44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I think that is pretty straightforward. Every province, every jurisdiction has to be on board with this idea. If one province does not have a registry and does not follow these rules, it will become a haven for the oligarchs, for the money launderers, for the fraudsters, to come and do their dirty work and defraud Canadians in that jurisdiction.
There is a whole-of-government approach that is required. It is a matter of federalism that needs to be determined.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too rise this evening to speak on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.
The bill was tabled about two and half months ago and would create what is known colloquially as beneficial corporate ownership registry. The purpose of that is to make transparent the true and beneficial owners of every federally registered company. A legal owner of a company holds the legal title to that company while the beneficial owner holds certain benefits and rights to company assets, even though the beneficial owner's name may not appear in the legal title.
Corporations in Canada need only register information such as names of directors. They do not have to register who their shareholders are. The current law only requires that lawyers maintain a registry of beneficial owners, so there is no government registry. The lawyers and the companies have to maintain their own sort of self-regulated registry. It is not transparent, it is not visible and it is not even visible to governments unless asked. When police need to find out who the beneficial owner of a company is, they have to contact that company's lawyers, say they are calling from the RCMP and would like to know who the beneficial owner of the company is. The lawyer may say he will get back to the officer and then call the client to say the RCMP is doing an investigation into it.
These are the things that exist now and why we need beneficial ownership registries on who the individuals are, not the corporations, who actually benefit from the ownership of corporations, whether they are federally or provincially incorporated. A beneficiary is the individual or entity, as I said, that will benefit from the transactions or the profits of the remittances of the activities of that corporation.
This bill is a good start, finally, after years and years of discussing it. I think there was a joint press release with the provinces almost six years ago that said we should maybe think about doing this. It has taken the government quite a bit of time to get to this important issue.
The government sets that any individual who owns 25% or more of the shares of a federally incorporated company must provide the information to the registry. What does this mean? There are 4.3 million incorporated companies in Canada and only about 10% of them are incorporated federally. Most corporations are incorporated provincially. Therefore, this bill would have no direct impact on 90% of companies.
With regard to the question earlier from the leader of the Green Party, when 90% of the companies in this country are not included or not brought under the umbrella of a national beneficial ownership registry, it is pretty clear that we are going to still have a significant money-laundering problem.
That is the primary reason, as the minister claimed, the government claims and most interest groups have claimed, we need to have this registry: to deal with money laundering. Other members have mentioned, and I will too, that Canada does not have a very nice nickname around money laundering that has been coined and used internationally to describe Canada, and that is snow washing. We are the place where money goes to get laundered and cleaned up from illegal activities. It describes the flow of dirty money entering Canada.
The registration system for Canada at both the federal and provincial levels is totally shrouded in secrecy, which means that the real owner of a company or a trust can hire a person as a stand-in or substitute to conduct all financial filings and submissions for that company. The practice effectively makes Canada a tax haven, along with countries such as the British Virgin Islands, Panama and the Bahamas. The process has been made even easier since the Canadian government signed tax treaties with 115 countries.
With a form of business organization called a Canadian limited partnership, the only persons who have to declare themselves to authorities are the partners, and if they do not live in Canada, they are exempt from filing taxes in Canada. If stocks of a firm are not traded publicly, the rules require that only the directors of such companies be identified, and these directors are not required to reveal whether they are acting on behalf of someone else or whether they actually own any shares in the company.
How bad is it? Recent estimates have put money laundering in Canada at $133 billion a year. Now, that is a big number. It is 5% of our GDP. It is a huge amount of money from illegal gains that is being cleared through our system in Canada.
Money laundering has its origin in crimes that destroy communities, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking and fraud. These crimes victimize the most vulnerable members of society. Money laundering is also an affront to law-abiding citizens who earn their money honestly and pay their fair share of the cost of living in the communities where they choose to live.
There can be few things more destructive to a community's sense of well-being than a governing regime that fails to resist those whose opportunities were unfairly gained at the expense of others. If one jurisdiction, such as Ottawa, or even Ottawa and a few of the provinces, as I mentioned earlier, create a corporate beneficial registry that is publicly available but others do not, then money launderers will gravitate towards those jurisdictions within Canada in order to hide their ownership and enable their money laundering.
We have talked a lot in this debate in the few moments that we have had about the issue of money laundering, and I will give another example of a problem that is caused by not having a beneficial corporate registry.
All politics are local. I have 7,000 commercial fishermen in my riding. There are 16,243 fishing licences in Atlantic Canada and in the gulf region of Quebec. There are 5,727 fishing licences in British Columbia. That is a total of about 22,000 commercial fishing licences that have been issued by DFO in Canada. However, do members know that DFO does not know who owns them? DFO does not know who owns them because there is no beneficial corporate registry.
In fact, 17 months ago, DFO went out for the first time to do a survey of the licence holders. They are not necessarily the licence owners, because in British Columbia, the licences can be leased out to someone, who would then be called the licence holder. Do members know what the result is? The result is that DFO now has to hire a forensic auditor to come in and try to figure out what happened with the information they got.
After more than 150 years of the Government of Canada handing out fishing licences, DFO still does not know who owns them, and that is a problem. It is a problem because DFO has policies around who can control a particular fish species or an area of fishing, and we cannot have an uncompetitive situation. We have had evidence in our study in the House of Commons fisheries committee on corporate concentration and foreign ownership in the fishery that there is one particular company that may own up to 50% of all commercial licences in British Columbia. This is way above what the Competition Bureau says is an acceptable concentration for any business, which is about 30% maximum in any industry. One company in B.C. may own half the licences, but we do not know because we do not have an ongoing federal or provincial beneficial registry that can provide that transparency.
It should not be up to a government department to do a survey once every 150 years in hopes of trying to figure this out. This should be something we could search regularly.
This is an issue in industries like the lobster industry. In southwest Nova Scotia, in my riding and in the riding of the member for West Nova, we all know that there was a lot of organized crime and cash. Whenever there is cash flowing and there are untraceable products like seafood, there is the opportunity for money laundering. This is a huge issue in Canada, and even those numbers are probably not included in the $133 billion I talked about earlier.
The bill is a good first step, but it really just plays at the edges when so many corporations provincially are not included in it.
We mentioned earlier that we tried to make a few improvements with the help of the government on this, in a genuine effort, as we are very collegial in the industry committee, to try to get things done. However, we only had two meetings, one hour of outside witnesses, officials for the other one, and then straight into clause-by-clause.
I will give a couple of outlines. In that time, we tried to bring that threshold from 25% down to 10%. That is not uncommon. The government said that this is some sort of international standard. In other areas, the government likes to be the leader around the world, in saying that it is leading everybody on trying to have more NPAs than anybody else in the world, that it is trying to push the envelope. On this one, it would not push the envelope. Moreover, it is not really pushing the envelope, because the Ontario Securities Commission requires that when someone buys 10% or more of a publicly traded company, they have to put out a news release and tell the market that they are doing that.
When they want to go below 10%, once they own those shares, the Ontario Securities Commission actually requires them to put out a news release before they sell the shares. They must actually notify the markets that they are going to sell their shares to below 10%. However, apparently, when it comes to money laundering, 10% is too aggressive for the government. It wanted to keep it at 25%.
When it comes to owners getting influence in a widely held company, if someone holds 20% of the shares of that company and the rest of the shares are widely held, then they are essentially the one that is controlling what happens in that company. The inability of the government to see that was greatly disappointing.
We want, as we have said, to expand it to real property, which is not that difficult. It is just connecting in the registries for property registration. We know that, in Vancouver and Toronto in particular, huge amounts of money laundering have happened around the purchase of residential properties. However, that has been rejected by the Liberals.
Finally, let us say that we have the provinces that, all on their own, go on and do provincial registries. Would that not be great? We put in an amendment saying that if there is a provincial registry, the federal government should go and get an agreement with the province to share the data back and forth, so that they are both searchable on all the data. It should not do it on its own, but it should do it under a federal-provincial agreement with the province. Again, the Liberals, and, I might say in answer to the parliamentary secretary's question, the Bloc Québécois voted against those amendments. The NDP supported them.
I think it is too bad that we have had so little debate, just five hours in the House, and six outside witnesses. This is such an important bill, but it has been rushed through; so much more could have been done for this. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, after the next election, with a change in government, there will be an opportunity to improve this bill much more than the Liberals are willing to do at this location.
2006 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that we have had a couple of Conservative speakers who have indicated, with a pretty heavy stick, I would suggest, that one gets provinces to come onside, possibly by bringing in some sort of amendment.
I was not at the committee stage. I do not know if they were proposing an amendment that would legislate provinces to get on board. I think the government's approach, whether it is the municipalities or provinces in other areas, has been to lead, more so, with a carrot, as opposed to trying to legislate. I think we have been able to deliver.
One only needs to take a look at the health care, the child care and the CPP program, where the federal government has worked very clearly with provincial jurisdictions and territorial jurisdictions to bring results. I would think we will see some results that will hopefully be satisfactory even for opposition members.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will let the House judge, since the Liberals made the judgment in committee. We were proposing to amend clause 15 of Bill C-42 to say the following:
The Director may, with the approval of the Minister, enter into an agreement or arrangement with a provincial corporate registry or with a provincial government department or agency that is responsible for corporate law in the province for the purpose of facilitating timely access to beneficial ownership information that could relate to the commission or potential commission of wrongdoing as described in paragraph (3)(b) [of the bill].
It was not an amendment that was going into provincial jurisdiction. It was an amendment saying that with co-operation of the province, if it were willing to do it, we could share information. Apparently, sharing information and getting a more effective registry was not something that the government wanted to see in this bill.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for highlighting so many aspects of this bill. It begs the question of how serious this government is about fighting money laundering in Canada and controlling this. It damages so much of the Canadian economy and lives of Canadians.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start with the positive. The positive is that there is a bill that will establish a federally incorporated beneficial owner registry for the 10% of companies in Canada that are federally registered. That is a good thing.
How serious is the government? The press release to do this was issued in 2017, six years ago. That is even slow by Liberal standards to get such a simple bill through. It was rushed through in two and a half months after it made a commitment six years ago. If it were treating this seriously, it would have given us a little bit more time in committee and worked with us to improve the bill, as other parties tried to do.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it has been outlined in the debate thus far that some provinces are further ahead than others. We have learned that the Province of Quebec has moved forward and enacted a registry.
This measure will help fight money laundering, which is a good thing.
As well, British Columbia has moved forward with implementing a registry. I believe almost all provinces in Canada, save Alberta, have moved forward.
I wonder if the member from Nova Scotia could outline what the federal government can do more effectively to include provincial registries in an interoperable format to ensure that every Canadian can access a public registry to combat money laundering and find information about corporations.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say it is positive if any province is at the point where it has put in place a beneficial ownership registry. It was a commitment six years ago. Some of them already have them. They beat the federal government to it.
In spite of the fact that the government rejected the amendment to get an agreement, it can still get an agreement. There is nothing that prevents the federal government from doing what we were trying to compel in law to get that agreement. It would make sure we share both the federal information with the provincial registries and the provincial registries with the federal registry.
The benefit of a federal registry is that people do not have to look in 11 different locations. They could look in one.
When this bill passes through the House, it should be a priority of the government to start the process to get those agreements and get that information in place.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to come back to something quite shocking the hon. member told the House. I know it is true because it happens on the B.C. coast too. We have a fleet separation in B.C. that is more extreme than what happens in Nova Scotia. The people who are fishing do not own their own business. They are essentially employees in a vast machine. In British Columbia, billionaire Jimmy Pattison controls the entire herring stock.
I want the hon. member to perhaps reflect on what it means that DFO is giving fishing licences when it does not actually know who owns the businesses that are depleting our fish stocks. People, not necessarily foreign corporations, are completely unconnected from care and concern for the health of biodiversity.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Green Party is bang on. This is why a beneficial registry goes beyond just the money laundering issue. It could be of great benefit to other things.
I do not know how one would enforce, as DFO policy, that there cannot be a monopoly or monopolistic tendencies if one does not know which companies own the licences. One does not even know whether or not a particular company has a monopolistic tendency.
There is owner-operator fleet separation on the east coast, which has helped. That is good policy. It was enshrined in law. There are still some issues in making sure those companies are what they say they are and who the beneficial owner is.
On the west coast, there is no ability to do that. A survey was done by DFO on the licence-holders. As the hon. member noted, most of those licences are actually leased out to employees. The person who is holding a licence does not actually own it. Licences are owned by large corporations.
In lots of instances, there are companies from foreign countries, not necessarily all of which are open and democratic, which have acquired control of some of those resources too. They are now acquiring the resources of the fisheries and corporations on the provincial side. It is provincial. They are trying to get a whole of supply chain control of particular fish species.
This is a major problem on both coasts, but particularly so in British Columbia. It does not have the benefit of owner-operator fleet separation. It is something fishing groups are asking for. I believe it should be implemented on the west coast as well.
283 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. There are certainly things that we do not agree on, but I would like to focus on what we do agree on. Obviously, we both agree that there must be co-operation between the federal government and the provinces, especially Quebec.
As members are aware, business ownership laws fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. There are things that work well. Every province has its own securities commission. In Quebec, we have the Autorité des marchés financiers. I want to reiterate that it is important that the federal government fully co-operate with the Government of Quebec to share information and to establish a framework or registry that will enable us to fight money laundering. We do not want the government to barge in and make decisions unilaterally, without coordinating those efforts. If we do not centralize the data, our efforts will be counterproductive and we will be duplicating work rather than working effectively.
I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on that. What practical action can the federal government take to work with Quebec and the provinces?
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone on any side of the House who has been looking at this bill wants it done in a forceful way, where the federal government is coming in to try to force a province to do that. It was not the purpose of our amendments.
I understand Quebec is more advanced perhaps than a number of the other provinces on this. The way to do that is through an interoperability agreement between the federal government and provincial government about what they are both willing to share so our citizens can have access and information truly available and our police forces have an easily searchable database so they do not need to go to lawyers and warn people when they are about to be investigated.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 9:57:33 p.m.
- Watch
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 9:58:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the official opposition would like to request a recorded division.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 9:58:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I believe you have received the proper advance notice and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 9:58:51 p.m.
- Watch
I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 9:59:32 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, homes in Nunavut are falling apart. Overcrowding is leading to a severe mental health crisis. Suicide completions in Nunavut are among the highest. The outbreaks of diseases like tuberculosis are continuing to rise. Recently, another community was announced as having another outbreak of tuberculosis cases.
I have seen the terrible living conditions that many Nunavummiut are forced to continue to endure. There are many homes with mould. The situation is so dire that many of our young people are leaving their families behind in order to escape. The housing crisis has existed for years in Nunavut. Nunavut will continue to need sustainable long-term investments if any improvements are to happen. The government continues to apply a double standard to indigenous peoples by chronically underfunding housing for them. We have known for years how extremely serious the situation is, yet budget 2022 allocated only $60 million over two years to the Government of Nunavut. There was no commitment to funding for Nunavut in this year's budget.
Since the Prime Minister took office in 2015, just over $2 billion has been invested into indigenous housing Canada-wide. The Assembly of First Nations estimates that what is needed to close the gap is about $40 billion to $60 billion, a gap that I would like to remind the government it committed to closing by 2030. The funding for the urban, rural and northern housing initiative is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that Nunavut and the two other territories will get housing allocations under the initiative.
As public governments that serve both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, the northern territorial governments may have difficulty accessing funds under the for indigenous, by indigenous housing fund. The people in my riding cannot wait any longer. I was told by people in Talurjuaq, for example, that they have a resident who lives in a tent because there is no housing available. I was told that in Kugaaruk, a suicide was completed right after a woman was told she would not get a house that year. In Qikiqtarjuaq, there are five families living in one unit. The people in my riding cannot wait any longer.
My question for the government is simple: Knowing all of this, what is the plan to address the urgent unmet housing needs for Nunavut and the territories?
393 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 10:02:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.
Safe and affordable housing provides the safety and security that families need to learn, live and play. Indigenous peoples are more likely to experience poor housing conditions and overcrowding than the general population. This is unacceptable.
Over the past year and a half, I have visited communities throughout the country, especially in the north and Nunavut, and met with families who are struggling to find decent and affordable housing, but there are success stories too in communities that are using new investments to build housing that matches the needs of their communities.
Our government has been hard at work to ensure that indigenous peoples have the same access to safe and secure housing as other Canadians. Since 2015, the government has committed more than $7 billion in funding for first nations, Inuit and Métis housing. We have now built or renovated nine houses for every one house built under the Stephen Harper Conservative government and we have fixed the gap left by the previous government by investing in off-reserve urban, rural and northern housing, which received zero funding from the Conservatives.
In budget 2023, we provided investments to improve housing for indigenous peoples living in urban, rural and northern areas. We are investing $4 billion over seven years, starting in 2024-25, to implement a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy.
In last year's budget, the government invested an additional $4.3 billion to support housing in first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation communities. The funding includes $2.4 billion over five years to support first nations housing on reserve, $565 million over five years to support housing in self-governing and modern treaty holder first nations communities, $845 million over seven years to support housing in Inuit communities and $190 million over seven years for housing in Métis communities. The 2022 budget also included $300 million for urban, rural and northern housing.
Earlier this month, the member for Nunavut joined the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada and others to announce the transfer of $287.1 million for an indigenous, by indigenous approach to fund housing projects in urban, rural and northern settings, a historic change driven by a commitment to self-determination. We are starting to see some results. Census 2021 data shows that, since 2016, the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous populations living in crowded housing declined by 1.7%.
As members can see, the government has been taking concrete action to work with partners and improve the housing situation for indigenous people across this great nation.
451 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 10:06:09 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, unfortunately, the member did not answer my question because I did ask about funding for territorial governments. As he said correctly, I was at the announcement for NICHI.
I will say this again. According to the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, more than 50% of Inuit live in housing that is overcrowded or needs repairs. This is just 8.3% for the rest of the population in Canada. This continues to be such an injustice. The government has invested $1.3 billion since 2016, less than half of what would be required to meet their own housing objectives.
When will the government commit to providing direct, long-term and predictable funding for the territorial governments so that they can build the housing they deserve?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
