SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/19/23 6:32:45 p.m.
Watch

The hon. whip for the official opposition.

7 words

Whip

Jun/19/23 6:32:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. With less than 30 minutes' notice, the government informed the official opposition that it intended to switch the business before the House this evening. We had planned on debating Bill C-18, the online news act, until midnight, because that is what the government told Canadians and members of Parliament it would do through the projected order of business, which was published on the parliamentary website. It is the common practice of the House that the government provide accurate information on the projected order of business so that all members can plan accordingly. Of course, the government has the right to determine the business it brings to the House on any given day. It also reserves the right to change the business throughout the day. That said, it should always provide at least the professional courtesy of informing other parties of its intentions as early as possible. In this case, it would appear that this standard of professionalism was not met. I understand that the government House leaders had difficulty managing the agenda of the House, but for the future, I think it is proper that we should expect better planning. The government is in chaos as it relates to the economy. It has been embroiled in scandals, including the latest one on the transfer of Paul Bernardo. I ask that the government House leader contain this chaos to his cabinet table and not bring this level of disorganization to the House.

250 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/19/23 6:34:11 p.m.
Watch

That is duly noted. The hon. member for Lethbridge has a point of order.

14 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Jun/19/23 6:34:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, I was part of leading the charge on the debate with regard to Bill C-18, the online news act, and the bill was scheduled for debate tonight. A whole host speakers from all parties were prepared to speak to it. With only a moment's notice, that debate was cut short. I would have the House know that this has happened in the past at second reading of the bill—

74 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/19/23 6:34:42 p.m.
Watch

We are entering into debate. The motion was deemed adopted and we are proceeding to orders of the day.

19 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Jun/19/23 6:35:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-42, which is the government's proposal for a beneficial ownership registry. I would like to critique this registry, because this is an incredibly important issue. The fact of the matter is that Canada has become a haven for global money laundering. In fact, do not take it from me. Here is just some international reporting on Canada. In the New York Times, just a few months ago, on March 25, an article written by Ian Austen, the Times journalist who covers Canada, begins with the sentence, “Canada is such an attractive place for money laundering that there’s even a special name to describe the activity here: ‘snow washing’.” The U.S. State Department, in 2019, designated Canada as a “major money laundering country”. In fact, I pulled up the State Department's report from March 2022, titled “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report”, volume 2. The report says, under “Canada”, that it is estimated that between “$36 billion [and] $91 billion is laundered annually in Canada”. Assuming those are U.S. dollars, that represents, roughly, between $50 billion and $120 billion a year that is laundered through this country. One hundred and twenty billion dollars a year is roughly 5% of our GDP. Five per cent of our GDP consists of money laundering. That March 2022 report says, “Noted deficiencies include limited oversight of the domestic non-profit sector, gaps in [customer due diligence] responsibilities for [designated non-financial businesses and professions], and a lack of beneficial ownership transparency for trusts and similar legal mechanisms.” Therefore, not only has our status as a money-laundering haven and, by consequence, a sanctions-avoiding haven and a proceeds-of-international-crime haven become documented in The New York Times; it has also been noticed by the State Department. It is not just internationally that it has been documented. In the province of British Columbia, there was a huge commission of inquiry into money laundering. Its final report was published in June 2022 by the Honourable Austin Cullen, who was the commissioner. The commission found that billions of dollars were being laundered through British Columbia companies, British Columbia real estate and British Columbia trusts, and that this was having a deleterious impact on people living in British Columbia. This report came out just last year, highlighting the problems with money laundering in just one province, which represents roughly 10% of Canada's population. It is clear that we have a problem with money laundering and that, by consequence, we also have a problem with becoming a destination for the proceeds of sanctions evasion and a destination for the proceeds of international criminal activity. The government introduced this legislation, in part, to try to respond to these very real concerns, but the problem with the legislation in front of us is that it is deeply flawed. I asked the Library of Parliament to do some research on the number of federally incorporated entities in Canada. The information it provided for me was that, for the year 2020, the most recent year for which data have been provided, the number of CBCA corporations, federally incorporated entities, is 421,301. The problem is that there are some 4.3 million businesses in Canada, of which only roughly 10% are CBCA corporations. Ninety per cent of businesses in Canada are incorporated under 10 different provincial statutes, of the ten different provinces, and these corporations and trusts would not be included in Bill C-42's beneficial ownership registry. The Liberal government would say that it is working with the provinces to encourage them to create a beneficial ownership registry. The problem is that one province, Alberta, has not made any moves to create one. The problem with the other provinces is that their beneficial ownership registries have major loopholes in them. The only beneficial ownership registry in the country that is worth the paper it is written on is that of the province of British Columbia. That proposed registry includes provincially incorporated entities, trusts and real estate; it is capturing all of that in its registry. As a result, that provincial registry, combined with the federal one, would include all companies in the province of British Columbia. The problem for the other nine provinces is that they are not including real estate, which the Cullen commission in British Columbia identified as a major asset through which money, international money in particular, is being laundered. The registry in front of us would only be as good as the weakest link in the entire system, and at least eight of the 10 provinces are not including real estate in their beneficial ownership registry. As a result, people overseas trying to avoid sanctions enforcement and trying to launder the illicit proceeds of crime and terrorism would be able to use Canadian real estate in eight out of 10 provinces to continue to launder their money, just like the Cullen commission identified in the province of British Columbia. Those individuals overseas and outside of Canada who want to avoid sanctions or want to launder the illicit proceeds of their crimes or terrorism could do so through provinces where a beneficial ownership registry for provincially incorporated entities has yet to be proposed. It is clear that the proposed beneficial ownership registry that the government has put in front of us today would not solve the problem of Canada's status as a destination for snow washing, a destination for international money laundering. What the government should have done is to have used the broad and deep criminal powers accorded to it in the Constitution, which courts in this country, through various rulings, have long upheld as being broad and deep, to create a national beneficial ownership registry that would have included all companies in Canada, whether they are incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act or whether they are incorporated under one of 10 provincial statutes. It should have included all trusts in Canada, whether they were incorporated federally or provincially, and it should have included the beneficial owners of all real estate, real property in Canada, in order to ensure that we start cracking down on those who would use our country as a haven for money laundering for the proceeds of terrorism or for the proceeds of crime. The Liberal government did not proceed down that path, so, once again, we would have implementation of a good idea from the government in a very flawed manner, as it has been with so many things that the government has made announcements about. I will finish here. The beneficial ownership registry in front of the House today would not plug the hole that has allowed this country to become such a haven and such a destination country for sanctions evasion for the proceeds of crime, for the proceeds of terrorism and for money laundering in general that landed us, in March, on the front page of the New York Times, and in the State Department's assessment of global havens for money laundering.

1198 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/19/23 6:45:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to go back a little further in terms of Canada's involvement in money laundering. Donald Fleming, a former Conservative finance minister, was instrumental in setting up the Cayman Islands as an international tax haven, and he set up many others, in the Bahamas and elsewhere. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that Canada is known for money laundering, because Canada helped set up some of the financial centres of the world where money laundering takes place, and, through various taxation treaties to avoid so-called double taxes, made it possible for money to move very easily between Canada and these other jurisdictions. That is why we lose tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue from legitimate sources of income, in addition to the damage that is done in Canada through money laundering. I wonder if the member perhaps has some reflections on the way that a certain kind of anti-tax rhetoric has been used over decades now to position Canada as a world leader in money laundering.

177 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/19/23 6:46:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's question allows me to highlight that there is a distinction between tax havens, like the Cayman Islands, which was mentioned, and money laundering. The whole purpose of money laundering is separate and distinct from that of tax havens. The purpose of money laundering is to hide the provenance of the money, and, in particular, to hide the fact that the money was produced illicitly through criminal activity, terrorism or sanctions evasion. With the plethora of sanctions that have been announced by the government and other governments in the last year because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it becomes even more important to enforce sanctions, and it starts with having a proper beneficial ownership registry, which this one is not. I am pointing out the holes in this registry so that when we come back in another Parliament, the holes can be fixed and plugged so we can start cracking down on money laundering in this country.

162 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Jun/19/23 6:47:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the one part of the member's speech that certainly drew my attention was when he said that the system is only as strong as the weakest link. One of the challenges is that provinces may say that they are going to put in place their own registries, but the problem is the interoperability. The government has raised expectations and has basically said it is going to eliminate money laundering and see greater transparency in real estate, but that would apply to only a very small number, regulated under the federal watch. Could the member maybe elaborate a little further on his views about this issue and the lack of interoperability between these systems?

116 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/19/23 6:48:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the research we did, only the Province of British Columbia, at the provincial level of government, is implementing a registry that will include provincially incorporated companies and provincially incorporated trusts, which will include real estate. Nova Scotia is the other province that has already implemented a separate beneficial ownership registry for real estate. None of the eight other provinces has any plans to implement a registry for real estate, and that is a problem because the Cullen commission highlighted the fact that significant international money laundering is being laundered through real estate in British Columbia, and, no doubt, is being laundered through real estate in other provinces, such as Ontario. The system is only as strong as the weakest link, and the fact that eight out of 10 provinces do not have a beneficial ownership registry for real estate, and that one province has no beneficial ownership registry for provincially incorporated entities and trusts, means that the system would be ineffective. That is why the federal government should have proposed legislation that used the criminal power given to it in the Constitution to create a registry that mandated all companies in Canada, federally incorporated companies, provincially incorporated companies, all trusts and all real estate, be registered under a single system to start giving law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on money laundering, the proceeds of crime and the proceeds of terrorism.

237 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/19/23 6:50:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42 Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that Canadians are facing in this country and, specifically, those issues that impact Battle River—Crowfoot. However, I was celebrated, along with so many in this place and fathers across this country, this past weekend on Sunday, as our nation recognized fathers. If I could for a brief moment, before I get into the substance of what is a very substantive debate, I would just like to pass along my greetings, officially on the record, to my father, all fathers across the country and those grandfathers who have impacted us. Although I do not have grandfathers alive anymore, I know the significant role they played in my life. I wish a happy belated Father's Day to all the fathers represented across our country from coast to coast to coast. We are debating Bill C-42 here this evening. Although, unfortunately, it seems that the government did some tricky manoeuvring to change the debate from Bill C-18 to Bill C-42, this is an important issue that bears fulsome and comprehensive discussion in this place. I will back up a bit and talk about something that is probably not on the radar of many Canadians, because when it comes to the idea of money laundering, most Canadians do not really understand the significance of what it is. For example, I know the Panama papers are part of the discussion that has surrounded this bill in particular. I will enlighten us on the challenge that brought us to the point that we would be debating this here this evening. I will then get into what is proposed and where I think some additional items need to be challenged, discussed and addressed, when it comes to the larger issue of what the bill is trying to accomplish. Most people who have spent much time watching Hollywood movies will have heard of the Cayman Islands, Switzerland or other jurisdictions that are known for hiding money. Criminal enterprises, gangs and thugs store money there, access it in a secretive manner and ensure they could take dirty money that was earned by some nefarious process, whether that be the sale of something illegal, the proceeds of crime or whatever the case is. They go through a process where the money comes out, and it might not be clean on the other side, but at least it is not traceable to the original way that it was earned. This is why we call it “laundering”. Things like the Panama papers and other news articles make headlines on occasion, and specifically, they often only make headlines when there are significant figures that are involved. This may happen if there is a businessperson or a politician who has some notoriety and is named in these sorts of releases. However, one of the really unfortunate realities is that Canada has become a place where we are known for being able to have money laundering take place. That is incredibly concerning, especially in a world where digital technology, artificial intelligence and the dynamics associated with some of these things are incredibly complex. We have not had a great deal of time to discuss artificial intelligence in this place. The fact that Canada has become something of a safe haven for money laundering and the proceeds of crime is incredibly concerning. Some of those proceeds would be from criminal activities that take place on Canadian soil, but the unfortunate signal that has been sent to the criminal enterprises that exist around the world is that Canada seems to be the place where one can see money laundered, regardless of where those proceeds are from. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed. This has a few unintended consequences as well that I think bear mentioning. Just to highlight for those watching, one of the things that has been highlighted that would be a possible way to see this happen is through the purchase of real estate. At a time when we already have some of the lowest per capita housing availability in the developed world, it is incredibly concerning that some of the pressures that exist there would be for purposes that are nefarious and certainly not benefiting Canadians for the pricing structure that exists. Especially when we have a price point that is determined in a market that is not based on the product and its availability, laundering artificially inflates it. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed. That is the problem. Now we have Bill C-42, which is a step in the right direction to address some of those things. The question is whether it goes far enough, and I will get to the ways that I do not think it does. However, it does address some of the challenges and attempts to ensure that some of the currently existing loopholes that allow Canada to be this safe haven, as I mentioned, are addressed. One thing is to ensure that there is greater accountability for those who are purchasing businesses that have those large financial interests in this country. The reason this is important is to ensure that there is that registry and that ability to have accountability at every stage of the corporate process. For those who have no reason to hide their actions, of course, this is not something that will concern them. There may be some reporting requirements through financial institutions and whatnot, but if a person is not doing anything wrong, these burdens are not something that would be part of the daily life of the accounting of a business's operations; that is valuable. When it comes to the fines, and we have certainly heard a lot about the fines as we have had debate about this issue, there would be an increase in the penalties, both monetary penalties and possible prison sentences. Certainly, I think that is important, although I will note the irony that it seems as though the Liberals have this habit of being soft on crime in many regards, but they want to send a signal through the legislation, it would seem, that Canada is willing to get tough when it comes to white-collar crime. However, there are certainly some challenges when it comes to the crime that is affecting so many Canadians. There are a number of aspects that build on some of the actions that have been taken by the previous Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which saw this as a challenge and started to make some of those changes. Notably, back in 2014, I believe, there were some significant changes that the Harper government made to ensure that it would tighten up some of the areas that were loopholes at that point in time. A number of steps have been taken over the last number of years. I believe my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills said it well when he talked about a chain being only as strong as its weakest link. We are seeing that there could be some holes plugged in the challenges that Canada faces when it comes to money laundering. However, it is fundamentally important to ensure that we do not stop here. A lot of this discussion took place at committee, and I know folks who are watching are interested in seeing some of that. The work that the committee did highlighted some opportunities that existed in terms of strengthening this legislation, and we saw a few amendments pass. However, a whole host of other amendments could have made this legislation stronger. To address some of this strange occurrence that happens increasingly with the government, it seems to be quick to rush everything through, because it is a crisis. This is unfortunate; as it is rushing things through, it often ends up having to go back and fix the challenges or the gaps that could and should have been addressed in the earlier stages of the process. At the industry committee, there were some challenges brought up, including from some senior public servants who were concerned about the possibility of challenges when it comes to implementation. There are privacy concerns that the Liberals have to address, and this is simply another part of those areas. To conclude, it is incumbent on us all in this place to do our utmost to ensure that every bill that comes forward is debated thoroughly and that we have engagement from the affected stakeholders. When it comes to something like this, it may not be on the forefront of many Canadians' minds, but it is fundamentally important that we get it right, so that we can stop Canada from being a safe haven for money laundering in this world.

1474 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/19/23 7:00:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My colleague spoke with a great deal of knowledge on this point. I can see he represents his constituents well for a relatively young MP, compared with people in mid-life like me; I am at the tender age of almost 45 now. I said I was 44 the other day, and I heard about it. Money laundering has had both a pervasive and a significant impact. I will ask my colleague this: Could he comment on how his riding of Battle River—Crowfoot has perhaps been, maybe not directly impacted, but impacted generally by these types of things?

120 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/19/23 7:01:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciated being called “young” in this place, although with the rate my hair is turning grey, I am not sure if that is more the job or my age. I can highlight how this would specifically impact my constituents, although this would not be unique in the context of this discussion. Most people do not understand the intricacies of major business operations, how a corporate registry would affect them, how that would affect the accounting of major multinationals or what reporting requirements banks have. For example, if the average Canadian were asked on the street what FINTRAC is, most people would probably not know. However, this all has to do with Canadians having confidence in our economy to be able to purchase anything, to go into a bank and trust the fact that the institution is going to have security on its deposits and to ensure that our law enforcement is able not only to pull somebody over for speeding but also make sure that there are consequences for serious crimes, such as laundering money from the proceeds of crime. This comes back to the very basic principle of ensuring that there is trust in our institutions.

202 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/19/23 7:02:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say how disappointed I am with Bell Canada's decision to eliminate jobs back home, in my region, particularly in Rimouski. One of the people who lost his job was an experienced journalist, Martin Brassard. He has 35 years' experience and worked for the Énergie radio station, which he left recently, and then for Rouge FM in Rimouski. Local and regional information is vital to the development of our communities and also to the health of our democracy. I hope that the government will listen to reason and put in place the solution proposed by the Bloc Québécois of creating a special fund to support regional media. Members know that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-42 because it seeks to foster transparency. We have heard much about the Panama Papers. Is it normal that there are whistle-blowers and people hiding behind corporations, but that we do not have any information about this? Does my colleague agree that there should be more transparency in corporations?

183 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/19/23 7:03:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to address. I will try to get to all three points. We need to strengthen whistle-blower protections in this country. That is absolutely essential to ensure that those who are taking risks, whether they are professional risks, risks to the possibility of advancement or sometimes even further risks than that, have those protections. Certainly, I have talked at length about that at the ethics committee here in Parliament. When it comes to transparency and the need for it, this is absolutely and fundamentally important. That comes back to my response to the previous question. Most Canadians may not understand the intricacies associated with multinational business operations and why money laundering may affect them, but when it comes to trust in our institutions, every Canadian feels that. Unfortunately, we have seen an erosion of trust in the institutions that we all count on. When it comes to job losses in the member's constituency, I hear his concerns. When the Keystone XL pipeline was cancelled by President Biden, and the Prime Minister refused to do anything about it, I had to face 2,000 constituents who got pink slips. They lost their jobs because of the inaction and political indifference of a party that has wanted to shut down the largest economic driver in our country. I hear that member and the pain associated with so many individuals who face the personal crisis of a job loss, especially when it is a surprise. We need to do more in this country to ensure that we create a business environment that allows for prosperity. Certainly, the member for Carleton has talked about everything that we have been talking about. We are working diligently to ensure that we can be a country that fosters prosperity again. Together we can do that and bring it home.

309 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Jun/19/23 7:05:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak about Bill C-42 today. It is an honour for me not only because I am speaking on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola but also because it also gives me a chance to recall some of my work as a member of the finance committee in 2017, where we did an extensive review of the money-laundering regime in Canada as it relates to not only money laundering but also to the financing of terrorism. Let me give a quick shout-out to the former chair of that finance committee, the Hon. Wayne Easter, who basically said that we should travel to places like London and Washington as part of it. I was a member of Parliament who was quite skeptical of junkets in all their forms, but he told me that he thought it was important for the committee to do that, and some of the best testimony we received as a committee on how Canada is seen in the world with respect to things like money laundering was absolutely correct. I have to thank the Hon. Wayne Easter for those observations, because it really showed that Canada is an outlier, and for all the wrong reasons. We have seen Transparency International talk year after year about how we are slowly becoming a country where money laundering has become a problem. We were once very respected under the Transparency International regime. Those 2017 recommendations from the committee still stand. It was an all-party report. The Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc members and New Democrats participated in the report and came to many unanimous recommendations, partly as a result of those trips and experiences, because we saw very clearly that Canada had a lot to achieve. Coming back to Bill C-42, there are a number of things missing from this legislation. For example, recommendation 10 from the 2017 report refers to a rule in the United States. It states: That the Government of Canada make it a criminal offence for an entity or individual to structure transactions in a manner designated to avoid reporting requirements. These provisions would be modelled on Title 31 of U.S. code section 5324. What that means is that while this will capture some of the significant control of a particular corporation's holdings so that someone would be able to find out who had significant control of an asset, such as a piece of real estate, it operates only after the fact. Only then can law enforcement start to draw evidence together to link a particular group, such as organized crime or a terrorism group, with a group of accountants or business owners and lawyers, and through that web be able to trace exactly who is connected to whom and be able to start pulling on those threads. The Americans have taken a much more proactive approach by making it a crime to help someone to structure their affairs to avoid transparency. This is quite important. While there are many measures in the Criminal Code, it is important that we look at Canada. One of the outcomes of the report is that the legal community is still not within the FINTRAC regime. While we have seen an expansion in recent years, I think partly because of our report regarding FINTRAC, we still do not see everything included, such as lawyers. Members may ask why that is important. It is because they are the very professionals who structure those affairs so that the money can be laundered in Canada, so I think it is an area still worthy of investigation. Let us go to the beneficial ownership registry itself. When we went to the United Kingdom, one of the things that struck me there is that it has this beneficial ownership registry online. It is free, and there is very limited information. First of all, I do not think most Canadians will go to a beneficial ownership registry. There is always a temptation to see what one's neighbour owns and, of course, there could be some abuses that way, but essentially, the people who would be looking at this are law enforcement and Canada Revenue Agency employees working on files that are related to the matter of money laundering. It is absolutely critical that those law enforcement officials, people who are lawfully accessing it for investigate purposes, be able to do so quickly. However, this registry would only carry just a sliver. Again, for the people at home saying that a beneficial registry sounds good to them, it would only be for those corporations that are registered under the Canada Business Corporations Act. As someone who has lived in British Columbia my whole life, I will say that, from speaking to many lawyers, I know that the bulk of solicitors' work is when they are processing real estate and updating the registry of which a company is kept, and most of that action happens provincially. As my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills recently said, this particular measure might offer some good points, but it is only as strong as the weakest link. If we have 10 different registries, we may end up in the tyranny of small differences. We could take health care as an example. Not all health care information is delivered to the Public Health Agency of Canada in a uniform manner. We find that fax machines are still being used. If one province only gives information under certain forms, it is then very difficult to aggregate that to get a whole picture. The government, just as it has done in previous agreements with provinces, comes to an agreement on principle, but when it comes time to do the work, unfortunately it does not seem to have a true consensus. I will just harken back to the Canada free trade agreement, which apparently all parties sided with. Half of it was exemptions. One may agree in principle with something, but when it comes to the operability of what comes out of something, it seems that the government is only looking for the big announcement. In this case, it is a beneficial ownership registry that would be transparent. Again, if it is only a sliver of the activity and it does not necessarily create a uniformity of interoperable registries where everyone can funnel the same information and have aggregated information that is the same, meaning that it is always going have the same basics available, one is going to have that tyranny of small differences. When someone is looking for that information, the last thing we want to do is end up where we do not supply the information to law enforcement in a straight, one-stop shop. I should also point out that in the U.K., the so-called transparency model has some caveats. When I was at committee, I asked officials about this, and they did say that for persons under 18, their information would not be shared, which probably is for the best, although I would ask how someone under the age of 18 would end up with significant control over a Canadian asset, but we will leave that for another time. Also, there would be exemptions on a case-by-case basis. In the U.K., politicians and celebrities are often taken off. This creates, just like all government systems, a system where someone who is working the registry is now making choices about who is included and who is not. It is an honour for me to step forward here, and it was an honour to serve on the finance committee. This is an area where I think we can do more. As the Prime Minister likes to say, better is always possible. Unfortunately, we will just have to take what we can get today and hope that a new Conservative government would do the hard work with provinces so that we could really clamp down on money laundering.

1340 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/19/23 7:15:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of themes I have heard in Conservative speeches about this bill. One is that the ownership threshold is too high at 25%. I think one of the awkward tensions with another line of Conservative argument is that the 25% standard is actually present in most of the provincial registries that currently obtain. I think part of the goal of starting with a 25% ownership threshold was to have more congruence with existing provincial systems. My concern is that, as we try to resolve these tensions between, as the member rightly pointed out, the importance of collaborating with the provinces and some of the things we might like to see as more stringent requirements in the legislation but that are not congruent with the existing provincial situation, the clock is ticking. There are folks, like Putin's buddies, who are hiding money here in Canada and whom a public beneficial ownership registry would help pursue. It is not perfect legislation, but can we get the legislation passed before summer in order to ensure that we can begin doing the work to bring those folks to justice?

191 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Jun/19/23 7:16:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very reasonable question. Again, we are essentially putting a line in the sand with this 25% threshold. Let us be clear: It is arbitrary, and it is following the provinces rather than leading on the arguments. Being able to say who is involved and who has significant control over large assets in Canada, particularly from a law enforcement perspective, is quite important. We have seen that some of the lawyers, accountants and other professionals who have been compromised in this area will use every planning tool possible to evade scrutiny, which is why I made the suggestion that we should follow suit by making it a Criminal Code infringement for those who structure their clients' assets in such a way as to evade transparency. Those are the mechanisms. While my colleague and I may not agree on the 25% threshold and on whether the federal government is showing leadership, I do understand his point that we need to get moving. I also think we need to send a signal to those who operate in this space that it will not be tolerated.

187 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/19/23 7:17:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke about certain loopholes, particularly with regard to individuals who facilitate money laundering. I am referring to lawyers, notaries and other professionals. Would my colleague agree that, at some point, we should also legislate so that there is less of an incentive to support businesses and individuals involved in money laundering?

58 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Jun/19/23 7:18:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an important issue for Canadians, who understand that the crime rate in this country is high right now. It is also important that the federal government make clear the consequences of criminal activity. I think that the federal government needs to introduce a new crime bill to crack down on fraud and crime. I appreciate the member's question. This is how we can convey that to professionals. I also think a reference to the Supreme Court, as was laid out in the 2017 FINA study, so we can clarify what protections there are—

99 words