- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Simcoe North
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $121,028.17
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, yes, that is most certainly the case. This bill would not do that, but it is something we must work on together, and it is a simple rule that we could implement. I look forward to working with all members of the House on simple measures like that.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity verification), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here this evening with my fellow colleagues to talk about a very important issue, which is money laundering, and to discuss a simple private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code to make it easier for authorities to prosecute and convict money launderers.
This bill is a simple addition, an amendment to the Criminal Code, to make it a criminal offence to provide false or misleading statements to a reporting entity about the identity of the account holder or the corporate structure and beneficial ownership of the ultimate account holder. Money launderers often lie about their identity or the ownership structure of the account holder. It is a simple lie that has significant impacts on Canada. This is because money laundering can impact every community across Canada.
The bill comes with penalties of up to 10 years in jail, a $1-million fine or both. It should no longer be free to wash money in Canada. These crimes, these simple lies, deserve significant consequences. The secret is that Canada has a far lower rate of prosecution and conviction for white collar and financial crimes when compared to other like countries across the world.
The Cullen commission, which was a British Columbia inquiry into money laundering, recently released its report in May of this year. It details significant concerns with and gaps in money laundering laws and has exposed the significant challenges Canadian authorities, our police and prosecutors, have in convicting money launderers. The commission heard stories of people going into casinos with hockey bags full of $20 bills as dirty money, and that money coming out washed and clean. This must stop.
These are the proceeds of crime in our communities. These are the proceeds of drug trafficking for substances such as fentanyl. They are the proceeds of human trafficking and of political corruption. When we look at what is happening across the globe from a geopolitical perspective, Russia's illegal war and invasion of Ukraine, and the political corruption and kleptocracy that goes on in some regimes, we know some of that money ends up here in Canada.
What we want to do, and what this bill proposes, is to make it easier for authorities to convict money launderers of this crime. We care about money laundering, of course, because it enables crime. We also care about it because it is expected that about $100 billion every year ends up being laundered in Canada, and much of it ends up in our real estate all across the country, which increases the demand for housing. When we increase the demand for something, we also increase the price.
Of course, the significant rise in housing prices is not related solely to money laundering. That is not what I am claiming here tonight, but it certainly does not help the situation. This increased real estate activity and demand for real estate in our major urban centres spills over into some smaller communities. As people are pushed out of major urban cores, they end up in beautiful rural parts of this country, just like Simcoe North.
In fact, the Bank of Montreal earlier this year singled out Orillia, which is in Simcoe North, as having a 300% increase in real estate prices for the average home over six years. That is a very difficult price increase to manage for local residents. It has been a challenge for renters and those trying to find housing in cities such as Orillia all across this country.
Our country has become a playground for global criminals to wash their dirty cash. Canada is even being promoted by criminals around the world as a safe haven for the proceeds of crime. That puts Canada on the map for all of the wrong reasons. The rest of the world has introduced some more stringent and stricter laws than Canada when it comes to money laundering, and that is why criminals are finding their way to Canada.
As the holes in the dike get plugged across the rest of the world, criminals will move their money to the jurisdictions with the weaker laws. Unfortunately, right now that happens to be Canada. At one point, we actually did lead the world with some laws pertaining to financial crimes, but we have unfortunately fallen behind, which means it puts us on the map for these criminals as a safe place to come and wash their money.
What can we do? These are complex, transnational organizations with links to organized crimes and corrupt political regimes. How do we make sure that they cannot use our lax systems to launder their money?
In a recent C.D. Howe intelligence memo, expert Kevin Comeau acknowledged the challenge with Canada's current laws. He wrote, “Under our present anti-money-laundering rules, financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses...are legally required to collect and verify the identity information of their clients.” Clients who provide false beneficial ownership information are often not caught when they lie about these representations. He also says, “The federal government can reduce these risks by enacting legislation attaching sanctions to false reports of beneficial ownership”. We need to give authorities the tools to make it easier to catch these criminals.
As a rookie MP, I wanted to bring forward an idea that I thought might have cross-partisan support. Money laundering, I am sure, will not have many people stand up in this House and advocate that we need to keep our laws weak. Money laundering affects us all. It is not a partisan issue, but it is one that we can all work together on.
The government, to its credit, has signalled progress on money laundering. It has actually moved up its commitment to introduce a beneficial ownership registry. That is very important. The original date was 2025. It moved that up and it is supposed to be enacted by the end of this year.
I must say that this beneficial ownership legislation is very important, but I am underlining that the beneficial ownership registry must be publicly available and it must be free of charge. It does not appear that this will initially be the case, but I hope that the government can keep this commitment. As many people in the House know and say, sunlight is, in fact, the best disinfectant.
This private member's bill, Bill C-289, is proposed to be complementary to beneficial ownership legislation, but it also stands alone. If, for some reason, the beneficial ownership legislation is delayed, or, for whatever reason, it is not brought forward and enacted this year, this private member's bill will be another tool for authorities to use to combat money laundering activity.
Additionally, penalties for lying about beneficial ownership or identity and money laundering activity should be met with criminal and not administrative penalties. We need criminal penalties for people who lie about the ownership structures of their accounts because of the harm that it does to society. These penalties must have teeth. Weak punishments will only be seen as a cost of doing business. That is how these money launderers, these sophisticated criminals, view weak punishments.
Do not take my work for it. Here are some thoughts of well-known stakeholders. Christian Leuprecht of the Macdonald Laurier Institute, a senior fellow, says, “After decades of turning a blind-eye, the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code is one of many steps Canada needs to show that it is actually serious about containing global financial crime.” James Cohen at Transparency International Canada says, “We are pleased to see the proposal of this bill that fits in with increasing attention and efforts in Canada to fight money laundering...a crucial tool in closing one of the many gaps that have been exploited by kleptocrats, tax cheats and their enablers.” Other supporters of this bill who have come forward include Publish What You Pay and Canadians for Tax Fairness.
I commit to working with members of all parties in the House on this bill. I am hoping to hear their constructive feedback. I do not quite care who gets the credit if we make significant progress affecting money launderers. I want to work with members of the House and the Senate to close other loopholes that money launderers rely on.
Some of the ideas that I plan to advance in the House also include a national commission on money laundering. I think it is important to follow the B.C. commission and bring forward a time-limited study with some concrete measures that the government can enact quickly in order to combat money laundering. There was enough evidence presented in the Cullen commission in B.C. that should give all of our legislators here in the House some cause for concern, and we must turn our mind to that on the national stage.
Additionally, the U.K. has brought in something called unexplained wealth orders, which I believe we should be considering here in the House. It would allow authorities to recover the proceeds of crime and identify assets that are purchased by criminals.
As well, there is a very simple change we could make to the Privacy Act where financial institutions could share information between themselves and the RCMP so that individuals who are identified as laundering large sums of cash cannot just walk across the street to another financial institution and continue their activity. These institutions often have significant data and intelligence on individuals or organizations who launder money. We need to make it easier for the institutions to speak to each other so that these criminals have a harder time getting access to financial products and accounts that allow them to launder their money.
In the few minutes left, I would like to thank some people.
I thank the parliamentary drafters. I think I scared them initially with some of my ideas, but we narrowed it very well. Ms. Lemaire did a fantastic job working with me and had a lot of patience with me as a rookie MP about the ideas, and I believe we landed at a great spot, an elegant spot.
I thank James Cohen from Transparency International Canada and Sasha Caldera from Publish What You Pay Canada. These individuals were with me at the very beginning talking about some ideas that we could bring forward to close money-laundering loopholes.
I thank Troy Cochrane from Canadians For Tax Fairness. Sam Cooper has been a relentless advocate on the money-laundering file for years. He was talking and writing about money laundering and uncovering financial crime. He is still doing that. He has written a book called Wilful Blindness, which I think all members of the House should consult. It gives us a small lens into a very dark world of money laundering.
I thank the Macdonald–Laurier Institute, which I mentioned earlier, as well as Kevin Comeau and others at the C.D. Howe Institute, Christian Leuprecht, whom I mentioned, Garry Clement, Jason Wadden, Tim Hyde, senators from all parties, frankly, and finally, my former director of parliamentary affairs, Ryan Ouderkirk, who is no longer in my office but left to pursue a legal education at my alma mater, Western University. He will make a fantastic lawyer. His help was instrumental in getting us to this place today. I want to thank him very much.
I thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for seconding this bill and speaking with me at length about it. I very much appreciate the veteran parliamentarian for imparting some wisdom to a rookie, and not just for his help on this bill but in general. I have been very lucky to have him as a mentor.
I will close by saying that I look forward to constructive feedback on this bill and a commitment from all members in the House to take a simple yet necessary step to close a loophole to combat money laundering. Today is the day when we can say no to global criminals who see Canada as a safe haven to launder their dirty cash.
2057 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:36:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to the hon. member and I look forward to the day when I can stand in this House and respond in the member's first language of French. I hope to be able to do that by the time I leave this place.
It is very important for all Canadians to recognize that we have become very polarized in the media. My hon. colleague brought up the media. We can choose which views to insulate ourselves with, but I think it is important for all of us to keep an open mind. At the end of the day, the question is whether the government is justified in using and bringing down the awesome power of the state when perhaps it was possible to use other means. We saw resolutions at other border crossings that had been blocked without the use of the Emergencies Act, and I think the question we must ask ourselves is whether this response is proportional. Is the punishment proportional?
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:24:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is discomforting to stand here today. It is a sad and dark time for our country. Unfortunately, this does not overstate current events.
I have watched with concern the lawlessness paralyzing Ottawa and key border crossings in Ontario and other provinces. Never before has the Emergencies Act been invoked. It has sat on the shelf during some quite challenging moments in our country.
Viewed as a last resort, this act gives the federal government enhanced powers in times of crisis. Its justification and intricacies of procedures are being worked through the House for the first time. There is no precedent. Instead, we are making precedent. The arguments we make, the evidence we evaluate and the tone we take will be judged by future generations.
Everyone has the right to peacefully protest any government policies. This is a fundamental freedom in a democracy. It protects the rights of individuals to express their views, even when those views are not shared by everyone. While these protests are a fundamental part of democracy, so too is the rule of law. We cannot allow prolonged blockades or barriers that paralyze trade corridors, pipelines, railways, supply routes, ports or urban cores at any time. We are not at liberty to decide which laws should apply in some situations but not others.
In a rule-of-law country, consistency matters. It is the foundation upon which legal precedent is built. People who join protests to encourage violence or the overthrow of government undermine democracy, but let us be very clear. Not everyone who has participated in these protests is looking to overthrow the government. Many are looking just to be heard, peacefully. To them I say that we hear them. I hear them.
Somewhere along the way, we entered a state of lawlessness, but the answer to lawlessness cannot be more lawlessness. The government is asking us to suspend certain laws to deal with those breaking others. We are being asked to undermine democratic principles to address some who wish to see democracy itself undermined.
The threshold for invoking the act is supposed to be high, and quite rightly. This is a temporary law that will give the government awesome and extraordinary powers: powers to freeze assets with no recourse, and to compel citizens to act contrary to their own interests in favour of the state's.
In the House, just days ago, the Prime Minister presented a timeline. He held a cabinet meeting on Sunday and a caucus meeting on Monday, followed by a meeting with premiers and finally a press conference on Monday afternoon. Why did it take days for the Prime Minister to address the House, and what evidence has he presented?
It is difficult to determine whether the government is justified without adequate information. There were no briefings. No secret intelligence has been shared. Whether it is incompetence or malfeasance is truly regrettable.
Why was the committee not struck immediately? Is there evidence pointing to significantly compromised public safety or impending danger? Should that not have been made immediately available to members, or at least a subset representing all parties? If we wanted to take the politics out of this, information would have been made immediately available. Otherwise, a conclusion might be that this was politics.
Why do ministers of the Crown opt first to give details to media before the House? Ministers have held press conferences and conducted interviews implying that terrorists are at the steps of Parliament, but have offered the House no evidence. Is it then surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our public institutions? Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister and the government have shown the House and institution little respect.
After all, at the beginning of the pandemic, the government proposed giving itself unlimited spending powers for almost two years without the oversight of Parliament. The same government prorogued Parliament to frustrate a committee investigation. To this day, we still have not seen the Winnipeg lab documents that members of the House have asked the government to provide. Forgive me for being skeptical that this move is justified without seeing the evidence.
We must not understate the impact of the ability for individuals to have their bank accounts frozen. This will not just be a 30-day impact. It could affect their ability to receive financial services for 30 years or more. Individuals whose relationship with the state has already been strained, if not completely severed, will be further ostracized from broader society.
This power must be used sparingly, if at all, and the government has provided very little detail on how it intends to use this power. For example, what is the process through which individuals will be identified? Will these powers be confined to protest organizers, or will they apply to anyone who has shown up to Parliament Hill or donated to the cause, no matter how large or small the amount? What recourse, if any, do individuals have against financial institutions if these powers have been mistakenly or unevenly applied?
These powers are not merely incidental. They should not be dismissed, downplayed or underestimated. I approach every decision with an open mind, but the consequences for individuals are too great, and the precedent this sets is too monumental to waive away legitimate questions or concerns. We are setting a dangerous precedent.
We should be very careful before we use the awesome power of the state. That this moment is the seminal moment upon which we would decide to invoke a never-before-used act seems disproportional, when there are other actions that the government could have taken.
We should be very careful about normalizing the use of a blunt tool in circumstances such as these. If we must consider using the Emergencies Act every time there's a protest that lasts over a certain period of time, we have much bigger problems. In many ways, that the government has resorted to invoking this act is an indictment of its overall handling of the situation.
I am therefore left with no reason but to impress upon my colleagues that the threshold has not been met, and as a matter of law, If I am wrong, the threshold has been seen to be met by a court that the government is not justified in its use of the act.
While the Emergencies Act is the question before the House today, we should reflect on what has led us here and the lessons we may draw for the future. The hallmark of any democracy is the ability to have reasonable debates with each other about how society functions, but somewhere along the way, we have lost the ability to listen to each other or to consider the perspectives of our neighbours. We are too quick to call something black or white and too quick to demand that each other pick a side. Pro or against, right or left, we leave little room for nuance, reflection or compromise anymore. It should be okay to disagree.
I am sympathetic to those who are frustrated with the pandemic and the government's response. Many of us are frustrated. We are frustrated with overly punitive travel restrictions and redundant and confusing testing requirements, and we are worried about losing livelihoods because of making a medical decision.
We have seen rules that seem more often grounded in politics than in science. This has left deep divisions in society that will take some time to heal. It has been a long two years, and there are no clean hands in this battle of rhetoric.
It is therefore up to all of us to be part of the solution. I am left to consider whether I could have been quicker to call out abhorrent behaviour, or how I could have shown greater empathy to my neighbours. What can I do now to be a positive actor inside and outside of the House?
The tone must start from the top. The Prime Minister must be hopeful, because Canadians need to see a hopeful way ahead. Continued hyperpoliticization will only make the situation worse. It is not leadership when a prime minister discounts and dismisses the views of millions of Canadians with whom he disagrees. It stigmatizes, sows division and escalates.
We must show empathy over judgment, promote dialogue over silence and prefer persuasion over coercion. We must be looking for opportunities to de-escalate. We need to bring people closer instead of pushing them further away.
Great leaders possess the capability of self-reflection. We must acknowledge the possibility that people descended on our nation's capital, or crowded overpasses across the country, in part because of their frustration with being demeaned and marginalized for political gain. It suggests that self-reflection is required.
In 2013, the Prime Minister, as the leader of the opposition, said, “The role of the prime minister is to build a stronger country, not make it easier to break apart.” This is a time for leadership. This is the prime minister I would like to see show up for work. Canadians are depending on him.
1522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
