SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 215

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Mr. Patrick Weiler
  • Jun/16/23 10:23:27 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the letter was seeking to specifically understand each jurisdiction's particular needs and any supports required to facilitate their participation in a pan-Canadian system. During the committee hearings, requests were heard to lower the ownership threshold to disclosure from 25% to 10%. First, it is important to point out that the decision to adopt a 25% threshold was made in 2018, and it was approved by Parliament in 2019 in Bill C-86. With that said, the government does not support lowering the ownership threshold from 25% to 10%, because doing so could introduce significant interoperability issues. The 25% threshold makes the most sense for the following reasons: It is in line with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing legislation. It also aligns with the beneficial ownership thresholds put in place by Canadian provinces, including Quebec and British Columbia. It is also in line with the ownership threshold adopted in all major jurisdictions in the world, including the U.S., the U.K., the European Union and Japan. Finally, it is compliant with the G20 and the norms set by the G20's Financial Action Task Force. It should be emphasized that lowering the ownership threshold is not necessary to uncover significant control. Individuals who have a right to or actually exercise significant influence or control over a company are still required to be registered, even if they own less than 25% of the shares. To ensure the effectiveness of the new registry, it is crucial for Canada to stay in line with domestic and international norms. Otherwise, the data it collects would not be interoperable or comparable; this would create both a significant burden on businesses and a significant challenge in ensuring compliance. Lowering the ownership threshold from 25% to 10% will take us out of alignment with best practices, both domestically and internationally; therefore, it is not recommended by the government. The lack of beneficial ownership transparency is impairing Canada's ability to combat serious financial crimes, such as fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. It also limits our capacity to enforce domestic and international sanctions and to effectively trace and freeze financial assets. Finally, it is impacting the trust of Canadians and foreign investors in our marketplace. Our inability to quickly and quietly identify a company's beneficial owner delays criminal investigations; denies law enforcement leads to potential suspects, witnesses and evidence; and impairs the identification and seizure of suspected proceeds of crime. It also reduces the ability of private businesses to protect themselves. It is clear that the registry proposed by this bill and the interoperability measures that form part of the regime would significantly improve Canada's ability to fight financial crime. It would help public authorities verify owners across corporate layers, help businesses better validate the identity of their trading partners and render more difficult the use of corporations for illicit activities. Future areas that should be examined to improve our ability to ascertain the beneficial owners of assets include bringing in new requirements for foreign companies doing business in Canada to disclose their beneficial owners, as well as for the Government of Canada to play a coordinating role in assisting the provinces and territories to establish a pan-Canadian land ownership registry. This registry would be able to work in concert with the corporate beneficial ownership registry. It would dovetail the important legislative changes to improve our ability to tackle financial crime that were announced in this year's budget implementation act. A forthcoming review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act will surely identify further measures to take. I hope all members of this House will join me in supporting this important bill's passage so that we can continue to improve our ability to protect Canada from financial crime and the illicit activities that it supports.
655 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)
  • Jun/16/23 2:32:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on June 15, respecting the government's response to an Order Paper question, Question No. 974. I believe the Speaker's ruling of February 2, continues to stand in the case before this House. The government met the requirements of the Standing Orders by responding to the question within the prescribed time frame. Moreover, I would draw the attention of members to a part of the information the member obtained through her Access to Information Act request but did not reference in her intervention. Concerning why the government did not respond more comprehensively to the question asked, there are legitimate reasons. I will read from the response released from the access to information request: “The response notes the Government of Canada cannot disclose information on mining company meetings held within the U.S. DPA Title III program: the information involves international affairs and defense, scientific and technical information, commercial sensitivity and ongoing negotiations”. The government met the requirements of the Standing Orders in tabling its response to the Order Paper question. The response to the access to information request provides a legitimate rationale as to the reasons it was not in a position to include certain information in its response. The member raised a ruling respecting the RCMP intercepting mail from 1978, which in no way bears any relevance to the matter raised by the member. In that case, it was found that a minister deliberately misled the House and gave information that conflicted with the facts. This is not the case here. The response to the access to information request confirms that there were legitimate reasons not to include sensitive information, which have not been refuted in this House by a minister of the Crown. There was no valid point of order when this was first raised by the member earlier this year and, equally, there are no valid grounds upon which to determine that this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.
347 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border