Bill C-289

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity verification)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence for any person to knowingly make a false or misleading statement or to knowingly provide false or misleading information, including by omission, to a person or entity listed in section 5 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act with respect to the verification of the identity of a person or entity under that Act.

Criminal Code

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

moved that Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity verification), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member has presented the legislation and his willingness to be open.

No doubt, we as a society have to come to grips with the issues of our money supply, the laundering that does take place, and to a fairly wide spectrum of issues in between. We also need to recognize that it is very much a global issue. The member made reference to that in the last few words of his speech. It is important that, as a nation, we work together with other like-minded nations to deal with the issue of money laundering. I wonder if the member could provide more insight on that specific issue.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right. On many things we may disagree, but on this one we agree. It is important that the global community work together to combat money laundering. Unfortunately, in the last number of years, Canada has not kept up pace with other jurisdictions that have enacted more serious penalties and crimes and other regimes. I referenced the U.K. in my speech about unexplained wealth orders. There are a number of steps we could take. This is but one small step, and many other countries have done much more.

I am hoping this is a positive first step that will support the government's objectives, including the beneficial ownership, which many other countries already have and Canada still does not have. Yes, we need to coordinate globally, but this is a small step forward that I believe gets us to a better place.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with care to the member's introduction of his bill, and I guess I have a fundamental question about the bill. There are lots of very robust measures that have been suggested for tackling money laundering, and it seems to me that all this bill does is take something that is an administrative penalty now and make it a criminal penalty. It seems like a very small measure given the very robust recommendations we have had from the Cullen commission about the things we need to do to combat money laundering.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I had the benefit of being in government and significant legislative resources to bring forward additional measures, I most certainly would have done so, but the truth is there actually is not an administrative penalty for it right now. The beneficial ownership registry does not exist today, so this is a criminal penalty for those who lie about their identity or the corporate ownership structure of the name under which they are opening an account.

We need a serious penalty for a serious crime, and it needs to be criminal and not administrative. That is what we will see in the beneficial ownership registry. We need a criminal penalty for this, and we must take a step to say no to global criminals.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, coming from the banking world, I have to say there are security measures in the financial institutions to watch for money laundering. I remember it very clearly.

The thing I would like some clarification on and would like the hon. member to explain is that in the banking system one bank cannot speak to the other bank, even though we know there are illegal transactions going on. Can we enhance that, so they have the ability to speak to one another?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the member in my question, I appreciate the manner in which the member has presented his private member's bill and his openness to hearing what other members have to say on what is a very important issue.

Money laundering and the false information that is out there have very significant impacts and ramifications, not only here in Canada but around the world. When we think of some of those ramifications, we can talk about the speculation on the costs of housing, which I think a lot of people can appreciate. We can talk about issues such as the financing and funding of terrorist acts that take place around the world. The amount of harm that is caused as a direct result of money laundering is virtually unlimited.

One of the things we need to take into consideration is actions that have already been taken, because there have been some substantial actions that have been taken. The member, for example, just made reference to the ownership registry, and I think having an ownership registry that is publicly searchable is something that is absolutely critical. Within the budget we have made movement toward that, but I would recognize that the Canada Business Corporations Act is something that is going to have to ultimately be changed. In making those modifications, one of the things we need to do as a government is to work with provincial entities to gain some support in taking some of the necessary actions to ensure the ownership registry the member talked about materializes in a way that is as effective as possible.

I recognize the member makes reference to that, and that is a very important aspect. It is something that we have referenced in budget 2022, and we did not stop there. In terms of the importance of our financial markets, and here I talk about money supply and so forth, we have to take into consideration institutions such as FINTRAC. FINTRAC is there to protect the interests of Canadians. It is very close to, if it has not already, establishing a financial intelligence unit, and there was a commitment from the federal budget of just under $90 million to support and advance that.

FINTRAC has an incredible record, and there are ways we can use FINTRAC's record to assist in dealing with and broadening the ways it can possibly help out on money laundering issues and the issues related to false information, which are actually quite rampant. It is something that is not just unique to Canada. It is becoming a larger issue from a global perspective. That is why I posed the question to the member in regard to Canada's role in advocating for global leadership, because in many ways the best way to tackle it, at least in good part, is to get like-minded countries working together.

I know the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance is very much concerned about that issue and does make efforts to try to ensure there is more of a global approach to dealing with money laundering. We have actually taken steps to establish a new Canada financial crimes agency within the budget, and again it is a move to try to address the issue right up front in a very direct way, which I think people can really appreciate.

When we talk about legislative reviews that are necessary, we have made a commitment to look at how money has been digitized. That is such a critical issue. We heard the leader of the Conservative Party talk about cryptocurrency. Members will recall his commitment to cryptocurrency. I wonder to what degree the leader of the Conservative Party actually took into consideration the possibility of laundering taking place in that digital atmosphere.

Digital money and the markets it is getting into continue to expand, so as a government we have made a commitment to move forward on that issue. The coming of the Internet and the things that take place digitally have expanded more than a hundredfold over the years. The manner in which large sums of money travel the world is quite significant and is having an impact in many different ways on our currency and on issues such as money laundering. It is one of the reasons that legislative review is in fact being taken into consideration.

There is a combination of actions the government has put in place, just from the 2022 budget, and I would encourage the member opposite to maybe meet with representatives, different possible ministers, who all contributed to the budget in dealing with an issue he obviously is very much concerned with.

I would suggest this is not the first budget in which the Government of Canada has expressed an interest in ensuring we are doing whatever we can on the issue of money laundering or people trying to avoid paying their fair share. We have had at least two budgets I can think of offhand in which there was a commitment of literally hundreds of millions of dollars. A commitment was made to have CRA look at ways in which people or corporations are using loopholes and other mechanisms to avoid paying taxes. That is something the government takes very seriously.

When we talk about the issue of laundering, it is important that it is more than one department and more than just one level of government that is ultimately responsible. It even goes beyond Canadian borders. What we have seen over the last number of years is a government that is taking a strong leadership role. It has, in fact, worked with the provinces and looked at what is happening.

In particular, let us look at British Columbia or what is taking place in Toronto and other communities, and the role casinos, for example, might be playing. We understand the depth, at least in good part, of the problem, and our budgetary actions have reflected that understanding.

I suspect that as we continue to move forward in the weeks, months and years ahead, we will see more action from the government in addressing this problem. We can understand and appreciate that it is an issue that is there that affects us all, and we will continue to move forward on it.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑289, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Simcoe North.

I will start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑289, which will amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to give false or misleading information to a financial institution requesting that information in accordance with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Right now, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act asks financial institutions to verify their clients' true identity and the source of funds under certain circumstances. Financial institutions must also report transactions they deem suspicious to the government, so the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, can carry out the necessary verifications, prevent laundering of the proceeds of illegal activities and prevent such funds from being used to finance illegal activities, such as terrorism.

The problem is that we know from experience that there is a serious lack of rigour and very little vigilance, at all levels, in the tracking of dirty money. If a bank's client makes a false statement, it is very likely that they will get away with it. There is minimal verification. Since the act of intentionally making a false or incomplete statement is not criminally sanctioned at present, this client has every chance of falling through the cracks. This leaves FINTRAC with incomplete information, and its work becomes less effective. This is how the chain of negligence results in dirty money being laundered in the real economy.

This is a flaw that Bill C-289 will correct. It will not fix everything, of course, but it is another step in the right direction to better uncover money laundering activities.

In May 2022, the Consulate General of Italy in Montreal organized an event to mark the 30th anniversary of “operation clean hands”, a vast anti-mafia and anti-money laundering operation during which, let us not forget, two judges were murdered. Retired Italian judge Roberto Scarpinato came to Montreal to give us a warning. He told us that Canada had become a paradise for the mafia and money laundering and that we as a society had to do something. He encouraged us to develop what he called “antibodies”, to stop being naive, to be more vigilant and not be afraid to enforce our laws to the fullest extent, because money laundering is a scourge in Canada and in Quebec.

According to Transparency International, the amount of money laundered annually in Canada could be between $43 billion and $113 billion. This means that up to $113 billion a year in proceeds of crime, from both here and abroad, is being reintroduced into our economy, allowing criminals to reap the benefits of their crime with impunity and causing economic distortions, such as skyrocketing real estate prices.

British Columbia launched a commission of inquiry into money laundering, the Cullen commission. The Cullen commission may be the most comprehensive effort ever made to understand the phenomenon of money laundering in Canada, its effects, its causes and the best ways to prevent it in future. It submitted its report in June after more than two years of work and hundreds of witness testimonies. The report points the finger at the RCMP and FINTRAC for not taking money laundering seriously enough. It excoriates the banks for looking the other way. In fact, it accuses pretty much everyone of negligence. It also provides examples of what money laundering looks like.

Take the case of Runkai Chen, a Chinese immigrant who arrived in Vancouver in 2006. While reporting an income of about $40,000 a year, he built a real estate empire worth tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Chen was a front man tasked with laundering in Canada the proceeds of corruption in China. He regularly received large transfers from foreign numbered bank accounts and reinvested the money in Canadian real estate.

He made false statements to financial institutions here that, unfortunately, were no longer asking the questions they were supposed to ask. Not one major Canadian bank raised a red flag, not RBC, not CIBC, not the Bank of Montreal. In the end, it was a foreign financial institution that alerted FINTRAC and led to his downfall. That is the type of across-the-board negligence that Judge Scarpinato was referring to when he spoke about the need to develop “antibodies”.

We actually already have a lot of the legal arsenal needed to deal with this problem. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act is a powerful tool. Banks are required to verify the identity of their clients and where the money is coming from. They have the power to freeze funds they deem to be suspicious. They are required to report suspicious transactions, large cash deposits, and international transfers if they have difficulty determining where the money actually came from. All of these requirements exist, but unfortunately, most of them rely heavily on the client acting in good faith and the financial institution being vigilance.

When the government decided to invoke the Emergencies Act in what we believe, need I repeat, was an unjust manner, the Standing Committee on Finance held hearings on the financial aspect of the orders that were made following the emergency proclamation. At these hearings, representatives of the Department of Finance could not say whether the funds frozen by the financial institution had been frozen under the Emergencies Act or under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the law that we are discussing today and that Bill C-289 seeks to strengthen.

From the moment the occupation of downtown Ottawa was declared illegal, the financial transfers used to fund it fell within the scope of these laws. All that was required was vigilance. There was no need to invoke the Emergencies Act. It would have been sufficient to enforce the existing laws, namely the Criminal Code and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

By forcing clients to make true and complete statements to the banks or face criminal penalties, Bill C‑289 addresses the first step, which is to verify the identity of the client and the source of the funds. This could start off a virtuous cycle rather than a vicious one, as the financial institutions themselves would be more diligent about checking. Government organizations would be better informed and more likely to co‑operate with their counterparts abroad. In short, it would help us begin to develop the antibodies needed to seriously address the scourge of money laundering.

That is why I am pleased to reiterate that we will support Bill C‑289.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to rise tonight to talk about money laundering, as this is a multi-billion dollar industry in Canada. We require serious legislative and enforcement measures if we are to curb its role in facilitating other types of criminal activity and prevent money laundering from contributing to higher housing prices due to its sheer volume and the frequent use of real estate as a way to launder proceeds of crime.

I have to say that over the past decade, both the current Liberal government and the Conservative government before it have failed to devote adequate resources to the fight against the increase in money laundering and its increasing sophistication. This is becoming an increasing challenge with technological change and with the emergence of cryptocurrencies, which are quite often used for obscuring the sources of funds.

I do not wish tonight to question the motives of the member for Simcoe North for putting forward this particular bill on money laundering—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. There are no questions and comments, so there should not be any loud discussions or heckling.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke can continue.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not questioning the motives of the member for Simcoe North, but I worry that the impact of putting forward such a narrow bill as Bill C-289 only makes it appear like the House of Commons, particularly the Conservatives, want to crack down on money laundering, when in fact this bill would make little or no contribution to the actual fight against money laundering.

The Cullen report on money laundering in B.C., made public last June, made literally dozens of recommendations for effective measures to fight money laundering, but creating a separate criminal offence for providing false or misleading information in money laundering investigations was not one of them.

New Democrats will be opposing this bill because a serious problem like money laundering requires a much more serious and robust action than the one small and probably redundant measure suggested in Bill C-289. I will continue to question why we are here talking about this narrow and probably redundant bill instead of talking about more robust measures to fight money laundering, such as those suggested in the Cullen report.

It is also important to note that the Cullen commission report clearly states that it was the Harper government that made a very significant contribution to the explosion of money laundering in Canada when its 2012 cutbacks to the RCMP caused the closing down of the integrated proceeds of crime units, which it had been operating in each province from 1990 to 2012.

Let me quote the Cullen report directly here. It states, “The RCMP's lack of attention to money laundering has allowed the unchecked growth of money laundering since...2012.” A cynic might even wonder if this Conservative private member's bill on money laundering might have been put forward as a distraction from the role the Harper Conservative government played in allowing the explosion of money laundering through its cutbacks in 2012.

The current Liberal government does not escape criticism either. The Cullen commission reports condemns the current federal anti-money laundering legislation and enforcement in simply one word, ineffective. I will cite just one piece of evidence of how ineffective the current federal efforts are.

In 2019-20, FINTRAC received over 31 million individual reports of suspicious financial transactions, yet it transferred only 2,057 of those reports to law enforcement agencies. When we compare the efforts of other jurisdictions, we find that they have many more reports. If we compare it to the United States, we get about 12 times as many reports of suspicious transactions, but when it comes to actual prosecutions as a result of those reports, we are in the tiny percentages.

The Cullen report did note that there was some progress in British Columbia starting in 2015 when David Eby became the B.C. attorney general. The previous government had very clear warnings from law enforcement and regulators that money laundering had become a massive industry in B.C., especially at casinos. A key change was finally introduced in 2018 by Attorney General Eby. It implemented a provision requiring casino patrons to present proof that the cash used in transactions of $10,000 or more came from legitimate sources, and there was an immediate drop in the amount of transactions over $10,000 in those casinos.

While the Cullen commission report and study were really focused on British Columbia, it still made six major suggestions for improving the federal response to money laundering. I will talk for just a minute about each one of those, and they are: unexplained wealth orders; corporate beneficial ownership registry; a program to fight trade-based money laundering; better and more frequent scrutiny of money service businesses; the requirement for better reporting by chartered professional accountants; and, finally, better regulation of the mortgage industry.

All of those are not things that we normally talk about in our daily lives, so let me talk for a minute about unexplained wealth orders, which has been used very successfully in the United Kingdom. This is where either FINTRAC, or possibly the Canada Revenue Agency, would be given the power to go to court where criminal activity is suspected and require those suspected to produce information about where the money used to purchase assets has come from, was the source of funds was to purchase, for instance, real estate. If it cannot be explained and proven that it came from legal sources, then the court can order that property forfeited to the government. This is essentially what happens in British Columbia through the civil forfeiture process. That is a power we do not have. It is one I would like to see us talking about here tonight, rather than this narrow bill.

The second major recommendation is for a corporate beneficial owner registry. What does that mean in common language? We have numbered corporations, which means we cannot figure out who actually owns them and we cannot figure out their links to other corporations that take place in the darkness of those numbered corporations.

We are told now that legislation is coming. I am interested to hear the Conservatives say that they are now in favour of public access to a corporate beneficial ownership registry, but I have to say that in 2018, when New Democrats put forward this kind of idea, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives were enthusiastic about proceeding with this. This is a recommendation that has already been made in the fisheries and oceans committee as a way of getting at another problem on the west coast in British Columbia, and that is the problem of not being able to find out who actually owns fishing licences because a great number of them are numbered corporations. I am happy that we appear to have a consensus growing here that we need such a corporate beneficial ownership registry. I would like to see the government come forward very soon with legislation to implement that proposal.

The Cullen commission also pointed out that probably one of the largest sources of money laundering goes completely unmonitored in this country, and that is what is called trade-based money laundering. If I understand it, it is pretty simple. People who make money from illegal criminal activities order and purchase goods from abroad which either do not exist or are not valued at the amount they are paying. That money goes to a company they own offshore and then comes back as clean money as a result of selling products into Canada. Nobody is monitoring this, nobody at all.

The Cullen commission said very clearly that the federal government should set up a program that would combat trade-based money laundering and the power to share information with other governments about suspicious trade transactions, which apparently are simply money laundering. That is another good thing we could be talking about tonight instead of this very narrow bill.

I will briefly name the problem with chartered professional accountants, which is that in a five-year period, only one chartered professional accountant was ever prosecuted for participating in money laundering. I would like people to raise their hands if they think that only happened once in five years in Canada. The Cullen commission pointed out that we need better reporting regulations for chartered professional accountants and we need better monitoring of their activities. It is not casting aspersions on all CPAs. It is saying that the lack of monitoring allows for those who are unscrupulous to take advantage of that and get involved in money laundering.

The fifth one of those is better and more frequent scrutiny of what are called money service businesses. That is where money is transferred back and forth abroad or back and forth around the country. There is a peculiar regulation that allows most of those businesses to avoid scrutiny from FINTRAC by changing their names and reconstituting themselves every two years. The final one is better regulation of the mortgage industry.

Let me close by repeating what I said. Money laundering is a very serious problem and we need serious measures, both in terms of legislation and enforcement, to crack down on money laundering. I do not believe that Bill C-289 is one of those measures. I do not think it makes a major contribution. However, both the Liberal and Conservative governments before and both Liberal and Conservative government policies before have prevented us from taking the actions we need to take on money laundering on a serious basis.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to engage in this debate and to support this bill from my colleague, the member for Simcoe North. My colleague suggested that he is a rookie, but I think a lot of us know that he is one of the rising stars here on the Conservative side. He has brought forward a bill that is perhaps the first step in addressing the issue of money laundering. For me as a British Columbian and a member of Parliament from the west coast, it is especially important, because this is an issue that has now been thoroughly canvassed by the Cullen commission. I will get into that in a moment.

Money laundering is a very serious problem that deserves our serious attention. The amount of money that is laundered is in the many billions of dollars. Perhaps $100 billion a year is being laundered through casinos and real estate. It has a huge impact on Canadians. It has a huge impact on our prosperity and our lifestyles.

Money laundering is, at its very core, criminal. It is an activity firmly rooted in greed that has a complete disregard for the interests of others. Money laundering is deeply destructive to our communities and our families, and is thoroughly implicated in things like gun smuggling, drug trafficking and human trafficking. It goes on and on. Who suffers the most from money laundering? It is our communities and the most vulnerable members of our society, particularly those with addictions, mental health challenges and gambling addictions.

Money laundering is also implicated in much of the gun and gang violence we see across the country, including in my community of Abbotsford. It is an affront to every law-abiding citizen who earns their money honestly, pays their taxes and invests in their communities. It is essential that all of us, whether it is government, law enforcement or regulators, take strong and decisive action to fight this problem.

I mentioned that money laundering is an expensive business for Canadians. Billions of dollars are not being declared and are not being taxed, but are going into criminal activity. There is very little that has been done to address this problem so far.

A significant amount of money that is laundered ends up in our real estate market. I do not know if members understand that, or if Canadians understand that money laundering plays a significant role in the skyrocketing cost of real estate. It is not the only factor but it is one significant factor.

What happens is that these laundered funds end up in real estate and distort real estate prices, especially real estate prices close to major urban markets. Residents then have to seek lower housing costs by moving away from larger cities to communities such as Abbotsford, which in turn strains local real estate markets. Laundering money in Canada is therefore not a benign activity.

What are we supposed to do about it? So far, money laundering has not been addressed in a comprehensive way. The Cullen commission in British Columbia led to a damning report that concluded that billions of dollars per year were being laundered, and that was just in the province of B.C. alone. It called for sweeping changes. The commission found that this dirty money has been laundered through real estate, casinos and the purchase of luxury goods, for example, and Mr. Cullen made 101 recommendations.

To answer my colleague from the NDP, the soft-on-crime NDP, who said this bill is too narrow and too minor to support, I have never heard that argument made in the House before. I have never heard that a significant, narrow Criminal Code amendment could be too minor to support. Had my colleague from Simcoe North broadened this legislation, the NDP would not have supported it; we know that. The NDP is soft on crime. Canadians understand that.

The other thing is that we here on the Conservative side are the official opposition. We are not government. We are not the ones who are supposed to be bringing forward big bills to address the rising crime rate in Canada, especially when it comes to money laundering. That is the role of the Liberal government, which is being propped up by the NDP, who will not bring forward this kind of law or anything close to substantially addressing the issue of money laundering in Canada.

Let us talk about the recommendations the Cullen Commission made. Most of these recommendations are actually directed at the Province of British Columbia. When my NDP colleague says there are all these recommendations and this is not one of them, I can say that my colleague from Simcoe North did his research and his homework.

The bill before us, where individuals who lie to reporting authorities and organizations can go to jail for up to 10 years and can be fined a million dollars, is a big step. It is not a minor step. It is not a narrow step. It is a big step in the right direction. When I said, at the beginning of my remarks, that this is a step, someone has to take the first step. It is usually up to Conservatives to do that and that is what we are doing.

I am really saddened to see that the NDP has decided not to support the legislation. It is not about its merits. It is because it is too narrow. The NDP thinks it is too insignificant so it is going to push it aside and vote no. Canadians have to understand the perspective that the NDP comes from when it comes to addressing crime in Canada.

What are these recommendations that Justice Cullen made? There was a suggestion that there should be a dedicated provincial money laundering intelligence and investigation unit. It said the government should develop anti-money laundering guidance for financial institutions and the money service businesses that are often implicated in money laundering.

He recommended that a corporate beneficial ownership registry should be established, and we see that the Liberal government has now included that beneficial ownership registry in its budget. Has it been implemented, this public beneficial ownership registry? No. In fact, it said it will get it done by the end of 2023. Quite frankly, we could have an election by then. We all know that. By the end of 2023, we could have an election because the marriage between the NDP and the Liberals will likely break up before then. We will be in the middle of divorce proceedings between the two.

Another recommendation is that cryptocurrencies should be regulated because this is the next frontier in which money laundering will take place, if it is not taking place already. There was a recommendation that the threshold for requiring proof of the source of funds for casino transactions conducted in cash should be reduced. There is the suggestion that all cash transactions for the purchase and sale of luxury goods over $10,000 should be reported. There was also a suggestion that professional bodies like lawyers and accountants should be regulated more strictly.

These 101 recommendations, many of which were directed at the Province of British Columbia, provide us with a lot of fodder, a lot of support. At the end of the day, actually having some penalties, like prison time or massive fines, for those who lie to reporting authorities is a good step forward.

I thank my colleague from Simcoe North for bringing forward this very important bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders).

Mr. Speaker, I am heartened to see that the Minister of Public Safety is in the House to hear the first reading of this—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind hon. members that they cannot refer to the presence of other members in the House. I just thought I would mention that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am heartened that the Minister of Public Safety is paying attention.

I am truly honoured and humbled to rise in the House to introduce this bill.

I thank my hon. friend and colleague from Chilliwack—Hope for seconding the bill.

Simply put, my bill will amend the Criminal Code to make assaults against health care workers an aggravating factor during sentencing.

If we have learned anything over the last couple of years, it is that true heroes do not wear capes. They wear shoulder flashes and badges that state they are a nurse, a paramedic, a firefighter, an EMT, an ambulance attendant or a mental health care worker. These are the people who keep our communities healthy and safe. They put our health and safety above and before their own. They are the ones who provide us with comfort and care in our time of need. They are our shelter in a storm. They bandage our cuts, mend our wounds and hold our hands when we draw our last breaths.

Unfortunately, our frontline heroes are facing unprecedented and growing rates of violence. They are being assaulted, belittled and are forced to confront a growing epidemic of violence against them. The statistics are alarming. Simply put, their workplaces are not safe: 61% of nurses reported a serious problem with violence over a recent 12-month period; two-thirds feared for their lives and considered leaving their jobs as a result; nearly half of all nurses, 46%, reported exposure to physical assault 11 or more times; and 84% of pre-hospital paramedic and firefighters globally experienced workplace violence. A recent internal survey by the Peel Region Paramedics Services found that 97.5% of medics experienced verbal abuse, 86% experienced intimidation and 80% were physically assaulted. We are failing them, and this must change.

This is the second time I have had the privilege of introducing this important and vital legislation. I have heard directly from so many frontline personnel about how the status quo is failing them. It is not just a kick when responding to a patient or a punch when changing an IV, but it is a systemic and constant threat of violence that has a ripple effect. It contributes to burnout, compassion fatigue, depression and PTSD.

We should be doing everything in our power to ensure health care professionals and first responders are able to perform their jobs safely and return home to their families. Everyone has the right to a safe, secure and respectful work environment. Violence should never be part of the job description.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity verification), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

I am pleased to join this debate on Bill C-289, an act that would amend the Criminal Code regarding identity verification, which was introduced by the member for Simcoe North on June 16, 2022. I want to congratulate the member and thank him for all his work.

Although this bill proposes only one change, it seeks to address an important and topical issue in Canada: combatting the serious crime of money laundering. The bill aims to discourage money laundering through the provision of false identity information to certain financial institutions and business professions. It would amend the Criminal Code to add an offence of knowingly providing false or misleading information to these regulated entities when they collect and verify the identity of their clients under the rules set out in the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Money laundering is a serious challenge faced by all countries. It compromises the integrity of the financial system and represents a threat to global safety and security. By its very nature as unlawful activity, the scale and scope of money laundering are difficult to measure. Nonetheless, a 2020 study entitled “Estimating money laundering flows with a gravity model-based simulation” estimated that $37.8 billion U.S. may be laundered annually in Canada, which represents over $50 billion Canadian.

As highlighted a moment ago, the bill proposes one change to address the provision of false information to regulated entities. It is important to consider that an entity responsible for verifying identification under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act may face significant administrative monetary penalties or criminal prosecution if it fails to carry out its regulatory requirements to identify and verify its clients.

Another important consideration in examining this bill is that there are already offences in the Criminal Code that address the activity and its target. The offence of uttering a forged document can apply when a person opens a bank account or purchases real estate for the purpose of money laundering and knowingly uses forged identification documents. The offence of fraud can only apply when a person provides false or misleading identification or other information to a real estate agent or other regulated entity and that entity faces economic loss as a result.

Of course, laundering the proceeds of crime itself is a criminal offence. That offence consists of any dealing in proceeds with the intent to conceal or convert those proceeds while knowing or being reckless as to whether all or part of the proceeds were derived from the commission of an offence. An important feature of the offences I mentioned is that they are broad in scope and can apply to a wide range of conduct.

We are aware that money launderers continually shift their methods and approaches to evade regulation and law enforcement. The final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia, known at the Cullen commission report, highlighted the nature of the problem of money laundering in that province in the casino, real estate and luxury goods sectors. It also considered less well known but equally serious aspects of the problem, such as trade-based money laundering, and it examined the fast-growing options for money launderers, including the use of cryptocurrencies, private exchanges and cryptocurrency ATMs.

Responses to the challenge of money laundering may be more effective if they are sufficiently flexible to respond to a variety of situations. New offences are likely to be more effective if they come from the numerous ancillary tools in the Criminal Code that are available to investigators and prosecutors. Relevant examples include the use of wiretaps in appropriate circumstances or the ability to rely on copies of stolen identity documents in a court proceeding so the originals can be returned to the rightful owner or destroyed, if appropriate.

Bill C-289 does not propose any amendments that would enable the use of these tools for the investigation or prosecution of the offence proposed in this bill. This undermines its effectiveness.

Money laundering can compromise the integrity of financial institutions, businesses across the economy and the investment climate. When states fail to take concerted and coordinated action, the risks are clearly significant. Rightly so, the government has made concerted efforts in recent years to address the risk of money laundering and has been active in international forums.

I am aware that it works to advance international anti-money laundering initiatives through the G7 and the G20, as well as the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, which is an international organization that facilitates co-operation and intelligence sharing between national financial intelligence units, and through its leadership role in the Financial Action Task Force, of which Canada was a founding member.

Not only that, but Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist fundraising measures are regularly reviewed by its peers through the FATF. I am pleased to have learned that, in October 2021, a follow-up review by this body placed Canada amongst the best-performing jurisdictions of the world. The FATF recognized the impact of the government's ongoing commitment to address the problem of money laundering in Canada.

The government has continued to step up its efforts. A few important examples of its efforts since 2020 include new regulations that apply to virtual currency service providers, including foreign providers operating in Canada, and new rules that apply to virtual currency transactions, which entered into force in 2020.

Furthermore, to assist in strengthening Canada's response to financial crime, the Financial Crime Coordination Centre, or FC3, was established as a five-year pilot initiative led by Public Safety Canada in 2019. It brings together anti-money laundering professionals from across jurisdictions with the aim of enhancing inter-agency collaboration and capacity building through a number of means, including training and expertise development, legislative and policy initiatives, partner support, and best practice resources.

Another example includes the commitment of approximately $28 million over four years, and $10 million ongoing, to create a multi-disciplinary fraud and trade-based money laundering centre of expertise at the Canada Border Services Agency to strengthen our capacity to tackle this borderless crime.

The government also committed $98.9 million in 2020 to support the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in strengthening its federal policing capacity. This investment included $19.8 million to establish new integrated money laundering investigative teams across Canada. These teams include police officers, lawyers, forensic accountants and other specialized experts, led by the RCMP. They investigate crimes that are using capital markets to harm the economic interests of Canada.

Mostly recently, in the budget tabled on April 7 of last year, the government accelerated its earlier commitment to implement a public and searchable beneficial ownership registry, which would now be accessible before the end of 2023. The government also committed to working with provincial and territorial partners to advance the national approach to a beneficial ownership registry of real property.

Finally, the government has committed to establish a new Canada financial crimes agency, which was also announced in the most recent budget. This agency would respond quickly to complex and fast-moving cases of financial crime and is intended to become Canada's lead enforcement agency in this area.

I share my colleague's concern about the serious challenges of money laundering in Canada. However, this bill risks duplicating existing offences in the Criminal Code. For this reason, I oppose this bill. It risks being a less effective option for law enforcement and prosecutors, therefore weakening the administration of justice. The government has shown and continues to show through its actions that it is committed to adopting its strategies and responses to the significant and rapidly evolving crime of money laundering.

I look forward to continuing our efforts to respond to this important societal challenge. I want to thank the member for Simcoe North for bringing this forward.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I cannot believe the Liberal government's stance on this bill and how weak the arguments are. I find it unacceptable. What a joke.

I am pleased to speak this afternoon to Bill C‑289, introduced by my friend and colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Simcoe North. As my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord said last October, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this important bill.

This bill will amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to give false or misleading information to a financial institution requesting that information in accordance with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. As we know, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act currently asks financial institutions to verify their clients' true identity and the source of funds under certain circumstances. Financial institutions must also report transactions they deem suspicious to the government, so the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, can carry out the necessary verifications, prevent laundering of the proceeds of illegal activities and prevent such funds from being used to finance illegal activities, such as terrorism.

The problem with the current situation, which the Liberals do not seem to understand, is simply a lack of vigilance. I see this bill as a step in the right direction to increase everyone's vigilance. The government's lax attitude and lack of vigilance are a problem right now, even though the tracking of dirty money is one of the most important areas of action.

The problem with the current situation is that if a client makes a false statement to their bank, they may get away with it because there is minimal verification. It is important to do more to combat money laundering.

The problem with the current situation is that if a client makes an intentionally misleading or incomplete statement, the consequences are not serious enough. There are virtually no consequences for these criminals, so there is every chance that they will fall through the cracks. As a result, the information that FINTRAC obtains is incomplete and its work becomes less effective. This explains the poor results in this area in Canada, contrary to what has been argued on the other side of the House.

This is how this chain of negligence results in dirty money being laundered in the real economy. Bill C-289 addresses this flaw. The bill does not fix everything, but it is one more step in the right direction to better uncover money laundering activities.

I want to provide an example connected to the sanctions against Russia. It is not a direct example of tracking dirty money, but it does illustrate the lack of vigilance at present. Early this week, two Montreal companies were sanctioned by the United States for circumventing economic sanctions against Russia. These companies are distributors of electronic components. In tracking the money, the Americans discovered that these two Montreal companies were circumventing the sanctions.

Why were Canadian authorities not able to uncover this scheme? Why were our southern neighbours doing our own institutions' job for them?

The reason may be the lack of vigilance and the lax attitude. That has to change. We must change the existing culture. We have been speaking a great deal about the Chinese government's interference. We have to figure out a better way to track illicit money in order to guarantee our independence. We must change attitudes. That is what this bill helps accomplish.

Members will recall that last May, the Italian consulate in Montreal organized an event to mark the 30th anniverary of “operation clean hands”, a vast anti-mafia and anti-money laundering operation during which two Italian judges were murdered. Retired Italian judge Roberto Scarpinato came to Montreal to give us a warning. He told us that Canada had become a haven for mafia activity and money laundering. Society needs to do something. He encouraged us to develop “antibodies” to money laundering. He said we needed to stop being naive, to be more vigilant and to not be afraid to enforce our laws to the fullest extent, because money laundering is a scourge in Canada and in Quebec.

According to Transparency International, the amount of money laundered annually in Canada could be between $43 billion and $113 billion.

This means that up to $113 billion a year in proceeds of crime, from both here and abroad, is being reintroduced into our economy, allowing criminals to reap the benefits of their crime with impunity and causing economic distortions, such as skyrocketing real estate prices. It is an appalling situation and the complacency we are seeing is pitiful. Something needs to change.

British Columbia launched a commission of inquiry into money laundering, the Cullen commission. The Cullen commission may be the most comprehensive effort ever made to understand the phenomenon of money laundering in Canada, its effects, its causes and the best ways to prevent it in future. It submitted its report in June after more than two years of work and hundreds of witness testimonies. The report points the finger at the RCMP and FINTRAC for not taking money laundering seriously enough. It excoriates the banks for looking the other way. In fact, it accuses pretty much everyone of negligence. It also provides examples of what money laundering looks like.

There is the case of Runkai Chen, a Chinese immigrant who came to Vancouver in 2006. Despite reporting about $40,000 in annual income, he built a real estate empire worth tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Chen was a straw man who laundered dirty money from China. He regularly received large transfers from foreign numbered accounts and reinvested the money in real estate. He made false statements to financial institutions here, and they did not ask questions. None of the big Canadian banks raised any red flags. Not RBC, not CIBC, not BMO.

It was actually a foreign financial institution that alerted FINTRAC, and that is how the scheme was uncovered. Foreigners are more vigilant than our institutions when it comes to finding dirty money laundered here. It is this kind of negligence every step of the way that Justice Scarpinato was talking about when he said we need to develop antibodies.

We actually already have a lot of the legal arsenal needed to deal with this problem. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act is a powerful tool. Banks are required to verify the identity of their clients and where the money is coming from. They have the power to freeze funds they deem to be suspicious. They are required to report suspicious transactions, large amounts of cash, and international transfers if they have difficulty determining where the money actually came from.

These requirements exist, but most of them rely heavily on the client acting in good faith and the financial institution being vigilant. By forcing clients to make true and complete statements to the banks or face criminal penalties, Bill C‑289 addresses the first step, which is to verify the identity of the client and the source of the funds. This could start off a virtuous cycle where the financial institutions themselves would be more diligent about checking and government organizations would be better informed and more likely to co-operate with their counterparts abroad. In short, we could begin to develop the antibodies needed to seriously address the scourge of money laundering. That is why we will support this important bill.

Once again, I denounce what I believe to be the spurious arguments of the Liberal Party in opposing this bill. At present, there is a lack of vigilance and rigour in the tracking of dirty money. We must take action. Bill C‑289 sets the bar. As I was saying, that is why we will support it.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada has a significant money-laundering problem, and corrupted money comes flooding into our economy on account of that. Nowhere is that more evident than in Vancouver. Professional money launderers have a term for it. It is called the “Vancouver model”. It usually involves a lot of foreign, corrupt money, and it is distorting our economy.

We learned a lot about money laundering in British Columbia recently, with the release of the report from retired judge Austin Cullen. He had been appointed by the provincial government to head up the commission of inquiry into money laundering in B.C.

He heard from 199 witnesses, produced a report of 1,800 pages and summed up his work succinctly with this statement: “This Inquiry explored the myriad ways in which the greedy and the devious seek to make their crime-stained money appear legitimate.”

The Cullen commission found that, between 2008 and 2014, which were the years of his focus, billions of dollars were laundered through B.C. casinos. The report stated: “In 2014 alone, British Columbia casinos accepted nearly $1.2 billion in cash transactions of $10,000 or more, including [almost 2,000] individual cash buy-ins of $100,000 or more”. The report noted that this is an average of five per day.

At least in British Columbia, we are all familiar with the scenes that we saw on television. There were clips taken from the security cameras in casinos of people walking in with hockey bags full of money and $20 bills all neatly stacked up for easy counting and managing. Those are used to buy casino chips.

The commission found that these transactions usually happened late at night or early in the morning, when law enforcement people were not paying attention. Judge Cullen put it this way: “It should have been apparent to anyone with an awareness of the size and character of these transactions that Lower Mainland casinos were accepting vast quantities of proceeds of crime during this time period.”

This is just to state the obvious. One does not need to be a law enforcement specialist to know that this did not pass the smell test. As a matter of fact, in the words of a senior investigator with B.C.'s gambling regulator to the commission, the cash “smells like drug money”. He went on to note that it was simply not the practice of casino operators to make any inquiries of their patrons about their sources of cash. Operators would not ask, and patrons would not tell.

I do not want to be too hard on the BC Lottery Corporation. It has done a lot of things right. People have the right to go to casinos and lose money. I want to make just a couple of important points about things that they did correctly.

In February 2015, the BC Lottery Corporation called on the RCMP to investigate a number of people that it suspected of organized crime. Following that investigation, the BC Lottery Corporation put certain persons, about 600, on a watch-list, requiring them to prove source of funds.

A couple of years later, it expanded its source-of-funds procedures based on recommendations from Dr. Peter German, who had been appointed by the provincial government to investigate this. It is not that the BC Lottery Corporation did nothing, but it just did not do enough.

One of its representatives, giving evidence at the Cullen commission, put it this way: “Viewed from the lens of what we now know, everyone could and should have responded more quickly to those large cash transactions”.

I am happy to say that the B.C. government has taken this seriously. It has attempted to prosecute at least one bad actor for whom it felt that it had enough evidence about significant amounts of money-laundering activity.

The Joint Illegal Gaming Investigations Team conducted the investigation, and they recommended charges to the BC Prosecution Service. However, looking at all the evidence, the Crown counsel said that they did not have enough evidence and that there was not a substantial likelihood of conviction. That is their standard test.

The current premier, David Eby, was the attorney general at the time. This was his file, and he was not going to take that lying down. Therefore, he tried again.

He told his assistant deputy attorney general to retain the services of a special prosecutor to look at it once again and this time to, if necessary, use the exceptional evidentiary test of a reasonable prospect of conviction, so a much lower standard. Here is a political lesson. If one does not succeed the first time, try it again but lower the bar. This was a political decision and I think it was the right one. There was a very real concern in British Columbia that something had to be done in order to stop the erosion of public confidence in our justice system.

The result of the independent, special prosecutor investigation with a lower bar now, unfortunately, was still no. In his words, the critical question was whether the Crown would be able to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that this cash was itself the proceeds of crime. He concluded that they would not be able to do that. There was lots of smoke but he could not put his fingers on the fire. Just very recently, he told the provincial government not to waste its time or its human resources trying to change this, that it would be unsuccessful and that it should change the law instead. He said in his conclusions that if Canada had laws, anti-money laundering laws similar to what the U.K. and Australia have, his opinion might well have been different.

That brings me to the debate of the day, the private member's bill from my colleague, the member for Simcoe North. I want to thank him for introducing Bill C-289, which would amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to knowingly make a false or misleading statement or to knowingly provide false or misleading information, to a person or entity listed in section 5 of the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist and Financing Act; false information with respect to the verification of individuals. In other words, do not lie to banks, credit unions, other financial services businesses and, importantly, do not lie to casinos about whose money you are dealing with. We want to know. There needs to be transparency. It would make a difference, if we had that law, as to whether we would be prosecuting some of these cases of obvious money laundering.

It is a very serious crime. If this legislation passes, it would make it an indictable offence with a fine of up to a $1 million or jail time of 10 years, or the Crown counsel could decide to go by way of summary conviction with a possible fine of $10,000 and two years less a day in jail.

I am pleased and people in British Columbia are pleased with this type of legislation because that is exactly what needs to be done. It is a small step, but it is an important step in the right direction.

More needs to be done. I am happy to hear that the Liberal government is again saying that it is going to bring forward legislation for transparency in corporate registries. In Justice Cullen's words, we do not want “the greedy and the devious” to hide behind numbered companies as they “seek to make their crime-stained money appear legitimate.” Mr. Justice Cullen had 101 recommendations. Not all of them were for the federal jurisdiction. There are a couple that I think this Parliament needs to be paying attention to in the near future, not today but soon: fighting trade-based money laundering, closer scrutiny of money service businesses, better regulation of the mortgage industry and procedures for unexplained wealth orders. This is legislation that other countries and jurisdictions around the world have adopted against money laundering. We should be doing the same. Today, I am happy to say, we are taking a small, important step in the right direction.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support Bill C-289 from my colleague, the member for Simcoe North. I want to congratulate him for taking on this important issue. This is a bill aimed at combatting money laundering. As we move towards the second reading vote on this bill, I wanted to share a few thoughts that reflect conversations I have had. In particular, I have had conversations with people in Canada's cultural communities about their concern over the issue of money laundering. They are especially concerned when it involves money from foreign hostile regimes, sometimes even ones that are using those resources to threaten and hurt people from cultural communities here in Canada.

I want to say parenthetically, as it is Thursday, that I have had my son Judah with me all week. He is seven years old, and it has been wonderful to have him here. I want to thank him. He has been to committee meetings and to the House. He has watched question period, and he knows the rules and procedures better than some members do.

On the subject of Bill C-289, this excellent bill that I will certainly be supporting on money laundering, I want to reflect a bit on some of the conversations I have had. When I first got elected in 2015, I had a role involving human rights and religious freedom. In that context, I spent a lot of time getting to know leaders in various cultural communities in Canada.

Right away, the issue of money laundering came up in this context: We have people who flee authoritarian hostile regimes, who face persecution. Forms of that persecution also involve having their property confiscated and taken from them in various ways. Then they have fled to Canada and sought a new life; they are working hard to prosper and succeed here. At the same time, they see or perceive agents of that same hostile regime that are bringing stolen money to Canada and trying to launder that money and to create a safe haven for agents of that regime here.

Probably most prominent in my mind in terms of these conversations are those with the folks from the Iranian community whom I have spoken to. Regularly and repeatedly, they raise the issue of how the Iranian community here in Canada is concerned about how the Iranian regime is, in their perception, laundering money in Canada. In addition, while Canada is rightly perceived as a place where those fleeing that regime and other hostile regimes can come, they see how members of that regime have been able to try to use Canada as well.

We have put forward various measures to try to respond to this. For instance, approaching five years ago, I put forward a motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization in Canada and effectively shut down its operations here. Unfortunately, while the government voted for that motion, it never implemented it.

If we are going to shut down the activities of hostile foreign regimes in Canada, we need to take a series of measures. Those include listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization and expelling foreign diplomats involved in foreign interference, which we have been calling for in the context of the regime in Beijing. The current government has actually failed to expel any diplomats from any country for foreign interference. It has not expelled any diplomats associated with the Chinese Communist Party, nor has it expelled any Russian diplomats or diplomats from any country.

In addition, in the suite of measures that we need to prevent hostile regimes and maligned foreign actors from operating in Canada, as part of our response, we need to combat this issue of money laundering and the financing of these regimes. This could perhaps include financing of their operations in Canada, as well as their efforts to launder money for various other purposes here.

We as Conservatives have tried to reflect these concerns that we are hearing from people in cultural communities about how they have been victims of foreign interference and about money laundering in particular as part of that victimization, as well as other areas. However, it has been striking to me that one of the government's tactics for dismissing this is to suggest that it is somehow racist to talk about the very real and obvious problem of foreign interference.

I would submit that the opposite is true. It is actually a form of racism to not respond to the serious problem of foreign interference, because the primary victims of foreign interference have often been cultural communities, where there may be family members back home, and people are threatened by the fact that their family members would be hurt if they do not cease speaking up about certain issues.

I know people personally whose family members have been negatively affected abroad because of political activities they have been involved in here in Canada. I know that those threats can be frequent and can be put forward by hostile regimes. It is generally Canadians who have those family members in potentially vulnerable situations who are most likely to be victims. They are people who are recent immigrants to Canada, who faced persecution, who faced confiscation of their property, and then they see that money laundered in Canada and they see a government that is perversely claiming it is racist to talk about this problem.

I would say it is actually a form of racism to fail to address this problem that may not be directly impacting the lives of people whose families have been in Canada for a long time, but it is much more likely to impact the lives, security and well-being of people who are relative newcomers to Canada, of course depending on the countries they come from.

There are many reasons to support this bill. This is a common-sense measure to make it easier for law enforcement to target those who are involved in criminal offences and to hold them accountable for those offences. However, particularly in a context where we are seeing this pressing issue of foreign interference taking various forms and where we need stronger measures here in Canada to combat the scourge of foreign state-backed interference, one thing we could do is support this bill. Members could at least support it through to committee for further studies if they have doubts about some of the provisions. I think it is great the way it is. In any event, it should be supported through to committee so that it could be further studied and perhaps strengthened at the committee stage.

Unfortunately, while the government wants to now talk about being concerned about foreign interference, it seems intent on missing this golden opportunity to support a good piece of legislation, which would take a constructive step towards, among other things, combatting the problem of foreign interference. It underlines, again, that while the government is happy to talk tough, ultimately its talk is cheap and it is not prepared to take the measures that are required.

The government has refused to call a public inquiry into what happened in the last two elections. It is instead trying to bury this issue with fake new positions and by sending the issue to a committee that has, in fact, already studied the issue of foreign interference, but which is severely limited by secrecy rules and cannot report publicly. It must report first to the Prime Minister, and then it can only publish the information that the Prime Minister allows it to publish.

Incredibly, today on Bill C-289, the government and its coalition partners in the NDP seem intent on opposing a common-sense piece of legislation to combat money laundering.

I appeal to individual members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties to think about what they are hearing from their constituents, to think about how many Canadians of Iranian origin, Canadians of Chinese origin, and Canadians of Russian or Ukrainian origin have seen the impact on their lives, of threats from hostile foreign powers. If we listen to those concerns, we should do all we can to combat the scourge of foreign state-backed interference. One critical way of doing that would be to support Bill C-289.

I hope we see individual members of the governing party and the NDP searching their consciences, thinking about what their constituents would actually want them to do and not blindly deferring their judgment on such critical issues to a front bench that has, frankly, been totally obtuse when it comes to crime, foreign interference and national security.

I do hope that, notwithstanding the positions of those two parties officially, we will see members have the courage to help us pass this bill, send it to committee and continue to do the work required to stand with all Canadians, Canadians of all backgrounds, in defending justice and human rights, and in opposing foreign interference via money laundering and other means.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Simcoe North has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here again with you today to talk about a very important issue.

I want to thank all members who participated in this debate, whether they agree with this piece of legislation or not, but in particular my friends from the Bloc, who spoke in favour of this piece of legislation, which I think is very important.

I would like to touch on a few things for members to reflect on.

The NDP position is that the bill is somehow not worthy of being supported because it was not a specific recommendation of the Cullen commission. The Cullen commission went to great lengths to make sure everybody knew that it did not have the resources or the ability to make recommendations with respect to federal jurisdiction.

I did my homework. I spoke to members of the Cullen commission and asked them if a bill like this would make it easier for law enforcement. The answer was yes. Therefore, I would ask the members of the NDP not to take my word for it, but to spend next week, especially those from British Columbia, asking NDP MLAs in British Columbia if they support this piece of legislation. All I ask for is a fair hearing on that point, because the Premier of British Columbia said that it is a “shocking” example of the shortfalls of federal financial crime law that money launderers cannot be prosecuted and convicted in British Columbia. That is the issue.

These cases are incredibly complex. In the United States, people are convicted for lying to the authorities or committing perjury more often than they are for the actual offence for which they are being investigated.

With respect to the position of the government, and I understand the government should meet any changes to the Criminal Code with high scrutiny, it refers to the offences of uttering and fraud, which do not carry a very significant penalty. The provision I am putting forward is one with up to 10 years in prison and up to a million dollars in fines. It is a hybrid offence. Members do not need to worry because there are no mandatory minimums in this Criminal Code provision.

The government also mentioned the laundering of proceeds of crime. I would say this. The example we just had in B.C. is the reason why we need simpler Criminal Code provisions to catch, prosecute and convict money launderers. These cases take multiple years and often yield absolutely no results.

I would like to quote Kevin Comeau of the C.D. Howe Institute, who stated:

That lack of legal accountability in our anti-money-laundering system weakens the quality of information received from clients, places our financial, commercial, and real estate markets at greater risk of money laundering, and undermines the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate money laundering and terrorist financing.

The federal government can reduce these risks by enacting legislation attaching sanctions to false reports of beneficial ownership made to persons who are legally required to collect that information.

The government is going to release beneficial ownership legislation, and this is what is going to be in it: There is going to be an administrative penalty that money launderers will view as the cost of doing business and a tax. It will not be a serious penalty, and money launderers are going to continue to view Canada as a safe haven to do their dirty business.

Therefore, I would ask and implore all members in this House to reflect on some of these comments, and I would ask NDP members in particular to go to British Columbia and ask their provincial counterparts if they support this legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just as soon see the bill pass right now, but I would request a recorded division if there is no agreement to pass the bill at all stages.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to an order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from October 25, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (addiction treatment in penitentiaries), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to express some thoughts on Bill C-283 the last time it was up for debate, and I thought that maybe for the last couple of minutes I would talk about the impact of addictions on our communities.

I recall sitting in opposition when we talked about safe injection sites, particularly given what was taking place in Vancouver, and the positive impact they were having. This government has been working with other governments to deal with drug-related issues in communities across the country. I want to emphasize that there is so much more that can be done through co-operation with the different stakeholders out there. What we have seen over the last number of years from this government is a high sense of co-operation when working with stakeholders and different levels of government to deal with the very difficult issue of drug addiction and the impact it is having on our communities.

I would suggest that one of the best ways we can deal with crime is prevention. This is where things become very relevant. The more we turn to groups such as the Bear Clan Patrol in the north end of Winnipeg, the many professional agencies and services out there and community-minded individuals, the more likely we will have a positive outcome. I believe that by having a positive outcome, we prevent crimes from taking place in the first place.

With those few words, I will conclude my remarks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before we continue, since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C‑283. I have been my party's public safety critic for the past few years, and I have learned a great deal about the situation in federal penitentiaries. I have learned more about Correctional Service Canada and the work of the correctional investigator, who publishes highly relevant reports each year on the various issues in Canada's penitentiaries. I send him my regards, by the way.

In fact, last summer, I joined the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety for a tour of the Port-Cartier penitentiary, a maximum-security facility located in the North Shore region, in a constituency adjacent to mine. We were able to see how things are done on the ground. We observed that addiction is a massive scourge in penitentiaries, both in Quebec and Canada.

I am very pleased that the member for Kelowna—Lake Country contacted me a few months ago to tell me about the bill she is introducing to propose a solution. The bill would allow inmates to be sent to drug treatment facilities. It would also allow penitentiaries to be designated as drug treatment facilities. I will discuss this in more detail later.

When the member for Kelowna—Lake Country introduced her bill, she said its purpose was to end the revolving door of the criminal justice system. Those are the words she used. People entering prison get released almost immediately without getting adequate treatment for mental health issues, substance abuse or other problems. Federal penitentiaries, unlike provincial prisons, are reserved for people serving sentences of two years or more, although inmates may serve a much shorter sentence. That said, the meaning of my colleague's words are clear.

In a system that values rehabilitation, it is unacceptable for someone to be released from a penitentiary with the same problems they had when they entered. For there to be rehabilitation, a minimum effort must be made to try to improve or resolve offenders' problems.

As I said, substance abuse is a very real problem. Let us use the current situation in Quebec penitentiaries as an example. In 2014, 58% of inmates in federal penitentiaries had a substance abuse problem. This data comes from the Correctional Service of Canada, the CSC. According to the CSC, drug addiction is a major problem in the prison system.

According to experts, drug addiction is what drives most of the people who end up in prison to commit a crime in the first place, and that is what brings them back to prison, where drugs are very easy to get, despite what people might think. In 2021, Frédérick Lebeau, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers for the Quebec region, said, “There's a major issue, a problem of delivery [of drugs and other prohibited items] inside the penitentiaries. It's too easy. It's got to get harder”.

With the advent of drones, it is easier than ever to deliver drugs into prisons. By 2020, officers at Donnacona's 451-inmate maximum security penitentiary had detected 60 drones, but they estimated that was just the tip of the iceberg. To address this emerging issue, penitentiaries are working to implement new drone detection technology, but we must not kid ourselves. We know that drugs are still getting into prisons and will continue to do so, despite the efforts that are being made. This really is one of the biggest problems in the prison system in Quebec and Canada right now.

That is why people are right in saying that incarceration does not solve drug abuse problems, quite the opposite. If we want my colleague's solution to work, then we need to ensure that it is more difficult, if not impossible, for the program participants and all inmates to access drugs in prison.

Recidivism rates among drug addicts is very high. When they get out of prison, many immediately try to obtain drugs and often turn to crime to pay for their purchases.

There are many programs for addicts, such as the federal drug treatment court funding program. Drug treatment courts, known as DTCs, offer eligible offenders with a substance use disorder the opportunity to complete a court monitored drug treatment program as an alternative to incarceration. Provinces and territories are eligible for federal funding for the development and delivery of these drug treatment courts.

It is important to note that offenders serving sentences in provincial prisons have usually committed less serious crimes—they are therefore sentenced to a maximum of two years less a day—and that alternative sentences may be more appropriate for these offenders than for inmates in federal penitentiaries.

The DTC program has a few conditions, including that the inmate remain in the program for as long as it takes, usually 12 to 18 months, and that the inmate have no further criminal convictions.

DTCs have existed in Quebec since 2012 and have been so successful that they served as a model for a pilot project to address recidivism among drug addicts in France. According to a study by CIRANO published in 2019, Quebec is an example to the world when it comes to rehabilitating its inmates. I have cited this report in the House before because Quebec truly is a role model.

According to the study, Quebec's reintegration programs for inmates in Quebec-run prisons reduce the risk of recidivism and perform significantly better than elsewhere in the world. These reintegration programs, which are not only aimed at drug addicts, reduce the recidivism rate from 50% to 10% among participating inmates. Participation in the program is, of course, voluntary.

In comparison with Quebec programs, it bears mentioning that federal penitentiaries are doing a poor job in facilitating the rehabilitation of inmates. In the Correctional Investigator of Canada's 2020 annual report, and this is something that comes up nearly every year in the correctional investigator's reports, federal inmates do not get training or learn skills that are job relevant and they do not have access to adequate care. In short, they are very ill-equipped to reintegrate civil society.

It should also be noted that indigenous peoples are overrepresented in federal penitentiaries. They account for less than 5% of the Canadian population, but they account for over 32% of the prison population. Substance abuse and the lack of effective treatment programs partially explain this indigenous overrepresentation. That is where Bill C‑283 may make a difference and have a fairly positive impact.

Let us take a closer look at the bill. It has three separate parts and would provide additional tools to help offenders overcome addiction. It adds the possibility for a convicted offender to ask the court to serve their sentence, or a part of it, in custody in a penitentiary designated as an addiction treatment facility if the following conditions are met: The offender was in trouble with the law because of their problematic substance use; the offender consents to participating in the program; the court is satisfied that the request has merit; the offender has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 years or more; and the offender has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more for an offence that resulted in bodily harm, involved drug trafficking or involved the use of a weapon.

The court would then make a recommendation to the Correctional Service of Canada that the inmate be placed in an addiction treatment facility if the inmate meets the criteria mentioned earlier.

The bill would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It would provide for the designation of addiction treatment facilities in the act. I was going to talk about that a little more, but I see that I have little time left.

Therefore, I will say right now that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at second reading because it is a bill that would actually help rehabilitate inmates. I would remind members that federal penitentiaries have done a very poor job in the area of rehabilitation. I therefore commend my colleague and thank her for proposing this bill, which I hope will be a step in the right direction for offenders in Quebec and Canada.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for putting forward this bill.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada, we are losing loved ones at an alarming rate as a result of the toxic substance crisis. Since 2016, more than 30,000 people have died: 30,000 preventable losses. We know the toxic substance crisis does not discriminate or follow political lines. The toxic substance crisis impacts us all in a multitude of ways.

Canadians need all members of this House to unite and move forward with evidence-based solutions to begin addressing this crisis so no more lives are lost.

According to recent reports by Island Health, illicit drug toxicity deaths are in the top two leading causes of death in all age categories, from under 19 up to the age range of 40 to 59. These are people who should have had long lives ahead of them but had them cut short because of toxic substances.

In the last year alone, 80 people died of toxic substances in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, specifically in Nanaimo. These people were somebody's father, brother, daughter, friend or neighbour: 80 people gone and their loved ones left to mourn their tragic loss, all because of toxic substances. This is horrific and inexplicable.

Fortunately, there are good people doing good work. Last month, community members and organizations in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, including the Nanaimo community action team, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, Nanaimo Area Network of Drug Users, Nanaimo Brain Injury Society and Naut'sa mawt Community Wellness Network, all came together to continue the work that needs to be done to start saving lives. They brought together community members, including frontline workers, health care professionals, substance users and their families, and even central Vancouver Island's own medical health officer. At one point in this meeting, a speaker stood at the front of the room and asked all those in attendance to say the names of those they lost from the toxic substance crisis. It brought tears to my eyes as the names of loved ones echoed through the room, loved ones taken too soon because help was out of reach.

I, too, shared the names of my loved ones lost, family and friends whose lives were tragically ripped away. This was a stark reminder of what we are talking about today: life-saving and long-overdue supports. It is essential that we take a moment to acknowledge that prevention is key to addressing the crisis.

People are struggling. We have seen significant increases in substance use over the last few years as people struggled with isolation as a result of the pandemic. I saw this first-hand as a former frontline worker in mental health and addictions when COVID-19 first hit our country, with increased barriers in accessing supports and our loved ones separated.

As our communities work to put back the pieces, the cost of living continues to increase. People are struggling to make ends meet. The basic necessities are no longer affordable, such as a place to call home, food on the table and heat to keep warm. Adding to this, health care has hit its breaking point. We see the impacts all around us. The severity and complexity of untreated mental illness being experienced by people in our communities are on the rise. The number of those using substances to get through their day is increasing. Crime in our neighbourhoods, as too many struggle to survive, is happening more and more often. This is all right in front of our eyes in the communities we care about.

People in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith are seeing this all unfold in front of us, and it is heartbreaking. People are reaching out to me, unsure of how they are going to afford their next meal. Others are reaching out fearing for their safety. When I was knocking on doors in downtown Nanaimo last week, resident after resident expressed that they were worried about the increasing number of people struggling around us, living on the streets or on the verge of being without a home.

I made a promise that I would share these concerns and fight for better. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the aftermath of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments' inaction that has left people behind. Housing is a basic human right. Why have the Liberals allowed loopholes that let housing be used as a stock market for the ultrarich?

Access to head-to-toe care, including mental health supports, is a basic human right. Why have the Liberals followed in the Conservative footsteps by underfunding health care transfers to provinces and territories? Why has not a single dollar of the promised mental health transfers been received to date? This funding would make a huge difference in the lives of many, yet the promised funds still sit unused.

We also know that access to an income that provides, at minimum, the basics that people need to get by is a human right. Why is this government not lifting those with disabilities, seniors left with limited fixed incomes, and families out of poverty with a guaranteed livable basic income?

It is important that we look at the root of the problem before we can effectively address the symptoms. The symptoms are that we have people struggling with substance misuse, increasing mental illness, and increasing crime and incarceration rates. When considering this bill, at a time when so many are struggling, we need to focus on people's access to their basic human rights, if we truly want to put an end to the cycle of crime around us. The barriers in accessing treatment for substance misuse need to be removed, including for those in our penitentiaries. I fully agree that the lack of supports is part of the recidivism that we see in our criminal justice system. This is why everyone should have access to the supports they need that are right for them.

When considering the bill in front of us today, we need to look at what is currently in place and working. Again, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Connective Nanaimo, formerly known as John Howard Society, is doing incredible work to provide restorative recovery supports to those in correctional facilities located in Nanaimo. Through the Guthrie program, those in corrections are offered in-house treatment, which is not only offered within the facility by those trained and qualified to do the work but also stretches into the community, ensuring that the supports continue on as they re-enter the community. Those interested are considered based on their willingness and motivation to do the work required, and the result is a lower incidence of recidivism of participants than their counterparts.

My friend Harry, who is now five years sober and currently working toward his Red Seal ticket in trades, spoke to me last night about his experience as someone who has been in and out of corrections since the age of 16. According to Harry, his entire life trajectory changed when he was offered, and made the decision to participate in, the Guthrie program while in jail, at the age of 38. Harry entered this program knowing only a life of substance use, unable to read and write. While participating in the program, he was provided with, among others, peer recovery programming, counselling to begin addressing the deep-rooted symptoms of trauma, and regular tutoring to learn how to read and write.

Harry said to me that if he had not participated in the Guthrie program, he would probably be in prison or dead. Instead, Harry is proudly sober, sharing his story and helping so many others as a result. Instead of continuing to cycle in and out of jail, Harry is contributing to and is a valued part of our community, showing others struggling with substance misuse that there are options available to them to live happy, healthy lives, if made available to them.

Harry's success is the result of his willingness and strength to fully participate in the programming made available and accessible when he needed it. This programming is evidence-based, delivered by qualified professionals in the field and those with lived experience, and is made available based on need and fit.

This bill, although with good intentions, includes components that are problematic. This bill excludes individuals who are convicted of certain offences, such as drug trafficking. With limited time, I will only say that I have yet to see evidence that would suggest that those who have been charged with trafficking substances would not be successful if willing and able to participate in a good-fit treatment program for substance misuse.

This bill unfortunately assumes a one-size-fits-all program. Again, while the program that Harry attended was successful for him and so many others, we cannot disregard the importance of culturally appropriate, accessible programming that meets people where they are at. Harm reduction and trauma-informed supports save lives.

Moving forward with evidence-based solutions to this toxic substance crisis is vital and life-saving. Unfortunately, this bill, although I am sure well-intentioned, misses the mark. My hope, however, is that this important debate helps to apply the pressure needed to finally light the fire under the Liberals to do what is needed with the investment required to save lives.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, from January 2016 to June 2022, over 32,000 Canadians died of opioid overdoses. We have thousands of people federally incarcerated in Canada, and about 70% of them deal with substance use issues. We have a very serious threat to public safety and to the health of Canadians on our hands.

I know that all parties in this House want to see recidivism rates and addiction rates reduced, want to save lives and want to keep our communities safe. However, we have very different approaches for how we get that accomplished. I think the debate today has been very illuminating, and I appreciate the perspectives of all parties, but I do think the Conservative approach is a solid one and I applaud the members who brought it forward.

As I mentioned, there are over 30,000 people who have died just of opioid overdoses in the last number of years. We have many people in federal penitentiaries who are addicted to drugs. In fact, since the pandemic, we have about 20 people a day who die of opioid overdoses. It is getting far worse. Looking back to 2016, there were about eight people a day. That was already terrible, but now, just a few years later, it is 20 people a day.

I hear from my constituents all the time. I have visited communities across the country and tent cities. There is open, dangerous drug use on the streets, violent crime and petty crime, and deaths of loved ones from drug addiction. It is impacting every single neighbourhood in this country. It is a growing problem. We can see it with our own eyes. We see it when we look at the news every morning. There is headline after headline about theft, petty crime and violent, repeat offenders hurting innocent Canadians. I do believe these are all linked.

If we look at crime rings and gangs, the purpose of these, more often than not, in the gang culture is to sell drugs and protect their drug territory from other gangs. We have this criminal network in Canada that is highly incentivized to push very dangerous drugs on people and get them highly addicted so the gangs can make money. Then they violently protect their drug turf using illegally smuggled firearms and 3D-printed firearms. We see this cycle of violence and addiction impacting the vulnerable people in this country.

The direction of this has only gotten worse under the current government. Unfortunately, over 32,000 people have died of opioid overdoses alone in the last number of years. Of course, violent, repeat offenders are intimately tied to gangs, drug trafficking and taking advantage of vulnerable people with addictions. We have seen an increase in violent crime from those repeat, violent offenders, who are getting out on bail more easily than ever because of the regime brought forward by the Liberal government.

Today, we have the opportunity to do something real about this and end the revolving door of inmates in and out of prison. This is a huge issue. Part of what is happening is that we have highly addicted individuals who commit crimes, go to prison and do not receive the treatment they need to recover.

This bill is called the “ending the revolving door act”, and I think that is something we can all get on board with, if not for the benefit of compassion for those who are in our penitentiaries and addicted to substances, then for the taxpayer, because it costs a lot of money when an inmate is in and out of prison over and over again. It would also make our penitentiaries and the corrections staff who work in them safer. If we have individuals who are dealing with substance abuse, which can often manifest in violent ways, and if we can get them rehabilitated, it is even better for everyone.

This bill has lofty and high goals that I very much support. It goes about it in a very smart way. In particular, the legislation would allow for a part of the federal penitentiary to be turned into a rehabilitation facility. Let us turn part of our existing penitentiary infrastructure into a rehab, given the high number of inmates addicted to substances. I think that is a great idea. Inmates are there anyway. Let us have an intensive option where, if they choose to, they can get some rehab and perhaps recover from their addictions. When they are released from the penitentiary, they have a much better opportunity and much better chance of living a fulsome, law-abiding life if they receive the care, support and compassion they need.

Ultimately, the bill is designed very well, in the sense that it is the judge's discretion, which I think is important in this regard, and it is only for non-violent crimes. We are not talking about folks with life sentences. We are talking about low-level crimes for which people are committed to federal penitentiaries. That is important, especially as a start for this. Let us see how it goes. If it works really well, great, we can talk about different expansions, if that is what is needed. I think this is a great place to start, and it is the safest place to start this very innovative idea.

It is up to the judge and then ultimately it is up to the individual. People are given a choice and then they can choose if they want to go to the rehab part of the facility. They still have to serve the same amount of time, but it is in a part of the facility that is built for that rehab. That is really great if we are of the opinion and the philosophy that we want people who have substance use issues to access recovery and fully recover and live fulsome lives, which is certainly the Conservative Party's perspective. Addiction is a mental health issue, and we can help a lot more people if there is a lot more access to mental health and rehabilitation supports.

To get right to the source, I have visited federal penitentiaries and they are very tough places to be. I recommend that every legislator in this place go to visit a federal penitentiary. The older penitentiaries, especially, are not places that were built for, or are conducive to, rehabilitation. It is a great idea that we could redesign those structures to support those who need extra compassion, mental health care and rehab supports. They are there anyway, so, if the judge decided it was safe, giving them some freedom to access rehabilitation and to get a real shot at recovering would be good for them and good for their loved ones, who want to see them survive. Ultimately, it is good for them when they are released from a federal penitentiary.

I mentioned at the beginning that I think all parties have the ultimate goal of reducing recidivism, which is very high, costly to the taxpayer, and very harmful to the individual who is in and out of jail over and over again. I think everyone agrees that it is not great, so let us fix it.

Everybody in the House talks repeatedly about addictions and how many people have died. What we do not have in common is how we all approach that. However, I think that the way the bill is structured, it offers an innovative solution to this that could be supported by all parties, if they want to give it a shot and say “why not?” This could be a real option to save lives and to support a reduction in recidivism rates.

One thing that the Liberals have done, which would be their solution to the issues that I and others outlined today regarding this bill and the goal it is trying to solve, is something that I cannot get behind: the prison needle exchange program. I visited penitentiaries where corrections officers are being told that this is coming to them from the federal government. There have been test runs in some penitentiaries as well.

The federal government is facilitating needle kits for federal inmates to inject drugs while in jail. They are not allowed to have drugs. The drugs are illegally smuggled into jails through criminal networks and then inmates inject them. The Liberal idea is to provide clean needle kits to reduce the spread of diseases, which is a good goal. However, in many cases, we are talking about providing the most dangerous people in Canada with, for all intents and purposes, tiny knives that they could put their own blood into, or a whole host of liquid substances, and they could use them to hurt themselves, corrections officers and other inmates.

Corrections officers have spoken to me about their fears with respect to this, and inmates themselves are very concerned. In fact, a women's federal penitentiary in Alberta has written a very strong petition to the federal government pleading and demanding that it does not introduce those needles into their prisons. The women inmates themselves are saying they would not feel safe and they do not want them, yet it is coming. I am very concerned about that and about the safety of our corrections officers.

I feel that this bill is designed in a way that is not supposed to be divisive. It is an innovative idea. I think we should all be able to get behind it. It is an approach that is safe and is focused on safety. It would turn part of a federal penitentiary into something very positive: a rehabilitation facility. I very much support that and the ultimate objective of reducing recidivism and improving recovery rates for inmates and the vulnerable populations there.

I would like to thank the members for Kelowna—Lake Country and Kootenay—Columbia for their hard work on this bill. It is a Conservative bill. I am very proud of my colleagues.

With my last 20 seconds, I would like to thank all of the corrections officers and parole officers in this country, who put their lives on the line to keep us safe and to do the hard work to help rehabilitate our inmates.

To conclude, I would like to acknowledge the two Edmonton police officers who were recently killed on the job: Constable Travis Jordan, who was 35 years old; and Constable Brett Ryan, who was 30 years old. We have incredibly hard-working men and women in our justice system, and it is always tragic when we have deaths. I want to acknowledge that we are thinking about their families.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am pleased to join in the debate today as we progress to the second reading of Bill C-283, regarding addiction treatment in penitentiaries. I thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for her advocacy on this important issue and for her hard work. As the member has noted, this bill aims to expand sentencing options to help address the root causes of criminal offending through treatment.

Our government is committed to protecting the health and safety of all Canadians, including those who are incarcerated and struggling with substance abuse issues. As my colleagues would agree, these issues cannot be addressed in isolation. Substance use is a social and health issue that intersects clearly with systemic racism and inequities. That is what I would like to focus on today.

The Minister of Public Safety's December 2021 mandate letter reaffirmed the requirement to continue to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. This includes supporting work to address systemic racism and the overrepresentation of Black, indigenous and racialized Canadians within the criminal justice system.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, last December. It received royal assent, and we are hopeful that it will make a significant impact in our criminal justice system in addressing these issues. Bill C-5 aims to restore judicial discretion to impose fit sentences and to address overincarceration rates among indigenous and Black persons, and members of marginalized communities who are overrepresented among those convicted of certain drug- and firearm-related offences. Harms related to substance use would be treated as a health and social use rather a criminal one.

The Minister of Public Safety, in concert with the provincial and territorial colleagues, addressed many of these important matters head-on at recent meetings of ministers responsible for justice and public safety. Work is under way to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, across the country and within provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Excellent collaboration continues with the FPT working group on the development of the indigenous justice strategy and in addressing systemic discrimination and overrepresentation of indigenous persons within the criminal justice system.

The ministers also affirmed, in light of the James Smith Cree Nation tragedy last year, the need to work with indigenous leaders to ensure their communities are safe and supported. The ministers agreed to collaborate on the development and implement of the Canada's Black justice strategy to address anti-Black racism and discrimination within Canada's policing and criminal justice system.

Another key priority was the ongoing opioid crisis. Again, substance use is a public health issue that must be balanced with public safety. In practice, that means diverting individuals away from the criminal justice system at an early stage, through rehabilitative and treatment programs or increased use of conditional sentences.

Our government is very much seized with the work to both build safer communities and help break the cycle of substance-related harms by addressing the root causes of criminality. On its surface, Bill C-283 appears to have the same goals. It proposes to offer offenders the possibility of serving all or part of their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility.

Let us examine some of the bill's unfortunate oversights and exceptions. Proposed section 743.11 would stipulate that those whose offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment or life in prison, and those who have committed offences resulting in bodily harm, involving a weapon, or drug trafficking or production, would not be eligible to serve their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility. This is a problem.

With respect to overrepresentation, Bill C-283 runs counter to our goals. We know that indigenous and Black persons are overrepresented in federal penitentiaries. According to the data, over 68% of indigenous women in custody are serving a federal sentence of more than 10 years. Black offenders represent the largest proportion, 42%, of offenders convicted of importing or exporting drugs.

Overall, Black and indigenous persons tend to be subject to longer sentences, and I invite members opposite to look at the Auditor General's report on corrections, released late last year, which talked about systemic racism. It is, therefore, clear that Bill C-283 would exclude some of the most vulnerable and overrepresented members of the custody population, those who, in fact, may be most directly in need of treatment and rehabilitation.

In addition, proposed paragraph 743.11(1)(a) of the bill would require the offender to show evidence of repeated good behaviour in order to indicate that substance use has contributed to their actions. Here is yet another barrier to accessing treatment for incarcerated people. Not everyone who needs support and services may have a history or a pattern of behaviour: for example, those who have only recently begun using opioids.

This could also represent a prohibitively expensive burden for offenders who do not have the means to provide submissions established in their history or repeated behaviour. Bill C-283 would therefore not only make those individuals ineligible for treatment, through no fault of their own, but also create significant issues of inequity, with BIPOC and socio-economically disadvantaged offenders being denied services at a disproportionate rate.

This bill flies in the face of the Minister of Public Safety's December 2021 mandate letter, which reaffirmed the need to continue to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. It is also misaligned with Correctional Service Canada's commitment to addressing the overincarceration of indigenous peoples. Again, that is why our government introduced Bill C-5, to treat harms related to substance use as a health and social issue and not a criminal one. Ultimately, the measures in Bill C-5 will help address overincarceration rates among indigenous and racialized persons convicted of certain drug- and firearms-related offences. In contrast, Bill C-283 would undermine these goals.

Despite its veneer of concern for the health and safety of offenders who use substances, this bill is not designed to help those who need it the most. I encourage all members to join me in voicing their concerns about this bill.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-283. This legislation would allow a federal inmate to be sent to an addiction treatment facility.

Under this legislation, the courts must assess these cases and ensure that certain eligibility requirements are met, including the following: Problematic substance use has contributed to the offender's involvement in the criminal justice system; the offender consents to participating in the treatment program; the court is satisfied that the application has merit; the offender has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 years or more; the offender has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more for an offence that resulted in bodily harm, involved drug trafficking or involved the use of a weapon.

Bill C-283 also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide for the designation of a penitentiary or any area within a penitentiary as an addiction treatment facility.

The purpose of an addiction treatment facility is to provide inmates with access to treatment programs in relation to their problematic substance use as well as to other related services that respond to their specific needs.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will be voting in favour of Bill C-283 at second reading because we believe that it could help rehabilitate inmates struggling with addiction.

Rehabilitation is one of the key pillars of our justice system, and it is our duty to do everything we can to enable as many people as possible to reach that goal. Rehabilitation is also a way to give a second chance to citizens who have made mistakes in the past.

Experience has shown that shutting out an entire segment of the population from our society and our community indefinitely is not beneficial to anyone—not to them and not to us. On the contrary, it only replicates and reinforces the conditions that give rise to crime in the first place.

One thing is clear: A healthy, prosperous, and compassionate democracy requires rehabilitation and inclusion. Unfortunately, right now, federal penitentiaries have a dismal record of rehabilitating inmates struggling with addiction.

In Quebec, in 2014, 58% of prisoners in federal institutions were found to have a history of addiction. I will say it again: 58%. We are not talking about a marginal or minority phenomenon, but rather a widespread scourge that contributes to keeping inmates in a state of dependence, precariousness and vulnerability.

Many experts have in fact established that addiction is the catalyst that drives many Canadians to commit a first offence or to be repeatedly incarcerated.

One would think that imprisonment and the isolation that comes with it would help inmates struggling with addiction to go through proper withdrawal during their incarceration, but the reality is something else altogether.

According to correctional workers, it is shocking how easy it is to get drugs in prison. Those seeking psychoactive substances can use an underground network to find whatever they need to feed their drug habits.

Delivery of these substances and other prohibited items has become much more difficult to control since the advent of drones. Because they are small and make virtually no noise, they can deliver small items by air and are almost undetectable.

New drone detection technologies are now being implemented. However, Frédérick Lebeau, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers is under no illusions.

Drugs will continue to find their way into prisons one way or another. Knowing that, it would be unrealistic to think that jail time will solve an inmate's substance abuse problems. Quite the opposite. It is the federal government's responsibility to provide resources for supervision and control, but more importantly for coaching and assistance so that detention facilities can help inmates make lasting lifestyle changes.

The federal government is already funding some initiatives in this respect, including the drug treatment court funding program, commonly referred to as DTCs, which offers offenders with addictions issues the opportunity to undergo drug treatment as an alternative to a prison sentence. Quebec, other provinces and the territories may receive funding under this program to implement DTCs.

An important distinction must be made, however. Inmates serving sentences in provincial prisons have typically committed less serious offences, given that they were sentenced to a maximum of two years less a day. It is therefore easier to justify alternative sentences for them than for inmates in federal penitentiaries.

Still, it cannot be denied that DTCs have had a very positive impact since they were implemented in 2012. Quebec's successful rollout got people talking, even across the Atlantic. France based its pilot project for countering recidivism among drug users directly on our DTCs.

More broadly, DTCs are part of Quebec's wider rehabilitation strategy, which is delivering impressive results. By combining all of these rehabilitation programs, Quebec has reduced the recidivism rate from 50% to 10% among inmates who choose to participate. I am sure my colleagues will all agree that that is quite a feat.

Hundreds of Quebeckers decided to accept the Quebec government's help so they could get their lives back on track and live free.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑238, introduced by my Conservative colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country. We think this bill should be studied in committee to ensure that it is effective and to determine what improvements need to be made so that it has a lasting, positive impact on those it affects.

We believe in rehabilitation, we believe in inclusion, but above all, we believe in human justice.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to speak to the private member's bill of my colleague, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, the end the revolving door act.

This legislation proposes critical amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code of Canada that would expand access for substance use treatment in federal facilities across the country. I was really disappointed when hearing some of the speeches, particularly from members of the governing Liberal Party, stating that this is simply a veneer. I really think it highlights the fact that they do not truly understand the crippling impacts addiction has on our communities, in our neighbourhoods and across the country. Addiction is such a serious issue that affects individuals from all walks of life, and the harms and costs have only increased as years go by.

One of the flashpoints of our addiction crisis across this country is in Canada's correctional facilities. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction found that over 75% of individuals arriving at Canadian federal institutions have a serious substance use problem. Within that alarming statistic, there is an overrepresentation of indigenous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada found that 94% of incarcerated indigenous women present a substance use disorder compared to 71% of non-indigenous female offenders, and the figures are 86% of indigenous males compared to 68% of non-indigenous male offenders.

Given the interplay between addiction and criminal behaviour, intergenerational trauma and recidivism, it is urgent that we look at actually allowing these people to heal, to find a space for healing. Having recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration in a correctional facility is a very good step toward dealing with the root cause of this.

Conservatives firmly believe that addiction is a health condition and that recovery is possible. It has been exceptionally clear that the Liberal-NDP approach to addiction has failed. It has flooded our streets with more drugs, leading to more addictions, which lead to more death, more despair and, unfortunately, more crime. The sad reality is that, without meaningful change to the government’s approach, people with severe mental health problems and addictions will continue re-entering our system without receiving the proper treatment.

The solution from the government has been, as one of my colleagues pointed out, the needle exchange program, which has created all kinds of fears from a variety of correctional institutions. It has not solved the problem. People in correctional facilities are not supposed to be using drugs, yet the government is facilitating the use of illegal substances while they are in our correctional facilities, rather than offering them treatment options. This is putting the cart before the horse and losing the plot on what the issue is.

It is so encouraging that we are finally seeing some evidence-based opioid agonist therapy being offered to some offenders in correctional facilities, but it is worth pointing out there are significant barriers within the system that create lengthy wait times, inconsistent procedures and difficulties obtaining entry that vary from facility to facility. We know, through evidence-based procedures, that opioid agonist therapies such as Suboxone, Sublocade and methadone can help someone find recovery, yet there are barriers in place in our correctional facilities to allowing people to access these forms of treatment. It is worth pointing out that they can do more when it comes to these kinds of things.

I wish I had more time to go through some of the statistics, facts and figures we have collected on how serious the addiction issue is in our criminal system, but if there is one thing I could leave every member of the House with, it is that we have an option right now. We have an ability to make a difference in people's lives. We have a captive audience and we can provide an option to people to be able to get the treatment and help they so desperately need and help them get their lives back, rather than keeping them in a revolving door.

I would urge everyone to vote in favour of this wonderful bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-283, the “end the revolving door” act, once again.

I want to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for his initial work and research on this legislation during the previous Parliament, and my colleagues who have spoken to the bill. I also want to thank those who work in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. I hope we can move forward with this legislation to provide the Standing Committee on Public Safety the opportunity to study how this can improve our justice system and give people hope to recover from addiction.

Kelowna—Lake Country residents, the people of British Columbia, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast have seen first-hand the devastating impact the addiction crisis has had on families, communities and the individuals themselves. Residents in my community want people to be held accountable for their actions, while at the same time to have compassion and get addiction and recovery help to those who need it.

My “end the revolving door” act is an opportunity for parliamentarians of every political stripe to come together to move forward with a common sense approach to improving our justice system and helping those struggling with addiction. No one piece of legislation can serve as the panacea for those who are repeatedly re-entering the criminal justice system who have mental health and/or addiction challenges.

This legislation offers an additional tool to help reduce recidivism, address our mental health and addiction crisis, and improve the public safety of our communities. Expanding the sentencing options available in our justice system and assisting those whose lives have been ravaged by addiction is the right thing to do. No one is served when repeat reoffenders are in a revolving door system where it is reported that more than 70% of those sentenced to federal penitentiaries have addiction issues.

We must ensure that the effort of curative treatment is focused and provided for those who have found themselves incarcerated and who want help to turn their lives around. A dedicated addiction treatment facility operating inside an existing Correctional Service of Canada facility would help support this work. Many who work around the criminal justice system have told me that this would put a stop to the revolving door for many.

I want to thank those who have supported this legislation, from the national level to my backyard, who think we should not waste one moment to move forward. The City of Kelowna mayor and council passed a motion unanimously supporting this legislation.

Lissa Dawn Smith, president of Métis Nation British Columbia, said that Métis Nation BC strongly supports the implementation of more effective addiction and mental health services within the federal penitentiary system through Bill C-283. It knows that Métis people are over-represented in the correctional system and that Justice Canada needs more tools in its tool kit to address the root causes of incarceration.

Tom Smithwick, founder of Freedom's Door, which is a vital organization dedicated to hope and healing for those suffering from addiction, including those recently released from incarceration, expressed how it makes sense to start a recovery process while incarcerated. He said, “The whole system would save money. The human need would be met. There totally is hope”.

It is in that spirit that I hope Parliament moves to advance this common sense legislation to the Standing Committee of Public Safety for further study. I hope that we will not waste this crucial opportunity that we have as elected representatives to help reduce recidivism, give hope and healing to those struggling with addiction, and end the revolving door.

Therefore, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, if a recorded division is requested today in regard to the second reading of Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (addiction treatment in penitentiaries), it shall be deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions later today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until later today at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity verification), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-289 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #270

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-224 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #271

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (addiction treatment in penitentiaries), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑283, under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #274

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.

The member for Laval—Les Îles on a point of order.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the vote on Bill S‑224, I had a technical problem that lasted a few minutes and resulted in a voting error.

I am requesting unanimous consent to allow me to change my vote to vote for the bill.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the member have unanimous consent to change his vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 80 minutes.