SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 203 - May/31/23

May/31/23 4:49:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

16 words

May/31/23 4:49:40 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1386—

Questioner: Blake Desjarlais

With regard to individuals removed from Canada by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total number of removal orders issued as (i) departure, (ii) exclusion, (iii) deportation, orders; (b) what are the total expenses paid by the CBSA for the removal of individuals from Canada that were expected to be repaid by the individuals; and (c) of the expenses in (b), what is the total amount that has been recuperated, reflected as a dollar amount and a percentage?

Question No. 1392—

Questioner: Philip Lawrence

With regard to tax revenues collected by the Government of Canada: (a) how much does the government collect in tobacco taxes annually; (b) what is the amount of federal tax revenue that is lost annually from the sale of illegal, untaxed tobacco; (c) how does the government track and monitor the sale of illegal, untaxed tobacco in Canada; (d) what resources are presently committed by the government to eliminate contraband tobacco from the market and recoup lost tax revenues resulting from the sale of these products; and (e) are there any plans for the federal government to refresh or re-assess the RCMP’s Contraband Tobacco Enforcement Strategy, which was created 15 years ago?

Question No. 1393—

Questioner: Michelle Rempel

With regard to the government’s commitment to provide free menstrual products in federally regulated workplaces, since January 1, 2019: (a) how many consultations has the government held on this policy; (b) how many stakeholders has the government consulted with on this policy; (c) what are the details of the consultations, including, for each consultation, the (i) names of organizations consulted, (ii) date, (iii) outcome, recommendation, or feedback; (d) what is the total cost of all consultations which have occurred to date; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by date and line item; (f) have any outside consultants or service providers been involved in the development of this policy and any related consultations, and, if so, what are the details of each consultant or service provider's involvement, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) contract value, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) description of the goods or services provided; (g) what are all specific concerns that have been raised to date in the consultations; (h) how many government employees or full-time equivalents have worked on the consultations; (i) what are the travel costs associated with the consultations incurred to date (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year and type of expense; (j) what costs associated with the development of the government report “What We Heard: Proposal on the Provision of Menstrual Products in Federally Regulated Workplaces” have been incurred to date, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by type of expense; and (k) what is the current status of this policy proposal?

Question No. 1395—

Questioner: Niki Ashton

With regard to government settlements on class action suits involving First Nations, since 2015: (a) how many have been administered or monitored (i) by private firms like Deloitte, (ii) through the federal public service; (b) how is the decision made on whether a settlement is administered by the federal public service or a private firm; (c) what is the process for an individual to file and seek resolution to a complaint that a recipient did not receive the appropriate amount from a settlement; (d) how many complaints have been made relating to a recipient of a class action lawsuit not receiving the appropriate amount, broken down by year; (e) how many of the complaints in (d) have resulted in a change in the amount the recipient received; (f) what is the total dollar amount of the changes in amounts received in (e); (g) what is the dollar amount of these settlements, broken down by year and organization responsible for administering the settlement; and (h) what is the dollar value paid to each firm in (a)(i) for the purpose of administering or monitoring each settlement?

Question No. 1396—

Questioner: Niki Ashton

With regard to government contracts with nursing agencies to serve rural and remote Indigenous communities, broken down by fiscal year, since 2011-12: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed; (b) what are the details of all contracts signed, including the (i) nursing agency contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of nurses provided, (iv) duration of the contract; and (c) what is the total amount of extra costs incurred as a result of relying on nursing agencies instead of employing nurses directly?

Question No. 1397—

Questioner: Niki Ashton

With regard to funding of flood mitigation activities: (a) in Northern Manitoba, what is the current amount of money dedicated to flood mitigation efforts by the federal government; (b) in Northern Manitoba, how much money was dedicated to preventative flooding measures, since September 1, 2021; (c) in Northern Manitoba, how much money was dispensed since September 2021; (d) in Northern Manitoba, what companies or organizations are tasked with managing the implementation of flood lines; (e) what are the expected areas to be flooded if 100 mm and 150 mm of rain were to fall around the Northern Red River area; (f) how much money is currently dedicated to Northern Indigenous Communities and First Nations for flood preventions across Canada; (g) how much money is dedicated to reactive versus preventive funds in (i) all of Canada, broken down by province, (ii) Northern Manitoba; and (h) broken down by year, how many people were displaced or have permanently moved away due to flooding in Northern Manitoba in the past five years?

929 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:49:49 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/23 4:49:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

28 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:50:02 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.

10 words

Shefford

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:50:07 p.m.
Watch

That is a good recommendation, and something I mention quite often. I would remind hon. members to put their cellphones on their chairs or in their pockets, away from the microphones on the desks. The hon. member for Waterloo is rising on a point of order.

46 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

May/31/23 4:50:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members about the interpreters' hearing. They mentioned that there were cellphones near the microphones, creating a risk of interference. Out of respect for those who are interpreting, I would like for the members to be reminded to please be careful.

48 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

May/31/23 4:50:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the procedure and House affairs committee tabled a series of reports today. We had requested an extension to June 9, and we are getting through that work. However, I am requesting that the 45th report, which was provided earlier this day, be concurred in.

46 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:51:18 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. An hon. member: Nay.

19 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

May/31/23 4:51:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, to create a beneficial ownership registry to combat money laundering. I have the honour today of sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap. Canada has a big problem with money laundering, and nowhere is that more evident than in metro Vancouver where my community of Langley—Aldergrove is located. Now, this is well known around the world. People have given Canada's very accessible money laundering streams a special name. They call it “snow washing”. Generally speaking, Canada is known to have a stable government and economy, and to be a safe place to invest, so honest people make assumptions that money coming from or going to Canadian-registered corporations must be legitimate, but sadly that is not always the case. We need to work hard to maintain that favourable impression that the world has of us. It is easy to ruin one's reputation. That is sadly what is happening. According to a 2017 analysis by Transparency International, Canada is tied with South Korea for the weakest corporate transparency rules among G20 nations. That is why I welcome this legislation, Bill C-42, which is going to create a beneficial shareholder register so that crooks cannot hide behind a veil of secrecy, complexity and confusion. We want things to be transparent. We want to know who owns what. B.C. has been taking the lead in building transparency rules to combat money laundering. In March 2019, in a report entitled “Combatting Money Laundering in BC Real Estate”, an expert panel appointed by the B.C. government had this to say about the problem of money laundering. It focuses on British Columbia, but of course it applies right across the country. It reads: Money laundering significantly damages our society and causes ongoing harm, not limited to the real estate sector or other economic sectors. Money laundering is a contagious, corrupting influence on society...It facilitates other criminal activities, contributing in particular to drug trafficking and the violent crime and opioid deaths that result, as is sadly so evident in [British Columbia]. The report goes on to say that, given the secret nature of money laundering, it is very difficult to estimate how much damage it is doing to our economy, but they do estimate that somewhere around $50 billion in dirty money is pumped into our national economy every year. This activity is estimated at 5% of real estate prices in British Columbia, feeding into the housing unaffordability crisis. The expert panel recommended several anti-money laundering tools, starting with implementing a land ownership transparency register, which is in effect at the moment in British Columbia. They were of the opinion that transparency in real estate would be the single most effective tool in the anti-money laundering arsenal, but they also acknowledge that money laundering touches on more than just real estate transactions. I think it is informative to understand what money laundering is. It is effectively the process of making illegally gained proceeds appear to be legitimate. These proceeds can come from monstrous activities like fentanyl trafficking, for example, but sometimes it is much less nefarious than that. For example, it could be legally earned and obtained money which has been brought illegally into Canada by evading the originating country's arbitrary capital controls. All of this activity is illegal. Actors become very creative in hiding their trails by creating layers of complexity, but it all follows the same basic process. It is usually done in three phases: first of all, placement; second, layering and third, integration. Placement is the introduction of cash into the legitimate payment system. Layering is conducting multiple levels of complexity for no purpose other than to hide the paper trail. Integration is working the money back into the legal system. Money properly laundered, and I use the term loosely, can be very difficult to trace. One of the layering tools that professionals like to use is secret trusts. This is where somebody owns something, but that is the front person. They are the registered owner, but they are not the real owner. They are holding it in trust for somebody who is working in the shadows. The real owner is invisible to law enforcement agencies. Today we are talking about amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act to create a share ownership transparency register to eliminate this layering tool that professionals like to use. How can this be beneficial? Let us take a look at what some provinces have done. British Columbia is really taking the lead. It bears to note that every province in Canada has its own corporate registry, as there is a federal registry, so it is very important that the provinces and the federal government work together. There needs to be a pan-Canadian approach. Otherwise, we would be encouraging forum shopping among professional crooks. They are going to go to the province with the most relaxed and most permissive laws. I am happy to say that Bill C-42 at least attempts to tackle that. British Columbia has implemented a requirement that all British Columbia-registered companies keep a beneficial owners register at their corporate records office. This is an early version of a beneficial shareholder register and it is a good start, but it is not enough, and that is recognized. It is not a very useful tool for law enforcement because it does not allow law enforcement agencies to work undercover. The register is not free. It is not publicly accessible. It is not centralized, and it is too bureaucratic. It is also too difficult for law enforcement agencies to use and therefore it needs to be amended. I am happy to say that is in the works. By 2025, there should be a centralized register in British Columbia that is readily searchable by law enforcement agents without the police coming to the registered office and saying they want to see their corporate records, which gives too much notice to the crooks. Quebec and Ontario are following a trajectory similar to British Columbia's. The United Kingdom is really taking the lead with its people with significant control register for all registered companies in that country. It is free, and it is publicly accessible, but so far it is presenting only mixed results in being an effective tool for law enforcement. Bill C-42 needs to go past second reading to go to committee, where it needs to be studied in detail. I hope that we would have witnesses coming from United Kingdom to tell us what is good about their system and what is lacking so we can learn from their successes and their mistakes. Bill C-42 is the federal government's attempt to tackle money laundering, tax evasion and other illegal activity. The minister, in his speech when he introduced this legislation, said, “Simply put, increasing beneficial ownership transparency will enhance Canada's good international reputation as a safe, fair and competitive place to do business and provide even greater legitimacy to law-abiding Canadian businesses.” Those are all very laudable objectives, which I support. This bill should go to committee where it could be studied in detail. I will be looking there for efficiencies and effectiveness, and how adaptable it would be so that provinces can adopt it as well. As I said, the solution needs to be pan-Canadian.

1264 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 5:01:20 p.m.
Watch

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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, Carbon Pricing; and the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Democratic Institutions.

60 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/23 5:01:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member in that there are a number of issues related to money laundering and the impact it has on Canadian society, in many different ways. One could talk about that very strong criminal element and how it gets into our communities. Therefore, it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. I am glad to hear that the member is anxious to see the bill go to committee. Does the member or the Conservative Party already have a sense at this time of some amendments they would be proposing, or are they going to wait until committee stage?

105 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

May/31/23 5:02:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, we will be waiting to see what comes up at committee and what the study will be, but a couple of things come to mind. One is that this system has to be efficient. It cannot be overly bureaucratic. Before I was elected to Parliament, I was practising corporate law. I was talking to my law partners the other day, and they were saying that the rules are just too complicated, making it time-consuming and expensive, as the costs are passed on to their clients, so I will be looking for efficiency. Also, my understanding is that the threshold for having to register someone as a beneficial owner is 25%. I suspect that is too high. It probably has to be a lower number, like 10%.

130 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

May/31/23 5:03:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑42 is unquestionably an important step forward in terms of greater transparency and in knowing who really owns businesses registered in Canada. However, there are limits to that. Perhaps my colleague could speak about that. For instance, if a company registered in Barbados, in a tax haven or in any other country in which the laws do not require the same transparency around the beneficial ownership of businesses, transparency ends when there is no transparency. If the business is held in a location where there is no transparency, that ultimately limits the possibility of obtaining all the information. Does my colleague have any ideas about what could be done to resolve this problem in the future?

121 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

May/31/23 5:04:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, the member's question underlines how complicated it can be to tackle the problem of money laundering. If I understand the question correctly, it relates to money coming into Canada from a foreign corporation that is registered, let us say, in Barbados, which maybe does not have the same transparency rules that we have. However, we have FINTRAC rules, so the money coming in would have to go into a bank, and if it were over a certain amount, the bank would be required to report it according to the FINTRAC rules. It is probably not enough, but we do have something, and this bill is another step in the right direction.

114 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/31/23 5:05:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. The issue with money laundering is severe in Canada. There is an international expression called “snow washing” because Canada is known as a jurisdiction to dump dirty money from the drug cartels, terror gangs, and all kinds of illicit activity. It can be moved through casinos to be cleaned. It is also being used to purchase real estate. This issue is concerning. We know that, in 2018, there was $47 billion of illicit money snow washed in Canada, and it could have been as high as $100 billion, which has an impact on affordability. People cannot afford to buy in the real estate markets of Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal because they are being used as safe zones to hold money. Does my hon. colleague think we should look at the impact of snow washing and using Canadian real estate as a zone to clean money that should actually be exposed as dirty money, given the fact that people cannot even afford to live in the cities they love?

179 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta

May/31/23 5:06:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It goes right to the very heart of what the problem is and what this bill is trying to tackle and remedy. I agree with the member's analysis that snow washing and pumping money into the Canadian economy is forcing up real estate prices for the people who want to get into a home. We already have a housing affordability crisis. This is making it so much worse, and it needs to be tackled. It is a complex problem, and the solution will be multi-faceted. Bill C-42 is a step in the right direction. We need to deliver this for Canadians.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

May/31/23 5:07:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, one of the most beautiful areas in the world at any time of year, and especially as we turn from spring to summer. I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. I would like to thank the member for Langley—Aldergrove for splitting his time with me and for his thoughtful intervention. The government has stated that the objective of Bill C-42 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. One has to ask why the Liberal-NDP coalition has taken so long to act, when it has been evident for years that change is needed. While I believe there is support for the concept of a national public registry of beneficial owners of companies, I also believe we may need to look at extending the transparency of beneficial ownership of other assets. For example, at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, or FOPO as it is known around Parliament Hill, we have been hearing testimony from witnesses who are extremely concerned about the purchase and control of fishing licences and quotas by foreign entities, and even unknown entities. That is right: unknown entities. Let me take us back in time to explain what I am referring to. In 2019, the FOPO committee tabled a report titled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”. This report was the result of a study initiated partly out of concern at that time, over four years ago, over the situation of local fish harvesters unable to compete with unknown entities bidding higher prices for access to Canada’s fisheries resources, a common property resource for the benefit of Canadians. Now, over four years later, can members guess what is being studied at FOPO, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans? It is foreign ownership and corporate concentration of fishing licences and quotas. I will go back to my earlier question about why the Liberal-NDP coalition taken so long to act. Here we are; it is four years after that report, and even longer into the government’s mandate, since the concerns were first raised by stakeholders. Here we are, restudying almost the same issue, hearing that the same issues and concerns still exist, and the government has failed to take steps to ascertain that Canadians are the primary beneficiaries to access to Canada’s common property resource, Canada’s fisheries. It was somewhat shocking to hear testimony over four years ago, and now to hear similar testimony over recent weeks, that there is no real method of tracking beneficial ownership of fishing licenses, quotas and possibly vessels on Canada’s west coast. Although some have tried to track beneficial ownership, in some cases the web becomes so tangled that no one can clearly identify who owns what. The 2019 report I referred to contained a number of recommendations to the government. In fact, there were 20. However, there were a few key recommendations related to foreign ownership that the government should have acted on, but it has been slowly dragging its feet, with almost no response. I will refer to some of the recommendations quickly, and talk about what should have been done and what has not been done. Recommendation 2 from the report stated, “That based on the principle that fish in Canadian waters are a resource for Canadians (i.e. common property), no future sales of fishing quota and/or licences be to non-Canadian beneficial owners based on the consideration of issues of legal authority, and international agreement/trade impacts.” What has been done on this? Little to nothing has been done. There is nothing that the committee has been made aware of. Recommendation 4 is somewhat similar. It states, “That, to increase the transparency of quota licence ownership and transactions, Fisheries and Oceans Canada determine and publish, in an easily accessible and readable format, a public online database that includes the following”. Has that been achieved? Certainly not. Recommendation 5 states, “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada prioritize the collection of socio-economic data for past and future regulatory changes and make this information publicly available.” Again, there has been no action that the committee is aware of. Recommendation 14 states, “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada develop a new policy framework through a process of authentic and transparent engagement with all key stakeholders". For example, some of the key stakeholders are: Active fish harvesters (or where they exist, organizations that represent them) in all fisheries and fleets including owner-operators, non-owner-operators, and crew; First Nations commercial fish harvesters (or where they exist, organizations that represent them); Organizations representing licence and quota holders that are not active fish harvesters, including fish processing companies. The last recommendation was a key one, and there has been very little action by the government that the committee restudying the same issue has been made aware of. I am going to cut my time a little shorter today to make sure there are opportunities for other members to speak, but I will repeat what I said earlier. We have heard from some who are most impacted by the potential of foreign investment and foreign ownership of our common property resources here in Canada, yet there has been little or no action with respect to who the beneficial buyers and owners are. I will close by saying that there is merit in a registry of individuals with significant control of corporations in Canada. If this is done, it must be done in ways that protect personal privacy and also protect the common resources for the benefit of Canadians. I look forward to following the debate on Bill C-42 as it goes through the process, to see if it accomplishes the stated objectives without unintended consequences.

1025 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/23 5:14:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, the member, in his concluding remarks, talked about unintended consequences, and at the beginning of his speech, he said it has taken a number of years to get the bill to this stage. One of the reasons it has taken the time it has is so we could do the proper consultation necessary. We need to allow civil servants to do what they do best in terms of ensuring that we have something of substance, in good form, so it can go to a standing committee to see if there are ways we can improve upon it there. Issues such as individual privacy are of great concern; there is no doubt about that. My question, as I posed to his colleague, is this: Does the member, having looked at the legislation, have any specifics about where he, personally, would like to see some changes?

146 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

May/31/23 5:15:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, as this bill works its way through the process, we may see amendments at committee stage. I look forward to possibly being able to participate. The issue I raised is that it has taken over four years, and the government is eight years into its mandate. The issues I raised within the fisheries sector have been very clear, but there was little to no action until stakeholders really started pressing the government. We are finally starting to see some very slow, initial steps being taken, steps that should have been taken years ago.

95 words