44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 31, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling this bill today.
We are here today to debate Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. The government's stated objective in introducing this legislation is to protect Canadians against money laundering and terrorist financing, deter tax evasion and tax avoidance, and make sure Canada is an attractive place to conduct business.
The Conservatives support the concept of a national public registry of beneficial owners of companies. This is an important tool in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The Cullen commission in British Columbia has also called for the creation of such a registry. Created in 2019 by Premier John Horgan in response to four reports highlighting the alarming number of money laundering cases in my province, the Cullen commission made 101 recommendations. Recommendation 52 called on the province to work with its federal, provincial and territorial partners to ensure that, by the end of 2023, a publicly accessible, pan-Canadian corporate beneficial ownership registry is in place.
However, much can be done to improve this bill and guarantee that it is effective. The Conservatives believe that in order to reach the objectives of this registry, the bill must be amended. First, the government must work with the provinces and territories to ensure that it is a pan‑Canadian registry. Second, there must be harsher sanctions for contravening the Canada Business Corporations Act, or the CBCA. Third, the threshold for significant control must be lowered. Fourth, the functionality of the public registry must be clarified.
In budget 2018, as the minister noted, the government amended the CBCA to introduce requirements for corporations to maintain a registry of individuals with significant control of the corporation. “Significant control” is defined as someone owning or controlling at least 25% of a corporation's shares. Budget 2022 added a requirement that corporations provide their registers to the government every year and to report any new information to the registry within 15 days. This bill would require Corporations Canada to make public some of the information collected under the 2022 reporting requirements.
Conservatives have long called for more action to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, so it is good to see the bill tabled in Parliament today. However, as I noted in French, there are many gaps in the legislation, and it is our objective to see some concrete amendments and considerations brought forward to this bill at the committee stage.
I wanted to take a minute to talk about the impact and history of money laundering. For far too long, Canada has had a reputation as a safe haven for dirty money. Our current laws that in place to combat money laundering and the proceeds of crime are perceived internationally as being weak. This has led to a wave of dirty money being laundered in Canada, particularly in my home province of British Columbia. Casinos, real estate, businesses and more have long been used to launder money in B.C., and the RCMP, local law enforcement and FINTRAC, in some cases, have been almost powerless to stop it.
When the Panama papers were leaked in 2016, it was exposed that international criminals have long exploited the gaps in Canada's corporate beneficial ownership regulatory scheme to engage in corrupt conduct through federally, provincially and territorially administered corporations. Organizations such as Transparency International have been calling on Canada to create a public registry of corporate beneficial ownership for a long time. As I noted in French, the Cullen Commission in B.C. has also called for this registry. Among the recommendations was a pan-Canadian registry to be established in 2023.
The commission's report highlighted how drug dealers utilize numbered corporations to stash death money from the fentanyl trade, then take that drug money and put it into the housing market in British Columbia, which has led, in some cases, to prices being driven up. Had a registry been in place sooner, perhaps less money from drug deals would have been laundered and perhaps it could have prevented lives from being lost. A corporate registry does have a lot of consequences, and that is why our party supports it.
Now I will briefly get into some of the shortcomings we see in this bill. The first is the lack of any requirement of the government to seek information-sharing agreements with the provinces and territories so the registry can be effective. The corporate registry will be only as strong as the provinces and territories that opt into it. Without them on board, this registry would only apply to about 5% of corporations in Canada. Thankfully, some provinces and territories have already taken the lead on this front and have been implementing registries since the changes to the CBCA were announced in last year's budget. Without all of them on board, criminals will just take their dirty money to the jurisdiction with the least strongest regulations.
It is my hope that, at committee, amendments will be adopted to ensure the federal government is required to pursue agreements with the provinces and territories on information sharing to ensure the registry is truly pan-Canadian and interoperable. I can note that, with many of the registries in place, there is a varying degree of information shared. Many do follow the amendments put forward in budget 2022, but I still think there is a lot of work we can do to make sure our registry is comprehensive.
The second is that we need to look at strengthening some of the penalties. Parliament needs to consider the registry in the context of the ability of law enforcement to combat the use of illegal funds. The current penalties under the CBCA, and the new ones proposed in Bill C-42, may be too weak to have the desired effect. We must ensure that corporations are compliant with the rules for the registry to be effective. The government should consider strengthening the penalties and making some offences indictable. Many of the fines could simply now be perceived by some corporations using illicit funds as the cost of doing business.
Another issue with the penalties is that they do not punish corporations that violate the act nearly as strongly as they do individuals. All of the offences that currently exist, and those proposed in this bill that apply to corporations, are punishable by a fine of I believe $5,000. However, the strongest penalty applying to individuals is found under section 21.4 of the CBCA, which has a fine not exceeding $200,000 and a term of imprisonment of six months, as the minister also mentioned. We must ensure that corporations that do not comply with these regulations are held just as accountable as the individuals involved. A $5,000 fine would be chump change for some people who would be affected under this proposed bill.
We need to also look at the threshold for disclosure. The CBCA currently defines significant control under section 2.1 as an individual who owns or controls a significant number of shares in a corporation, which is defined as 25% or more. This is quite a high threshold. Currently, security regulators in Canada, for example, Ontario Securities Commission, have a set threshold of just 10% for public disclosure requirements. Regardless of where we set the threshold, people will try to avoid reporting by ensuring their ownership or control is slightly below it. There are lots of ways for individuals with significant control to pass by the threshold. However, a lower threshold means fewer opportunities for criminals to simply slip under the radar.
We also need to be cognizant of how this will apply in the context of stacked ownership structures and trusts. It would be wise of the House to consider aligning these regulations with those currently imposed on publicly traded companies by amending this bill to change the threshold to 10% and look at the impact of trusts in very close detail at the committee stage.
We also need to look at the functionality of the registry. When it comes to how this registry will work and what information will be made available to the public, this bill is concerningly quiet. It does outline in section 21.303:
(1) The Director shall make available to the public the following information sent to the Director under section 21.21 for each individual with significant control:
(a) their name;
(b) their address for service, if it has been provided to the corporation;
(c) their residential address, if their address for service has not been provided to the corporation;
(d) the information referred to in paragraphs 21.1(1)(c) and (d); and
(e) any other prescribed information.
The first issue here lies in paragraph (e). What exactly does it mean by “prescribed information”? This needs clarification, as the information made publicly available must keep in mind privacy interests. I will note the minister did partially answer my question during his debate when he said citizenship would not be required in the registry. I will take a moment to comment on that.
What if an individual in another country who does not reside in Canada has a corporation in Canada? Should citizenship information in the context of a foreign owner of a Canadian corporation apply or, as another member in the House of Commons mentioned, in the case of a stacked corporation where certain shares of the company are owned by an individual in another country, should citizenship information be applied in that context? In the context of terrorism and money laundering, perhaps it would be to our benefit in some cases where citizenship is, indeed, known.
I look forward at the committee stage to really delve into this in detail because I think everyone in Canada wants to get this registry right. Everyone in Canada wants to give our law enforcement the tools it needs to finally begin combatting money laundering. We have seen the impact of it in British Columbia. We have seen the empty condos and the illicit funds from the drug trade being used, through corporations, to launder that money. We need to move away from what many people call the “Vancouver model” to take action right now. The commitment of the Conservative Party is to work with the government to ensure that our laws are strengthened, and that fewer lives are lost because of the drug trade, by establishing some form of a beneficial ownership registry.
Finally, I would like to touch upon how the registry would function. The bill is very vague in what prescribed circumstances would be. Will law enforcement still be able to access the information of those exempted for the purposes of an investigation? Another issue with the guidelines for the registry are the exemptions that have been put in place. We do know, as the minister mentioned after my question, that it would not apply to people 18 years of age or younger, but we need to strengthen the language around exemptions.
In closing, this bill is a good first step. That is why the Conservatives will be supporting it at second reading. However, key oversights must be addressed during the committee process. We must ensure that the penalties for violating the act are strong enough, and I am not certain that summary convictions are strong enough. We must ensure that law enforcement and FINTRAC have the ability to easily access the information they need to track down those laundering money and financing terrorism. We must ensure that corporations involved in criminal activities are held just as accountable as individuals, and for the registry to be effective, we must make the participation of provinces and territories a key priority.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the industry committee to strengthen this bill and ensure it truly provides transparency to the public and gives law enforcement the tools necessary to track down money launderers and those funding terrorism. More must be done to reduce the risk of corporations being misused for illicit activities such as money laundering and tax evasion.
2049 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned a number of things that are really fundamental in illicit money being used in real estate, for example, in the city of Vancouver, which he mentioned.
I want to thank the member for being on board with Bill C-42. The best way to do more to combat illegal activities and increase corporation accountability is to adopt Bill C-42. How quickly are the Conservatives prepared to work with the government to put an end to money laundering in Canada and adopt Bill C-42?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:44:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the objective of the Conservative Party on this legislation is to have a robust debate, in good faith, at second reading. There are a lot of experts in every party who have information on corporate trusts and how corporations are structured in Canada, and I think every party has something to contribute on that. We want to move quickly on this bill, but we also want to have a robust debate.
Our objective is to get the bill to committee where we can have a robust study. I could perhaps share more with the minister, and maybe our House leaders can determine what the priority of the House of Commons is with respect to seeing this bill pass.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to point out that his French is very good, and tell him that I really appreciate the fact that he gave part of his speech in French.
I was also impressed with the quality of his speech and the research and thought that went into it. Like him, I recognize that Bill C‑42 is a step in the right direction, but that there is still much to do to tackle money laundering, crime and the use of tax havens.
My colleague raised certain concerns. He spoke about possible amendments to be made to Bill C‑42 to improve it. I would like him to present them again and provide a brief explanation.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:46:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, some of these amendments would seek to determine the role of the provinces and territories in guaranteeing the interoperability of this registry. We must also study the Canada Corporations Act threshold.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:46:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his remarks, both for their substance as well as for their tone. So far, this morning's debate has been a great example of what we could accomplish as legislators if we avoided the temptation of hyperbole and we focused on the content of legislation.
The member talked a little about penalties and judging whether the penalties that are in the initial draft of the legislation are adequate. I wonder if he wants to speak a little more to that question. Perhaps he could give the House some sense of whether there are existing standards he thinks we should be looking to in order to come up with appropriate penalties and how we might determine adequate penalties.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:47:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, regarding penalties, I want to think of the worst-case scenarios. For years, we have heard so many stories in British Columbia about why the Cullen Commission was put in place, about the impact of money laundering and the billions of dollars that have been laundered into corporations, largely at the provincial level.
I do not want any fees or penalties to be seen as the cost of doing business for certain corporations. We need to look at strengthening those penalties. We need to hear from a suite of experts in law enforcement, maybe experts from FINTRAC and law enforcement at CSIS, to ensure that we get this right and that we use this tool to provide some trust for Canadians in our law enforcement institutions to be able to make a difference.
I do not have specifics. All I know is that, at $200,000 or in some cases $5,000, it would be seen as the cost of doing business. We want to make it actually hurt when someone tries to break the law in Canada.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:48:53 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are a number of areas of clarification, in my mind, that need to be addressed, and perhaps it would be done through committee.
One is the type of asset that is caught by this legislation. For example, a beneficial owner is someone for whom an asset is held in trust. There could be shares of a corporation held in trust by a shareholder for someone else, whether that shareholder is an individual or a corporation. Also, the assets of a corporation could be held in trust for an owner or a group of owners.
One of the things that I would like to have clarified is whether this just applies to shares being held in trust for beneficial owners or if it actually applies to the assets of a corporation that are held in trust for owners. What happens, for example, when those beneficial owners, in turn, decide to set up trust arrangements with other people holding their beneficial ownerships in trust for others?
Second, there are 500,000 corporations under the CBCA. There could literally be tens of millions of these trust arrangements in existence across the country. What resources would be dedicated to making sure we could track them?
Finally, I was a little concerned that personal addresses would be published. Most of these trust arrangements are legitimate business practices and a much smaller number are for money laundering. I just want to highlight that—
241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:50:22 a.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon the time to answer.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:50:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very important question from my colleague from Winnipeg. One of the big gaps in this legislation is in clarifying the relationship between significant interests and the role trusts play in corporate structures at all levels of corporate registries in Canada right now and the impact that would have on the interoperability and the overall effectiveness of a corporate registry as we move forward. The member also pointed out the significance of this registry in the context of those provincial bodies. We need to make sure that there is interoperability, of course, to ensure its effectiveness in completing its stated goals.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:51:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague on the question of disclosing the citizenship of the shareholders of a corporation. There should not be any legal protection offered to foreigners who invest in Canadian corporations. We have been seeing that corporations are being incorporated with no other purpose than to have transactions and processes that lead to nothing but tax avoidance and, in some cases, even to money laundering.
I want to touch on something the member mentioned about the significant shareholding and the threshold, which is 25% in some jurisdictions and 10% in some jurisdictions. As the member very clearly stated, that is a loophole where, very easily, five people could form a corporation with 20% each or 11 people could form a corporation. Therefore, should there be any threshold at all that prevents the disclosure of the beneficiary?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 10:52:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague from Nepean outlined the issue that probably needs to be studied the most in this legislation, and that is significant interest. I do not have a specific answer to his question right now, but we need to have that debate in Parliament about the impact of significant interest and corporate stacked ownership structures that need to be viewed in the light of money laundering and tax avoidance or tax evasion.
I will just quickly touch upon the impact of addresses as well, which is another point of this bill, and it relates to citizenship. We need to clarify our charter obligations regarding individual privacy, but we also need to make sure to be practical that in some cases Canadian corporations are used for illicit purposes and in some cases we should know the citizenship of those individuals who are using said corporations.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what do the Panama papers, the Pandora papers and the Paradise papers all have in common? They are leaks that revealed who was hiding behind shell corporations in tax havens, those anonymous companies for which it would be otherwise impossible to determine actual ownership. Without those leaks, it was only possible to identify the names of the administrators, typically a big corporate law or accounting firm.
By lifting the corporate veil, these leaks helped identify wealthy fraudsters hiding money from the tax man or criminals hiding dirty money out of sight. When it is impossible to identify who is hiding behind a shell company, that opens the door for profiteers and fraudsters of all kinds, people who refuse to pay their fair share of taxes at the expense of everyone else, people who recirculate ill-gotten gains in the real economy by hiding behind secret companies. It is not normal to need to rely on leaks, whistle-blowers, hackers or journalists to find out what is behind these companies. That information should be public.
There is nothing like transparency for combatting fraud. That is essentially what Bill C-42 addresses. It amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to force the directors of federally incorporated businesses to report their real owners to Corporations Canada. Then, Corporations Canada can create a registry of the real company owners, a public registry that anyone can consult. Bill C‑42 will introduce a bit of transparency, which is a good thing. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑42, and I encourage all parliamentarians to do the same.
Before I get into the details of the bill, I want to tell members a secret. When I saw that the government had introduced a bill to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, I was worried. As members know, business ownership and property rights fall under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, these things are governed by the Civil Code. Every province has its own securities commission. In Quebec, we have the Autorité des marchés financiers.
However, over the last several years, Quebec and the provinces decided to coordinate and harmonize their respective laws. Since they all have very similar legislation, registration with the Autorité des marchés financiers is automatically recognized by all of the provinces. That means that a Quebec company can easily raise capital and do business outside Quebec through mutual recognition under what is known as the passport system.
Since this works well, Ottawa has no reason to interfere, there is no need for federal securities regulations, and Quebec's jurisdiction over financial matters would be respected. Without that respect, we would likely see Toronto become the centre of financial activity at the expense of Quebec, particularly Montreal's financial sector.
However, this is viable only if governments continue to work together and essentially harmonize their laws. That is why I was concerned when I saw that the government wanted to change the Canada Business Corporations Act. If Ottawa acts unilaterally, as this government all too often does, if it has not aligned its efforts with Quebec and the Canadian provinces, if the laws are no longer similar, the mutual recognition system will not be as successful. Ottawa will then have the excuse it is looking for to justify its desire to centralize everything, as it has been trying to do for three decades.
However, I did breathe a huge sigh of relief when I saw Bill C-42. As I mentioned earlier, Bill C‑42 will establish a searchable public registry of the real owners of businesses. This commitment to transparency reflects a unanimous decision made at the G20. It has been implemented properly in Canada in a manner that respects each party, so I say bravo. The federal government and the finance ministers of Quebec and all the provinces have coordinated their efforts and agreed to work together, while respecting one another's independence.
In 2017, they all independently agreed to change their respective laws to require companies to collect, in their own registries, the data needed to identify the real owners. At the federal level, this was done in June 2022 with the passage of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill. This data is beginning to be collated and made available to the authorities in the event of suspected fraud.
In 2018, they came to an agreement on how companies were to share this data with their respective governments and how the governments were to make the data public. That is what we are debating today. There was no need for federal standards where Ottawa would put itself in charge and tell Quebec what to do. Everything was done respectfully.
The National Assembly of Quebec passed Bill 78 in June 2021. This legislation reflects the agreements made in 2017 and 2018. Quebec was the first government in America to pass such legislation. It is interesting that this debate is being held today, on March 31, 2023, because Quebec's Bill 78 goes into force today. Since nine o'clock this morning, the registry of real owners can be consulted in Quebec on the site of the Enterprise Registrar.
Since not all businesses have provided their information as yet, the search engine is not yet active, but it will be soon. It will be operational within the year. With the passage of Bill C‑42, the federal government will do the same for federally incorporated businesses. The provinces have passed or are preparing to pass similar legislation.
I see that members' statements will commence momentarily. I will continue my speech once we resume debate on this bill.
959 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 11:00:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, around the world we are seeing a rise in anti-trans rhetoric and legislation. This includes in the U.S., where this year alone, over 400 bills have been proposed or passed that attack trans human rights. Here at home, the rise in anti-trans hate has advocates saying it has never been as scary as it is now.
We must do better. I am grateful to organizations like SPECTRUM, Waterloo Region’s first-ever rainbow community space, that serve, affirm and support the well-being of 2SLGBTQ+ people in my community.
Former SPECTRUM President and trans activist Caitlin Glasson recently initiated a petition that I have sponsored, calling for the federal government to be more open to transgender and non-binary asylum seekers from around the world. It has been widely amplified by the trans community, with over 145,000 signatures.
On this International Transgender Day of Visibility, let us recognize how much work we need to do and celebrate the power of the trans community in having their voices heard.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 11:01:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, budget 2023 continues to demonstrate that the government truly cares about people and that we are building a stronger and healthier country. From helping people fight inflation by bringing in a grocery rebate to introducing a national dental program and supporting a greener economy, this year's budget reflects Canadians' interests and their expectations of the government.
To me, caring for people means lifting seniors and children out of poverty by increasing things like the GIS and the Canada child benefit program. It means investing $198 billion over 10 years to secure health care services for future generations. It is about building a national child care program and a stronger economy employing two million additional people.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 11:02:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, soon Christians around the world will be celebrating Easter. Good Friday marks the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at the hands of the Romans. The resurrection of Christ on Easter Sunday fulfills his promise to the people of the world that he is indeed the son and living embodiment of God on earth. All Christians, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox will come together over Easter weekend to celebrate the most important days in the Christian calendar. For some of us, this means attending church services; for others, it means attending a big family party.
For some, like the Ukrainians fleeing the war crimes of Vladimir Putin, it will be the first Easter not in their home country, but here in Canada instead. Regardless of how we celebrate, Easter is a reminder of how Christ sacrificed his life for us and made a way for each of us to know God personally.
I look forward to Easter Sunday when Christians around the world will say in Ukrainian:
[Member spoke in Ukrainian and provided the following translation:]
He is risen. He is risen indeed.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 11:03:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a little over a decade ago, Patrick and Brian Burke launched “You Can Play”, a social activism campaign dedicated to the eradication of homophobia in sports, particularly hockey. The campaign uses the slogan, “If you can play, you can play”.
Most people have also seen pride tape on hockey sticks, a initiative co-founded by Dr. Kris Wells. These are meaningful steps in the right direction for inclusion in sport in this country and around the world for the 2SLGBTQ+ community.
Unfortunately, some NHL players have recently decided not to wear pride-themed warm-up jerseys for their games on pride nights or the league's “Hockey is for Everyone” campaign, saying it is contrary to their religious beliefs. A rainbow jersey is a simple but compassionate sign of solidarity and a way to say, “Hockey is a sport for everyone. You matter, and you are welcome here.” While there has been a lot of progress, it is clear there is still much work to be done.
I grew up Catholic and attended Sunday school and catechism. If I know one thing about Jesus Christ, it is that he loved everybody. He would be marching on the front line in pride parades if he were alive today.
Sport is for everyone. To every young player out there I want to say this: Regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, hockey is a sport for them.
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 11:04:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today we join trans folks from around the globe in recognizing the International Transgender Day of Visibility. From Stonewall to Edmonton, the trans community has and continues to contribute greatly to a better and more just society. They have shown us the strength of community resilience, and they remind us of our everlasting pursuit of justice, even as our institutions and society continue to fail them.
Every member of the House has a responsibility to stand up and speak out against the bigotry that is threatening the safety of trans people across Canada and the globe. Rising violence and extreme hatred against the trans community is a gruesome reality and a threat to democracy and freedom everywhere. A truly free society is one where everyone has the freedom to be who they are, love who they love and pursue happiness. The trans community has a right to joy, but this joy is under threat. We can and must do more.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 11:05:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my friend, Carol Young, a community leader, women's advocate and lifelong volunteer in Halifax. Sadly, she passed away over the weekend
Carol is remembered for her unwavering commitment to advancing women in the workforce, in boardrooms and in politics. She worked right here on Parliament Hill for the first Trudeau government as the first female special assistant to a cabinet minister. She was one half of a dynamic power couple; she met her late husband, the renowned lawyer, John Young, here on the Hill when he was working for Allan J. MacEachen. The pair set down roots in Nova Scotia, where Carol would work on many important boards, including those of Dalhousie University, Neptune Theatre and the Pier 21 Society.
Carol also devoted herself to many philanthropic endeavours, including Ronald McDonald House, the children's Discovery Centre and the Mental Health Foundation of Nova Scotia. She also played a key role in the creation of the IWK children's hospital telethon.
For all this, she earned appointment to the Order of Canada and an honorary doctorate from St. Mary's University. She leaves behind a wonderful legacy, and I send my condolences to her family and all those whose lives she touched.
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 11:07:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House because tomorrow is the 150th anniversary of the sinking of the SS Atlantic, the biggest shipwreck in Nova Scotia and the biggest marine disaster in North America before the Titanic.
With nearly 1,000 people on board, the greatest passenger liner of her day left Liverpool for New York on March 20, 1873. Running low on coal, she diverted to Halifax to refuel. In unfamiliar waters on a stormy night with heavy seas, she went off course, hit Golden Rule Rock and rapidly sank. More than 500 people lost their lives that night, including all women and children aboard but one. My communities of Lower Prospect and Terence Bay rallied to rescue 439 survivors. They brought them into their homes and nursed the injured back to health.
On this anniversary of the disaster of the SS Atlantic, we remember the tragic loss of so many lives and take inspiration from the courageous actions of the communities of Lower Prospect and Terrence Bay.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
