- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the Bloc Québécois
- Bloc Québécois
- Saint-Jean
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,900.56
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, like my colleagues, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-289. I think my colleagues beat me to the punch, but I will say again that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑289 at second reading. For one thing, we want to be able to suggest amendments and improvements when it goes to committee and perhaps cast the net a little wider, so to speak, in terms of the bill's scope. I will come back to this a little later.
What is the context surrounding Bill C‑289?
The reality is that money laundering is unfortunately reaching alarming levels in Canada. Several institutions have conducted analyses and reached that conclusion. It is estimated that approximately $100 billion is being laundered, and it is often the proceeds of drug trafficking and human trafficking. That is $100 billion that comes into Canada every year to be laundered, to enter the legitimate economy and to disappear. That is the principle of money laundering.
This has repercussions on the local population, on everyday people who, for example, live in places with a very low vacancy rate and where people are trying to become property owners. As we know, real estate is used as a way of laundering money by buying different buildings through nominees, which puts upward pressure on the price of housing. This has an adverse effect on everyone.
We also know that, unfortunately, Canada does not have a particularly good record when it comes to anti-money laundering legislation. Canada is at the back of the pack internationally. Our laws are relatively limited and rather lenient, and they do not make it easy to go after offenders and money launderers. That is basically what Bill C‑289 tries to do. It is not going to fix the whole problem in one fell swoop, but at least it is a step in the right direction. It may help stimulate the debate on what more could be done beyond what Bill C‑289 proposes.
It is always fun to read what is in the bill. This one is relatively short. I will just read the main clause, which is actually the only clause. It would add subsection 462.311(1) to the Criminal Code. As an aside, so many new sections have been added to the Criminal Code over the years that it might be time for consolidation. That is for my criminal law colleagues to say.
The addition reads as follows:
Everyone commits an offense who knowingly makes a false or misleading statement or knowingly provides false or misleading information, including by omission, whether directly or indirectly—
This casts a pretty wide net for what constitutes a lie. It goes on to say:
—to a person or entity referred to in section 5 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act respecting the identity of a person or entity to be verified under section 6.1 of that Act, including with respect to the ownership, control or structure of the entity.
Who are we referring to when we talk about section 5? Who are these people who have an obligation to verify identity? We are referring to pretty much every existing entity that deals with money transfers. We are talking about banks, both local and foreign. The list set out in section 5 is very long, so I will not go through the whole thing. I will just do a quick overview. We are talking about banks, cooperative credit societies, savings and credit unions, caisses populaires, life insurance companies, trust companies regulated by a provincial act, loan companies, companies that provide portfolio management services, companies dealing with foreign exchange, and even those dealing in virtual currencies. If money is being transferred somewhere, the entity that takes care of it has an obligation to verify the sender's identity. The problem is that there are absolutely no sanctions for providing false information.
Bill C-289 remedies that. It adds an obligation to provide truthful information or face one of two fines, depending on whether the person is found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction or an indictable offence. The penalty for an indictable offence is a fine of up to $1 million and up to 10 years in prison. The penalty for an offence punishable by summary conviction is a fine of up to $10,000 and a maximum prison sentence of two years less a day.
There are some good things in this legislation. One aim of the bill is to discourage the use of nominees. Currently, there is absolutely no penalty for a person who is used as a nominee for the purpose of money laundering. The new obligation would provide authorities with additional tools so they can secure convictions for money laundering activities. The bill does not limit itself to the obligations of financial institutions. It seeks to ensure that there are penalties for false statements.
We also want to give authorities a little more flexibility to use the threat of conviction. That is the deterrent effect. This would allow authorities to gather information on large-scale money laundering cases and perhaps catch criminals with a lot more money than the small-time money launderer at the local pizza parlour, for example.
It also sets the stage for other steps that could be taken in the future, such as introducing a beneficial ownership registry that would require corporations governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act to disclose the identity of their actual owner. We hope legislation to that effect will be introduced in the House sooner rather than later.
I want to go back to the responsibilities of the financial entities that I mentioned, which are named in section 6.1 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
Pursuant to section 7, these entities are responsible for the following:
Subject to section 10.1, every person or entity referred to in section 5 shall, in accordance with the regulations, report to the Centre every financial transaction that occurs or that is attempted in the course of their activities and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to suspect that
(a) the transaction is related to the commission or the attempted commission of a money laundering offence; or
(b) the transaction is related to the commission or the attempted commission of a terrorist activity financing offence.
There has been a lot of talk lately about Chinese interference. In this context, it seems to me that there is one thing that could, at the very least, be discussed by the committee that will be studying the bill, and that is the use of money that is not necessarily the proceeds of criminal or terrorist activities, but that is earmarked for an election campaign, for example.
I am wondering if certain witnesses would suggest that we add, not to the current bill but to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, a paragraph (c) to section 7 to cover the conveyance of money with a view to making an illegal donation under the Canada Elections Act. That could be one approach.
There may also be a way, through Bill C‑289, to make changes in order to make it an offence to lie about a donation to a political entity and the origin of the money that was used. This may be an idea to consider, given what is currently happening in the news. We are always a bit behind the news when we are in the House of Commons, but in this case, it may be a good idea not to lag too far behind. We might need to jump at the opportunity, at the fact that a bill is being studied, to invite witnesses who could outline a more forward-thinking vision of what could be done in terms of sanctions for making false statements about campaign donations.
In closing, I want to reiterate that we will support Bill C‑289 and there is still a long road ahead, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
1384 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada also revealed that one of the three sectors where French in the workplace is declining the most is the finance and insurance sector. That means banks, which are under federal jurisdiction.
Let me repeat that. Banks, which are under federal jurisdiction, are among the main architects of the decline of the French language. Bill C‑13 allows them to continue to circumvent the Charter of the French Language. Bill C‑13 does not protect French in Quebec; it protects the banks, which want to operate in English.
What is the minister's mandate? Is it to protect the banks or to protect the French language?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 9:11:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.
I want to correct the record. I think I said that Ukraine had a $35‑billion deficit, but what I should have said was that 35% of the country's economy is shut down, resulting in $5 billion in losses every month.
My colleague spoke about sanctions. Many people are calling for the money that was seized from oligarchs to be used to help Ukraine. Canada announced that it had put several oligarchs on the list, but no one knows where the money is. The RCMP claimed not to know whether it was supposed to follow up and said it was relying on the banks to check whether the money had been frozen.
Did someone drop the ball here, costing us a golden opportunity to help Ukraine?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
