in perception has been noticed by
many, and the motion brought forward by the member for
Témiscamingue is very respectful of this reality. There are two
mentalities and two cultures in this country that even honest
federalists should respect until such time as Quebec becomes
sovereign. We are different because we have a different past,
culture, language and civil code. These are arguments that do
not seem to interest the members opposite or those of other
parties.
It upsets me even more coming from the New Democratic Party. I
was an observer at their last convention. They were the first
federal political party to recognize the existence of a Quebec
people.
1820
At the same time, it pointed out that Quebec had the right to
self determination. We saw what happened with Bill C-20. At the
first opportunity, the NDP changed its approach. They were in
fact taken to task by their members in Quebec and those of their
national executive who resigned.
People say it is always the members of the Bloc Quebecois who
raise this argument. The only consumer group appearing before
the committee came from Quebec, the Action Réseau Consommateur.
I would like to recall the remarks of the representatives of
this group. They said that the bill was a matter of provincial
jurisdiction.
The group asked:
That, if this bill is pursued, it not include in it the concept
of prior consent, which contravenes the spirit of the law and
takes away its meaning, to all intents and purposes.
It also asked:
—for an amendment of clause 1(3), in order to prevent banks and
broadcasting and television undertakings from replacing a
service with another if no additional cost is charged, without
the consent of the consumer.
What will happen if the bank replaces a paper service with an
electronic service, when the client does not want the electronic
service?
It also asked:
That for all transactions, consumers be given a hard copy
contract.
None of these recommendations was heeded.
To conclude, I would like to say that, in addition to invading
areas of provincial jurisdiction, this bill serves no purpose,
in our opinion, since the legislative provisions already exist,
especially in Quebec, and protect the consumer in this regard.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the
debate, and I will make my remarks brief.
When this bill was introduced in the last parliament, which died
on the order paper, I supported it because it dealt with cable
companies. Cable companies have a monopoly in the industry. I
know that in my riding there is a certain company, and that is
it. If that company sends me a letter saying it is going to add
two channels at another $2 per month unless it hears from me, I
find that offensive. That is why I supported the member's bill
in the last parliament.
Since that time a number of things have been added to the bill.
It seems to me that we should enact legislation that is not only
principled, but legislation that will work.
The notion is that people should not be subjected to negative
option marketing. Should that apply to the banks? The principle
is the same. Members should ask themselves if it is workable in
the context of banks. I would submit that it is not. I do not
know why we would support something which would not be workable.
The Alliance member opposite said that there is an opting out
clause toward the end of the bill by which cabinet could delete
certain services. If we are parliamentarians, then why would we
not put something into the bill which would work?
I will try to make the case very briefly as to why I do not
think it would be workable for the bill to include banks, however
attractive that might be.
First, banks are not monopoly providers. If a bank sends me a
letter saying that if it does not hear from me it will change my
service package, if I do not like that, then I can go to another
bank.
I was very much part of the movement which opposed the proposed
merger of the banks last year because I felt it would create too
much concentration at that time. We did not have the competition
in the industry which we will have when the government brings
forward the financial services sector legislation in the next few
months.
Ironically, that legislation will talk about a new financial
consumer agency. It will talk about a new re-defined ombudsman,
which will be more independent of the banks. Therefore, I find
it strangely odd that we would bring forward this bill now to add
the banks when we have this new regime coming forward which will
provide much more protection for consumers and, more importantly,
when the provisions of this bill would not work.
1825
Let me give members an example to try to express my point. The
Toronto Dominion Bank or CIBC or any one of the major banks might
have five million to seven million customers. They send a letter
saying they are going to change their service package, but it
will only be done if they hear from them in writing or
electronically. Guess what, maybe 90% to 95% of customers of
banks will not respond. That is a reality. We can pretend it is
not the case, but it is. We know from experience that surveys
will not get the kind of response we want.
What is the bank supposed to do? It has seven million
customers. If it is lucky, it has heard from maybe 200,000
customers saying yes, they would like the new service package and
to proceed. What does the bank do now? More importantly, how do
consumers benefit from this?
As we know, in this age of technology banks are adapting to a
very changing world where we have Internet banking, banking at
kiosks or computer based banking. The face of banking is
changing so radically that very often it is in the interests of
consumers to have their service package changed, like more
Internet banking and not so many visits to the branch. That is
what is happening.
If this legislation is passed, the banks will not have the
flexibility to change any of that. The irony is the banks are
doing this right now. How many of the member's constituents have
phoned them and said that they are really angry because the banks
changed their service package? The reality is members do not
hear a lot from their constituents. The banks are in a very
competitive environment and have to deal with modifications to
the services packages. In most cases, they enhance the service
packages available to customers.
I would like to make the point that, in principle, no one would
really support the fact that banks should practice negative
option marketing. The question is: Is it workable? I submit
that it is not for some of the reasons that I have outlined and
there are many more. I hope members would not be so attracted to
the politics of this that they would not recognize the practical
realities that are not workable with respect to banks.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the good work by the member
of parliament for Sarnia—Lambton on this matter over the years.
Bill C-276 seeks to amend the Competition Act to ensure that
Canadian consumers are not victims of negative option marketing.
Negative option marketing offers customers products and services
that the consumer is required to expressively decline or opt out
of.
How do we provide this protection for Canadians, including those
in Quebec? Should it come in the form of Bill C-276 or can it be
achieved through market based reform? Those are the important questions.
The competition law can profoundly restrict economic freedom and
market efficiency and the general move toward strengthening laws
should be approached with caution.
With that good note, since my time is so limited, the Canadian
Alliance supports free enterprise but recognizes the important
role of the government in creating an economic environment with
fair and transparent rules that protect both consumers and
businesses.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the public consultation component of the five year review of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act recently concluded. It now
remains for the Environmental Assessment Agency to provide those
comments to the Minister of the Environment who will then report
to the House by January of next year.
A number of concerns were raised about the act through the
consultation process. A few of these include: The review itself
is not independent; the Environmental Assessment Agency should
have a much stronger role in co-ordinating and overseeing
assessments; there must be improved opportunities for public
participation in environmental assessment; federal funding for
environment assessment must be increased; more emphasis must be
placed on the assessment of cumulative effects; more attention
must be paid to broadening the scope of projects, and to
monitoring and follow-up; and, the federal-provincial
environmental harmonization accord must not be allowed to detract
from a strong federal presence in environmental assessment.
In fact, it is not clear how the harmonization accord's
subagreement on environmental assessment will affect
environmental assessment in Canada and what implications it has
for the current CEAA review.
Many have commented on the need for the parliamentary Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to have a
formal role in the review of the assessment act. To date, it has
none.
The committee is an important component in the parliamentary
process surrounding environmental legislation. For example, it
undertook a mandatory one year review of the Canadian
Environmental Protect Act commencing June 10, 1994. One year
later, it tabled its report in the House of Commons in June 1995.
The intensive review of CEPA 88 culminated in a report entitled
“It's About Our Health! Towards Pollution Prevention”,
containing 141 recommendations. Many referred to the report as
thorough, forward-looking and a comprehensive and substantive
contribution to environmental protection in Canada.
For reasons such as these, many feel that the committee should
be formally involved in the CEAA review process.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
Minister of the Environment has launched an extensive
consultation process for this review.
National public consultations began on January 31 in Ottawa and
will continue for several weeks in 19 cities across Canada. They
will provide members of the public and interested stakeholders
with an opportunity to provide their views on how environmental
assessment and the act can be improved.
The minister also has an interactive website which will allow
the minister to reach out to rural Canadians and others who may
not be able to attend the public meetings. At the same time,
parallel consultations are taking place with aboriginal peoples,
the provinces, the regulatory advisory committee and with other
federal departments.
The Minister of the Environment is committed to a timely,
effective review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. He
has launched an extensive, multifaceted consultation process that
will provide valuable input on how environmental assessment can
be improved in Canada.
The minister looks forward to sharing the results of the review
and the views of Canadians on how the act can be improved with
his hon. colleagues in his report to parliament at the end of
this year.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the HRDC boondoggle will just not go away. The
HRDC problem is the tip of the iceberg.
This debate came about as a result of a random audit to evaluate
459 projects receiving $235 million in grants and contributions
from HRDC. The findings were astounding, to say the least: 97%
contained no evidence of checks to see whether the recipients
owed money to HRDC; 80% contained no evidence of financial
monitoring; 72% did not have a cashflow forecast; two-thirds did
not have a rationale for recommending the project; and 15% did
not have an application form. This is unbelievable.
TJF grants are supposed to be used to create sustainable jobs.
But at what cost? Here are some examples. Confections St-Élie
Inc., a textile company in the Prime Minister's riding, failed to
create the 61 jobs it had been committed to create but continued
to receive a payment of $223,000 in 1997.
A program to teach troubled youths to fix slush puppy and
espresso machines received $300,000. Of the 20 who took the
course, 4 found work.
1835
Was the transitional jobs fund a slush fund? Let us take a
look. In 1997, Pierre Corbeil, a key Liberal fundraiser in
Quebec, was charged with four counts of influence peddling for
allegedly threatening to dismiss or stall TJF grant requests
unless firms donated to the party. He later pleaded guilty.
A 1998 independent review by Ekos Research Associates Inc.
suggested that TJF grants were approved for political reasons. In
1999 the question was raised as to whether the Prime Minister
used his power to secure a federal grant for a friend, Yvon
Duhaime, to expand his hotel. Mr. Duhaime, whose hotel, Auberge
Grand-Mère, sits in the Prime Minister's riding of Saint-Maurice
and was once owned by the Prime Minister himself, received a
grant of $164,000 as well as an additional $650,000 in government
loans even though federal officials had a report indicating the
hotel was poorly managed and had massive debt.
There seems to be no end to the shovelgate affair. There are at
least 13 RCMP investigations occurring at this time.
I will conclude by quoting the auditor's report of December
1998, the section under the heading of grants and contributions.
It states:
Our audits of the management of grant and contribution programs
over the past 21 years have produced a long series of consistent
observations: problems in compliance with program authorities,
weaknesses in program design, instances of poor controls, and
insufficient performance measurement and reporting. Overall we
have continued to find the same problems. There are many reasons
why these problems have persisted. They range from
decision-makers not following the rules governing expenditures on
grants and contributions to weak management practices.
The government, over the last 21 years, has not been accountable
enough to pay attention to the findings of the auditor general.
It is unfortunate that the auditor general does not have teeth.
Perhaps it is long overdue that the House give the auditor
general some teeth. After all, the buck stops with the
politicians. The money belongs to the people. People expect
responsible government, not a government that tries to write off
the HRDC boondoggle as no big deal.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the Reform
Party continues to accuse the government of having a billion
dollar boondoggle.
I must say once again that there was no loss of a billion
dollars in this particular situation. We had a report on poor
management and poor administration. We are addressing it with a
very serious six point program which has been approved by the
auditor general.
The member opposite should realize that partnerships with the
private sector, through which we leveraged $330 million into $3
billion worth of economic activity, also involve the same risks
that private sector firms face every day. They face the ups and
downs of the business cycle, and some of our projects did that
too.
However, in the long run, 95% of our projects survived their
first birthday, which is better than the 72% of projects that the
banks managed.
On the attack that this has something to do with a slush fund,
this is usually tied to the flexibility component of our program
which has to do with pockets of high unemployment. If indeed it
was a slush fund, how in heaven's name could it be that more than
50% of those particular projects went to opposition ridings?
Once again, those members are singing the same song but it has
no basis when we look at the numbers.
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam Speaker,
on March 27, I asked a question of the Minister of Industry
relating to shipbuilding and to my concerns about the lack of
government intervention to change the current situation in that
industry.
According to figures I had myself checked the previous week, the
workforce in that industry had gone down from the 1993 total of
12,000 to 3,000, or one-quarter, 25%, of that number.
1840
The minister's response was that the overcapacity in this
industry throughout the world stands at 40%.
I find this a curious response, because the assistant deputy
minister, John Banigan, told the industry committee on November
16, 1999 that, based on certain predictions, he feared an
overcapacity by 2005 which could, according to his own forecast,
go as high as 40%.
Reports confirm that there will be a growing demand on the
shipbuilding industry because, among the world's ocean-going
fleet of vessels with gross tonnage of 100 tonnes or greater,
there are 85,494 ships with an average age of 19 years, and 45%
that are over 20 years old.
I remind hon. members of the significance of the 20 year figure.
Most industrialized countries require that vessels undergo major
refitting after 20 years to be allowed to continue sailing. This
is not the case in all countries. That is the problem. This is
why the international fleet is extremely old and, I submit,
potentially dangerous.
Everybody will remember last summer's incident in the St.
Lawrence River. There were other incidents along the coast of
Brittany and in several countries of Asia. When dangerous and
toxic products are on board, such incidents are a great cause
for concern. They constitute a tremendous threat.
The minister is not here tonight, but his representative will
undoubtedly try to explain on what he relied to conclude there
was overcapacity when the deputy minister of industry says that
we will certainly not reach that point before 2005.
On what secret study did the minister rely to say what he said?
Maybe he made a mistake? If that is the case, I forgive him in
advance.
I thank the hon. members opposite who support Bill C-213, whose
objective is to help shipbuilding.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my
hon. colleague from the Bloc for giving me the opportunity to
speak on the subject of consultation on the shipbuilding
industry.
The government has a policy on shipbuilding, one that is evident
in Canada's position in both domestic, let me point out, and
international shipbuilding markets. However, we have remained
committed always to maintaining a dialogue with industry
proponents and we are receptive to evidence of changing
circumstances within the shipbuilding sector.
In order for dialogue to be meaningful, we must all start from
the same basis. It has become clear through my discussions with
various shipbuilding representatives that all stakeholders are
not dealing with the same set of facts. So far the debate on
shipbuilding in the media and here in the House has been mostly
an emotional discourse rather than a rational debate on the facts
and issues facing the industry in Canada and, of course, abroad.
Consequently, let me point out that just last week the Minister
of Industry held a meeting with the chairman of the Canadian
committee on shipbuilding and policy. He will continue to
dialogue with this committee and will also hold meetings with the
major yardowners for example, labour representatives and other
major stakeholders.
We want to work with all the stakeholders to set forth a set of
clearly stated facts on Canada's shipbuilding industry. As this
information evolves, all stakeholders including government and
industry proponents, will be better equipped to deal with the
future direction of this industry. These directions will take
into account the outcome of our dialogue, but will also have to
respect the realities of our domestic and international
marketplace, use the economic levers currently at our disposal
and be also fiscally responsible.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)