Statement made on 10 March 2011 by Senator Percy Downe
Hon. Percy E. Downe:
Honourable senators, I would like to say a few words about Bill C-61.
Although sparked by recent events in the Middle East and North Africa, this bill does not focus on specific persons or countries. It allows the government, acting through an order-in-council, to declare a person's property to be misappropriated and, in the words of the bill:
. . . by order, cause to be seized . . . in the manner set out in the order any of the person's property situated in Canada.
The subject of these measures is anyone deemed to be a "politically exposed foreign person," essentially any high-ranking government official, be they members of the executive, legislature, judiciary, military, civil service, senate or whatever. However, this definition also includes:
. . . any person who, for personal or business reasons, is or was closely associated with such a person, including a family member.
This definition is very wide and may include Canadian citizens under this label, whether through family or business ties, or the case of a Canadian citizen employed as an official of a foreign government.
This bill constitutes a significant expansion of government power to seize property, including the property of Canadians, and it warrants careful review.
Honourable senators, as we know, good intentions do not guarantee good law. At this time, I cannot help but think of another bill that we were urged to pass quickly. Those of us who were here in 2005 remember Bill C-45, which we now call the New Veterans Charter. It went through Parliament with great speed. It went through first, second and third reading in the House of Commons in the time it takes me to read this sentence.
Here, in the Senate, second reading debate took three quarters of an hour, whereupon it was rushed to, of all places, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, only because that was the next committee that was meeting, where it was studied at only one meeting and reported back and passed the next day.
No one acted with bad intent. Everyone wanted what was best for our veterans and no one wanted to be seen to be blocking such an important bill. This is not the time for analysis of the many problems of the New Veterans Charter, but the fact that we are currently awaiting Bill C-55, which is designed to correct some of the problems with Bill C-45, is testament to the fact that good intentions and speed rarely produce the desired results. Indeed, veterans at that time and since have wondered if the Senate lived up to its responsibility to provide sober second thought or if we actually failed veterans in a rush to help them.
Now, some have said time is of the essence with this bill and we must act to prevent these assets being liquidated and sent to some other offshore financial centre beyond the reach of any government. While that is a concern, let us remember that the revolution in Egypt occurred weeks ago and the Tunisian revolution almost two months ago. Indeed, for several weeks the Canadian Tunisian community has been calling for action to be taken against assets held in Canada. No matter how quickly the government wants us to act now, it cannot reverse the passage of time.
Any deposed official capable of amassing multi-million-dollar fortunes, through legitimate means or illegitimate, has the wherewithal to monitor that fortune and act to keep it from falling into the wrong or, in this case, the right hands. In an age where millions of dollars can be moved around the world with a keystroke or a phone call, any assets that might be moved in advance of this bill passing are already long gone and anything left will probably still be there regardless of how quickly or slowly we pass this legislation.
Honourable senators, I support the intent of this bill, but the careful study of bills is not the right of the Senate; it is our duty. As we have seen in the past, the rush to legislate is no solution. It merely exchanges one set of problems for another and I urge that this bill be given the examination such an important piece of legislation deserves.
In fact, I would suggest that, if the chamber approves this bill after only one committee meeting, then the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade should be tasked to undertake a proper study of the bill with any additional meetings, witnesses and, above all, the time required to give it the due consideration. Any required amendments could be proposed to the government at a later date. In this way, the government will get its bill at the earliest opportunity, we can satisfy ourselves that we have performed our duty, and Canadians will get a law that has passed the test of meaningful parliamentary oversight. I am sure the government would welcome any amendments that would improve the legislation.
Please click here to read the full text of this debate