44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2023 10:00AM
moved:
That Bill C-42 be amended by deleting the long title.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. I outlined the amendment because we really did not study or work on too many other acts.
Earlier last week, when we finally had time to debate this bill and study it extensively at committee, it was very unfortunate that we had our committee witnesses appear the hour before we were to discuss amendments and go through clause-by-clause of the bill. There were some aspects of the bill that could have been improved had we had more time.
An example is the threshold for significant control. While the government repeatedly claimed that 25% is the international standard, witnesses made clear that it was only a guideline and that Canada could be a leader by reducing it. James Cohen, executive director of Transparency International, noted:
I don't think, for one, lowering the threshold from 25% to 10% and a risk-based approach are mutually exclusive. I think they actually go hand in hand. I would note that the 25% isn't so much a standard as it was an initial global recommendation that everyone just kind of grabbed on to.
Furthermore, when asked if a lower threshold would create unnecessary administrative complications, Superintendent Denis Beaudoin, director of financial crime for the RCMP, stated, “The RCMP standpoint is that the more names and more information, the better. As we're trying to make links in a criminal investigation, it certainly can help.” Both Conservative and NDP members of the committee tabled amendments to reduce the threshold for significant control from 25% to 10%. However, they were blocked by the Liberal and Bloc Québécois members.
The next aspect of the bill that could have been improved had we had more time to go through the amendments and hear from expert testimony relates to searchability. The Conservatives tabled two amendments to improve the searchability of the public registry, which were both raised by Transparency International in its submission. The first would have required that the jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes and the name of the corporation be included for each individual listed on the registry. The second would have added specific language to the bill requiring that the registry be made available to the public in a searchable format. Other good-faith amendments that were rejected included the inclusion of real estate in Bill C-42 and interoperability measures that could have improved the ability to work with the provinces and territories to have all the data that our law enforcement needs to go after white-collar crimes.
The next clause that was deleted that I think could have improved the bill related to law enforcement access. This amendment would have added specific language to the bill to ensure that law enforcement and other investigative bodies like FINTRAC could access information from the director rather than having to go to corporations individually. It also would have removed a reference to prescribed circumstances in relation to exceptions, ensuring that only minors are automatically exempted from having their information disclosed and that all others must apply for an exemption and prove that it is necessary.
There was a good-faith amendment brought forward by the Conservatives and recommended by Transparency International related to post boxes. This amendment would have barred individuals from listing a post office box as their address to be made in the public registry. Transparency International and the End Snow-Washing campaign requested that this be included in the bill. Ministry staff assured members that disallowing the use of post boxes is already standard practice at Corporations Canada and that including this language in the bill would be unnecessary. However, that analysis did not account for fact that the provincial registries may have different guidelines. If we are to truly seek interoperability and go after white-collar crime, we have to be more open to explicit language in legislation like this to give law enforcement the tools it needs and to close as many loopholes as possible.
Another good-faith CPC amendment was related to penalties on provincially registered corporations. This amendment would have changed the definition of a corporation in the context of offences to include provincially regulated corporations. This was important to ensure that when we reach a stage of interoperability with all registries, either provincial or federal, all people who are in contravention of the bill, and hopefully future law, are subject to the same penalties and convictions under the Criminal Code of Canada. I will note that the Conservatives, in good faith, did support an amendment that we also tabled to increase the fines for people committing an offence under the corporations act and it was supported. It was one positive aspect of the process at committee.
However, overall, while enemy cannot be the perfect of the good, I think the bill could have used just a few more meetings to hear from witnesses to get it at a stage where we could be really assured that we made the necessary and appropriate amendments. I say that because there was a good-faith commitment from all parties on this legislation to move quickly. I will repeat that it is not good parliamentary practice to have serious witnesses appear an hour before we are doing clause-by-clause, especially when they are bringing forward substantive amendments and have very little time to present.
I will go over some of the positions of the Canadian Bar Association, which had concerns with public access to the beneficial ownership registry and ensuring that Bill C-42 complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It noted this in a letter to me:
Individuals have legitimate personal and business reasons for not publicly disclosing sensitive personal information of beneficial owners. Canada should be mindful that businesses will look carefully at the requirement to make information public and determine how and in which jurisdiction they want to structure their corporations.
Public disclosure of additional corporate information may deter corruption and money laundering, and frustrate the efforts of fraudsters to use sham corporate vehicles for criminal purposes. However, it may also increase identity theft...which could undermine the anti-fraud rationale of the registry.
I think we needed to hear more from the Canadian Bar Association to get the balance between personal information being disclosed publicly and the need for law enforcement to have the necessary tools to do its job effectively. Indeed, the letter from the Canadian Bar Association said that a key aspect of this bill is balancing public interests and privacy rights. It noted:
In 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) examined an anti-money-laundering directive...establishing a Register of Beneficial Ownership where some information on the beneficial owners was accessible to the general public. The CJEU held that the directive was invalid because the public’s access to information on beneficial ownership constituted a serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data.
Although witnesses did appear before committee, they had very limited time to bring forward all of their amendments. In fact, we only received amendments from Publish What You Pay Canada, Transparency International and Canadians for Tax Fairness on June 8. They outlined a number of really key amendments, some of which we were able to get on the floor at the very last minute. However, again, had there been a week in between hearing from serious witnesses and going through the amendment process in clause-by-clause, the bill could have been a bit better.
For example, Transparency International outlined the verification of identity of a significant individual. It recommended for “the Government of Canada to review Division Two and consider amendments requiring corporations to provide identity documents to the registrar upon request for the specific purpose of verification.” Transparency International outlined the need to improve intergovernmental corporations, which was a big aspect of the work we did to study the legislation. It also pointed out, especially in the context of a place like British Columbia, where we see a lot of foreign investment or at least a lot foreign money entering our real estate market and local businesses, that more needed to be done to ensure that the country of residence, the name of a corporation and valid government ID be part of these registries moving forward. As I outlined earlier, it mentioned that post office boxes should be included and should not be used as a place to do business in Canada.
Overall, we did get some good work done on this bill, but a lot more could have been done.
1487 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 10:12:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I actually raised the hon. member for Nepean's testimony from the debate we had at second reading during the amendment process. We should do more to ensure that valid government identification is included in the registry, maybe not on the front end that the public can access, but making sure that our law enforcement agents can in fact review that information in a timely manner.
Indeed, citizenship and current address should be included as a part of these measures as well. I will be encouraging members of the other chamber to look more closely at those aspects of this legislation to ensure that we get it right.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 10:13:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if we are to compare the way we take information for someone who donates to a political campaign in Canada versus the United States, I think we can rest assured that in Canada, we have a maximum donation of $1,700 for an individual. No corporations are allowed to donate in Canada, and we have a public registry that is updated on a regular basis by Elections Canada.
I think, in Canada, we have done a very good job of creating a level of transparency so that everyone in our country knows who donates to which political party. Indeed, in America, the arrangement between corporations and donating to elected officials is very different. I am very proud of the Canadian system we have today.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 10:15:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, the member raised some important points. I do not believe that any of the security officials who appeared at committee, in their limited time, referenced a correlation between this legislation and the invasion by Russia into Ukraine.
I think what is important in this registry, as the lawyers from the Canadian Bar Association outlined in their information to the committee, is that we balance the Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to protection of personal information with the need for a public registry to ensure that we end snow washing in Canada. Indeed, that is a very fine balance. That is why we needed just a few more meetings to get this legislation right and hear a bit more testimony. A couple of meetings, even if we were meeting next week on this legislation, would have been enough to get to where we needed to be.
For that reason, because we were not able to get as far as we needed, we are going to have to push for amendments in the Senate, which is actually going to slow the process down more. We are better off to do our work very well the first time and not the—
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 10:27:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is Canada's number one riding.
I will just note that, during the witness testimony, we heard from Transparency International and the RCMP that the standard practice the government keeps talking about was not actually a standard practice; it was just a norm that became adopted.
I fail to see why the government sees such an impediment to decreasing the threshold, as if it were going to suddenly stop us from doing more work. The RCMP wants it. The leading experts in Canada on money laundering think lowering the threshold is a good idea. As well, in conjunction with lowering the threshold, more businesses, under the federal corporations act, would be included. I should point out that we did not even have a chance to discuss the stacking of corporations in conjunction with the change in thresholds as well.
I do not know why the government is so stuck on not doing this. The RCMP thought it would be a good—
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 10:54:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to understand the rationale behind lowering the significant threshold from 25% to 10%. Indeed, the New Democratic Party supported this amendment after hearing testimony during the debate at committee on why Canada should be a leader in money laundering to adopt a more progressive threshold, which was outlined by the RCMP.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:18:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the first petition I would like to present today is on behalf of the village of Lytton, which was decimated by fire on June 30, 2021. We are coming up on the two-year anniversary.
When this petition was written, Lytton was still under an evacuation order. That was lifted two days ago.
Since the rebuilding has yet to begin, all of the businesses that were destroyed are asking very clearly of the government to forgive their CEBA loans.
We presented one petition, and the government neglected that request, so we are again asking it to forgive the CEBA loans of the businesses that have not been able to be rebuilt that really need an extra hand from the Government of Canada.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:19:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of the people of Agassiz, who are trying to build a regional aquatic centre. This project was inspired by a progressive approach to reconciliation.
All of the local first nations have worked with the District of Kent to get the Lets'emot community and aquatic centre built.
So far, the federal government has only committed $450,000. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to increase that number and increase access to swimming pools for children living on reserve.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
