Bill C-42

An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Director appointed under that Act to make available to the public certain information on individuals with significant control over a corporation;
(b) protect the information and identity of certain individuals;
(c) add, or broaden the application of, offences and provide the Director with additional enforcement and compliance powers; and
(d) add regulatory authority to prescribe further requirements in certain provisions.
It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, money laundering in Canada is a big problem, and it is a very big problem because it has a worth. That worth, as we heard in committee, is $113 billion a year. It is a staggering number.

The UN estimated that Canada's has up to 5% of the world's money laundering. Canada has become known, unfortunately, across the world as a place to park dirty money. There is even a name for Canada's ability to hide money. It is called snow washing. I think there are advertisements in some circles. It is theft, plain and simple.

While Bill C-42 aims to combat this $113-billion problem, it falls short of combatting the future of money laundering and relies on the provinces to do most of the work. The bill may do some of the work for today, and certainly in this House we can support a lot of that, but there is a lot of work to do as we move forward.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and we dealt with this very rushed bill. It came through very suddenly. We were talking about how it is tackling things not only today but tomorrow. As we went to the witnesses, we heard how it fails to address the problems of tomorrow and money laundering.

Money laundering became very popular after the 2016 release of the Panama papers. The Panama papers revealed trillions of dollars of money laundering, and there were certain lessons we were meant to learn from that. One was that there was a widespread scope. The Panama papers showed a vast scale of global money laundering and tax evasion. They exposed offshore financial activities of individuals and entities from around the world, including politicians, but we will not talk about that today.

The Panama papers exposed the use of shell corporations. They exposed the widespread use of shell companies and offshore entities to conceal the true ownership of assets and facilitate money laundering. It was of a cross-border nature. When we looked at how money was being laundered, it was being done across state lines and country lines across the world. The papers also brought attention to the role of professionals, such as lawyers, accountants and financial intermediaries, in facilitating money laundering. In other words, it was widespread.

When we talked about this with regard to Bill C-42, there were a couple of lessons the bill probably has taken into account that we can learn from. One is the need for transparency. Another is public awareness and the fact there are shell corporations using their own entities to launder dirty money.

We looked at the benefits we wanted to see from this bill in bringing it from committee to Parliament. The Conservative Party stands behind the fact that we need to combat money laundering. When it comes to certain aspects of the future of how money is going to be laundered, including blockchain technologies, the use of AI, decentralized exchanges, privacy enhancing technologies, and smurfing and layering, this bill falls short in addressing those things.

Furthermore, many people do not understand that when we look at the way we are going to collect data from these businesses when tackling money laundering, which is through the Canada Business Corporations Act, or the CBCA, it is only on 15% of businesses in Canada, meaning that we will rely on the provinces to do the work for the remaining 85%. If any last holdout province, for instance, does not want to join the registry and all of a sudden we see a certain province's limited partnerships start to skyrocket as other provinces' go down, there is pressure to be put on that particular province: Why do they want to be Canada's last secrecy jurisdiction?

This follows what we saw with the U.K. registry, where Scottish limited partnerships dropped by 80%. One way to mine the data once the registry comes online is to look for movement shifts, because of course crooks are going to go where the weakest link is. That is why it has to be a harmonized approach, not just a federal approach.

The CBCA governs the incorporation and operation of businesses at the federal level, setting the framework for corporate governance, accountability and transparency. By enforcing strict obligations on corporations, directors and officers to maintain accurate records and disclose information, the CBCA enhances transparency and hinders criminals from exploiting corporate structures for illegal purposes. Additionally, the CBCA empowers regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies and courts to investigate suspected money laundering activities within corporations.

We heard from the RCMP at committee. One of the concerns we had was about how strict the rules are that protect whistle-blowers. We need whistle-blowers to identify where illegal activity is happening. As a small business owner myself, I have about four corporations that govern different parts of my business. Members can understand that without the ability to protect whistle-blowers, it is really easy sometimes for a small business owner to hide money and find different loopholes to hide it. I normally rely on an accountant to do that for me, but there is a reason that Canada has been able to hide $113 billion a year: It has become very easy.

One of the main aspects of this is that we have to be able to protect whistle-blowers. We asked questions of the RCMP on whether that is going to happen. This bill was so rushed that it went through committee in only two meetings, which included clause-by-clause and having testimony alongside the clause-by-clause. Some of the experts could not even get back to us, including the RCMP, on how effective this bill would be in protecting whistle-blowers, and that is a big concern.

When it comes to the future of money laundering, there was also testimony on the fly during clause-by-clause, with questions that I tried to get witnesses to answer, but the witnesses did not really have the right answers. For cryptocurrencies and blockchain, for instance, criminals may increasingly turn to cryptocurrencies for money laundering purposes. The anonymous nature of certain cryptocurrencies and the decentralized nature of blockchain technology can make it more challenging to trace and monitor transactions.

We saw that in a study we finished on blockchain technology. Blockchain is really good for Canada and good for the future. We employ 16,000 employees in blockchain, and it is worth over $2 billion. However, as we have seen blockchain for good, there is also blockchain for bad. This is certainly one aspect in the future where criminals will try to hide and launder money, and this bill would do nothing to address that.

When we talk about decentralized exchanges, criminals might explore those exchanges to launder money. DEXs, as they are called, operate on blockchain technology and facilitate peer-to-peer transactions without centralized oversight, making it more difficult for authorities to track and identify suspicious activities. We just had an incredible blockchain study, but at the same time as this bill would not address the criminal element of blockchain technology, we are not looking at the good. That is something the government is not embracing. Most times, it would rather slag cryptocurrencies and blockchain as a whole, even though we should be looking at deregulation and ensure they are part of money laundering bills.

On privacy-enhancing technologies, criminals may utilize emerging privacy-enhancing technologies that aim to provide increased anonymity and obfuscation of transactions. Those technologies could make it harder for authorities to trace the origins and destinations of funds involved in money laundering. Smurfing and layering involves breaking down large amounts of money into smaller, less conspicuous transactions.

That brings me to an amendment we brought forward that was turned down by the government. Instead of looking at ownership that was only 25% or higher, it should go as low as 10%. The technologies of the future are going to allow companies to hide more money easily, and 10% is something that we found should have been easily amended in this bill and was not.

It is important to address the potential regulatory gaps and weaknesses and make sure that this bill addresses the system that criminals may wish to exploit. As regulations evolve, criminals may identify new vulnerabilities or target regions with less robust anti-money laundering frameworks. Strengthening international co-operation and collaboration among governments and financial institutions is crucial to countering the global nature of money laundering effectively.

The Conservatives can support this bill. This bill would address the $113-billion problem. We just wish it was not so rushed. We wish that we had been able to address some of the amendments that went further. What the bill would not address is the future of money laundering, which will include blockchain and advanced technologies. This bill would just address today and would not address tomorrow.

I know that a Conservative government, which will be in power in the next few years, will be able to address that. I look forward to contributing to it to make sure that we bring down the $113-billion theft of Canadian money and work toward a better future where we have less snow washing in Canada.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his intervention and his hard work in committee standing up for the interests of Quebec. We do not always see eye to eye on what is best for Quebec, but I think that we are certainly strong voices for standing up for these interests.

As members know, in February 2020, the Government of Quebec announced its intention to create a registry. Bill 78 was introduced in the National Assembly in June 2020 and was passed in December of the same year. To answer my colleague's question, there were provisions to create this registry of beneficial owners and make it public.

What are the challenges involved in bringing in such a registry and harmonizing it with those of the other provinces? That will become clear over time. If we are careful and create legislation based on what the provinces have already created, then we are more likely to achieve harmonization. There will no doubt be some bumps along the way, but solutions might present themselves.

I think that in a context like this, the provinces have jurisdiction. It is essential that the federal government build on what the provinces are doing and not fight what the provinces are doing. I think that is one of the intentions. Obviously, in Bill C‑42 before us, information sharing and transparency are fundamental.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to pay tribute to the people back home, especially those who are helping to fight the wildfires. The town of Normétal has been spared so far, but it is important to mention that the situation there is now critical. As of tomorrow, we are expecting really dry weather. The firebreaks put in place by the SOPFEU should hold, but there is a chance that there will not be enough resources to keep the flames at bay if new fires break out.

I therefore want to say thank you to all the responder units. I am thinking especially of the firefighters from New Brunswick. One of them, Bruno Pelletier, whose name has been in the news, explained all the operational details to me, for example, how a firefighting team takes action on the ground. It is rather impressive to see how they are able to deploy not just to Abitibi-Témiscamingue but anywhere in North America. I want to commend them for their courage, and I am very grateful to them for being there to help with what is to come, because we are still on high alert. We will just have to wait and see what happens in my region and others, obviously.

I am rising to talk about Bill C-42 and how vitally important it is. The bill amends the Canada Business Corporations Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I want to begin by noting that this bill is long overdue. It is the result of federal-provincial agreements reached in 2017 and 2018 about collecting and sharing information. During those negotiations, all parties agreed to amend their laws on business corporations to ensure they would remain harmonized. Ultimately, this will make us more effective in the fight against money laundering and terrorism.

Information in the registry of one province is automatically recognized in another, thanks to the similarity of our laws. However, it is important to note that Quebec recently made changes to its law in 2021, through Bill 78, and it is expected that the other provinces will follow suit. Bill 78 contains provisions to create a beneficial ownership registry and make it public.

However, this amendment to Bill C-42 does not stem from an agreement with the provinces and is not intended to maintain this harmonization. It is poorly timed. Obviously, we opposed it in committee.

We need to recognize the importance of maintaining cohesion and respecting the process done previously. I commend the leadership of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, because he was able to put together a bill that took into account harmonization and the priority of the provinces in something like this. As a result, the debates are less tedious, and harmonizaton is easier to achieve in this kind of context. What is more, Bill C‑42 went through rather quickly at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, despite some rather constructive amendments on both sides.

The market relies on investor confidence and that confidence is directly tied to the transparency and good governance of corporations. Businesses also have to fully understand the purpose of the changes made to the business registry.

By passing Bill C‑42, we are strengthening the principles of corporate governance, not only to the benefit of shareholders, but also in the interest of the public as a whole. The whole notion of a registry that will enable us to do searches is something that is very important. We received witnesses from the RCMP who came to tell us how a tool like this could help them in their work, which is far from trivial.

This bill is much more than a simple administrative measure. That is why I am urging my colleagues to move forward with it as soon as possible. The House is about to rise for the summer. It would be really unfortunate if the bill were to die on the Order Paper, because the future is hard to predict at this stage. This is an opportunity to fight organized crime, money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

By strengthening our legal framework, we are creating an environment that is less conducive to illegal activities and that helps protect our fellow citizens and financial institutions. As a result, by rejecting the amendments that threaten the harmonization of the legislation, we are sending a clear message—and that is what the Bloc Québécois has done—that we are determined to fight these scourges and preserve the integrity of our financial system. Obviously, that is the basis of our economy. Maintaining a strong economy depends first and foremost on trust and predictability, as well as on robust laws that are not easily circumvented.

To say that this bill was necessary is an understatement. I wonder why it took so long to present it in the House. A consensus could have been reached in the previous Parliament, or even in the one before that.

It is vital to recognize that corporate governance principles are important for the proper functioning of the market. By encouraging transparency, accountability and informed decision-making, we are bolstering investor confidence and promoting long-term financial stability. We must ensure that our companies have a transparent governance structure that allows for informed, responsible decisions not only in the interest of shareholders, but also in the interest of the Canadian public, obviously. However, shareholder interests are not trivial.

Legislative amendments must never be taken lightly. They have a ripple effect on our entire economic system. If we throw the harmonization of our legislation off balance, we could create disparities and needless obstacles for our companies. This could slow economic growth, discourage investment and detract from the ability of Quebec and Canada to compete internationally.

We are at a pivotal moment. We need to pass Bill C-42 in its current form, after the amendments that were adopted by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I am not talking about the one we are debating right now, which essentially strikes me as a waste of valuable parliamentary time. In fact, I hope that the voters of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount are watching our debates right now and will think about this before going to the polls at the last minute. Maybe it will make them think twice about supporting the Conservatives, if they were tempted to do so.

Passing this bill would be an illustration of our commitment to combatting organized crime and terrorist financing, as well as promoting sound corporate governance principles. We will continue to work with the provinces and stakeholders to maintain harmonized legislation and ensure market fluidity.

We must seize this opportunity and take action. Bill C-42 is a positive measure for Quebeckers and Canadians. It is essential that we commit to passing it, recognizing the importance of transparency, corporate governance and co-operation with the provinces to maintain legislation that can provide a robust mechanism to combat money laundering and catch fraudsters.

Together we can strengthen our economy, protect Quebeckers and Canadians, and promote a fairer and more prosperous society for all.

When I think about studying this bill in committee, I think about the day we received the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. We were able to question him about a number of things, including how this fight against organized crime is being conducted. I asked questions about how much it costs to fight organized crime, but also how much it costs to not fight organized crime. The figures are staggering. I think that in a society like ours, when we are fighting, when we see the forest fires, when we see the consequences for the economy, when we are forced to keep investing in tax credits for oil companies, I think we are fooling ourselves economically. We need to be able to refocus our investments responsibly. That means having the means to match our ambitions. If we want to make this economic transition a success, we are going to have to come up with the money to do it. That money can be found in tax havens.

We have lists of corporations, but the problem is that we do not know who the real owners of these corporations are. One corporation belongs to another corporation, which also belongs to another corporation and so forth. That is often the problem in the financial world. Who is the true owner? It is all very well to say that there is an ecosystem of 120 or 150 countries that are working together and sharing data, but the fact remains that the threat continues to be that we do not know who the real owners are.

There are companies that want to open mines and process minerals in a region such as mine. However, there is a risk, because a Chinese mining company whose ownership is unknown will have particular interests, and perhaps its sole objective will be to take over our resources and process them in China so they can keep them, or to thwart Canadian companies' growth in order to maintain a monopoly and keep the price of raw materials high.

At some point, there must be a paradigm shift. We must be able to determine who really owns corporations if we are to make the changes needed in our society. Clearly, money has a certain value in our democracy. If we want to continue providing quality social services, we have to go and get the money back from where it is stashed, by fighting against money laundering and tax havens.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak about Bill C-42 today. It is an honour for me not only because I am speaking on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola but also because it also gives me a chance to recall some of my work as a member of the finance committee in 2017, where we did an extensive review of the money-laundering regime in Canada as it relates to not only money laundering but also to the financing of terrorism.

Let me give a quick shout-out to the former chair of that finance committee, the Hon. Wayne Easter, who basically said that we should travel to places like London and Washington as part of it. I was a member of Parliament who was quite skeptical of junkets in all their forms, but he told me that he thought it was important for the committee to do that, and some of the best testimony we received as a committee on how Canada is seen in the world with respect to things like money laundering was absolutely correct. I have to thank the Hon. Wayne Easter for those observations, because it really showed that Canada is an outlier, and for all the wrong reasons.

We have seen Transparency International talk year after year about how we are slowly becoming a country where money laundering has become a problem. We were once very respected under the Transparency International regime.

Those 2017 recommendations from the committee still stand. It was an all-party report. The Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc members and New Democrats participated in the report and came to many unanimous recommendations, partly as a result of those trips and experiences, because we saw very clearly that Canada had a lot to achieve.

Coming back to Bill C-42, there are a number of things missing from this legislation. For example, recommendation 10 from the 2017 report refers to a rule in the United States.

It states:

That the Government of Canada make it a criminal offence for an entity or individual to structure transactions in a manner designated to avoid reporting requirements. These provisions would be modelled on Title 31 of U.S. code section 5324.

What that means is that while this will capture some of the significant control of a particular corporation's holdings so that someone would be able to find out who had significant control of an asset, such as a piece of real estate, it operates only after the fact. Only then can law enforcement start to draw evidence together to link a particular group, such as organized crime or a terrorism group, with a group of accountants or business owners and lawyers, and through that web be able to trace exactly who is connected to whom and be able to start pulling on those threads.

The Americans have taken a much more proactive approach by making it a crime to help someone to structure their affairs to avoid transparency. This is quite important. While there are many measures in the Criminal Code, it is important that we look at Canada. One of the outcomes of the report is that the legal community is still not within the FINTRAC regime. While we have seen an expansion in recent years, I think partly because of our report regarding FINTRAC, we still do not see everything included, such as lawyers.

Members may ask why that is important. It is because they are the very professionals who structure those affairs so that the money can be laundered in Canada, so I think it is an area still worthy of investigation.

Let us go to the beneficial ownership registry itself. When we went to the United Kingdom, one of the things that struck me there is that it has this beneficial ownership registry online. It is free, and there is very limited information.

First of all, I do not think most Canadians will go to a beneficial ownership registry. There is always a temptation to see what one's neighbour owns and, of course, there could be some abuses that way, but essentially, the people who would be looking at this are law enforcement and Canada Revenue Agency employees working on files that are related to the matter of money laundering. It is absolutely critical that those law enforcement officials, people who are lawfully accessing it for investigate purposes, be able to do so quickly.

However, this registry would only carry just a sliver. Again, for the people at home saying that a beneficial registry sounds good to them, it would only be for those corporations that are registered under the Canada Business Corporations Act. As someone who has lived in British Columbia my whole life, I will say that, from speaking to many lawyers, I know that the bulk of solicitors' work is when they are processing real estate and updating the registry of which a company is kept, and most of that action happens provincially.

As my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills recently said, this particular measure might offer some good points, but it is only as strong as the weakest link. If we have 10 different registries, we may end up in the tyranny of small differences.

We could take health care as an example. Not all health care information is delivered to the Public Health Agency of Canada in a uniform manner. We find that fax machines are still being used. If one province only gives information under certain forms, it is then very difficult to aggregate that to get a whole picture.

The government, just as it has done in previous agreements with provinces, comes to an agreement on principle, but when it comes time to do the work, unfortunately it does not seem to have a true consensus. I will just harken back to the Canada free trade agreement, which apparently all parties sided with. Half of it was exemptions. One may agree in principle with something, but when it comes to the operability of what comes out of something, it seems that the government is only looking for the big announcement. In this case, it is a beneficial ownership registry that would be transparent.

Again, if it is only a sliver of the activity and it does not necessarily create a uniformity of interoperable registries where everyone can funnel the same information and have aggregated information that is the same, meaning that it is always going have the same basics available, one is going to have that tyranny of small differences. When someone is looking for that information, the last thing we want to do is end up where we do not supply the information to law enforcement in a straight, one-stop shop.

I should also point out that in the U.K., the so-called transparency model has some caveats. When I was at committee, I asked officials about this, and they did say that for persons under 18, their information would not be shared, which probably is for the best, although I would ask how someone under the age of 18 would end up with significant control over a Canadian asset, but we will leave that for another time. Also, there would be exemptions on a case-by-case basis. In the U.K., politicians and celebrities are often taken off. This creates, just like all government systems, a system where someone who is working the registry is now making choices about who is included and who is not.

It is an honour for me to step forward here, and it was an honour to serve on the finance committee. This is an area where I think we can do more. As the Prime Minister likes to say, better is always possible. Unfortunately, we will just have to take what we can get today and hope that a new Conservative government would do the hard work with provinces so that we could really clamp down on money laundering.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say how disappointed I am with Bell Canada's decision to eliminate jobs back home, in my region, particularly in Rimouski. One of the people who lost his job was an experienced journalist, Martin Brassard. He has 35 years' experience and worked for the Énergie radio station, which he left recently, and then for Rouge FM in Rimouski.

Local and regional information is vital to the development of our communities and also to the health of our democracy. I hope that the government will listen to reason and put in place the solution proposed by the Bloc Québécois of creating a special fund to support regional media.

Members know that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-42 because it seeks to foster transparency. We have heard much about the Panama Papers. Is it normal that there are whistle-blowers and people hiding behind corporations, but that we do not have any information about this? Does my colleague agree that there should be more transparency in corporations?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that Canadians are facing in this country and, specifically, those issues that impact Battle River—Crowfoot.

However, I was celebrated, along with so many in this place and fathers across this country, this past weekend on Sunday, as our nation recognized fathers. If I could for a brief moment, before I get into the substance of what is a very substantive debate, I would just like to pass along my greetings, officially on the record, to my father, all fathers across the country and those grandfathers who have impacted us. Although I do not have grandfathers alive anymore, I know the significant role they played in my life. I wish a happy belated Father's Day to all the fathers represented across our country from coast to coast to coast.

We are debating Bill C-42 here this evening. Although, unfortunately, it seems that the government did some tricky manoeuvring to change the debate from Bill C-18 to Bill C-42, this is an important issue that bears fulsome and comprehensive discussion in this place.

I will back up a bit and talk about something that is probably not on the radar of many Canadians, because when it comes to the idea of money laundering, most Canadians do not really understand the significance of what it is. For example, I know the Panama papers are part of the discussion that has surrounded this bill in particular. I will enlighten us on the challenge that brought us to the point that we would be debating this here this evening. I will then get into what is proposed and where I think some additional items need to be challenged, discussed and addressed, when it comes to the larger issue of what the bill is trying to accomplish.

Most people who have spent much time watching Hollywood movies will have heard of the Cayman Islands, Switzerland or other jurisdictions that are known for hiding money. Criminal enterprises, gangs and thugs store money there, access it in a secretive manner and ensure they could take dirty money that was earned by some nefarious process, whether that be the sale of something illegal, the proceeds of crime or whatever the case is. They go through a process where the money comes out, and it might not be clean on the other side, but at least it is not traceable to the original way that it was earned. This is why we call it “laundering”.

Things like the Panama papers and other news articles make headlines on occasion, and specifically, they often only make headlines when there are significant figures that are involved. This may happen if there is a businessperson or a politician who has some notoriety and is named in these sorts of releases. However, one of the really unfortunate realities is that Canada has become a place where we are known for being able to have money laundering take place.

That is incredibly concerning, especially in a world where digital technology, artificial intelligence and the dynamics associated with some of these things are incredibly complex. We have not had a great deal of time to discuss artificial intelligence in this place. The fact that Canada has become something of a safe haven for money laundering and the proceeds of crime is incredibly concerning.

Some of those proceeds would be from criminal activities that take place on Canadian soil, but the unfortunate signal that has been sent to the criminal enterprises that exist around the world is that Canada seems to be the place where one can see money laundered, regardless of where those proceeds are from. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

This has a few unintended consequences as well that I think bear mentioning. Just to highlight for those watching, one of the things that has been highlighted that would be a possible way to see this happen is through the purchase of real estate. At a time when we already have some of the lowest per capita housing availability in the developed world, it is incredibly concerning that some of the pressures that exist there would be for purposes that are nefarious and certainly not benefiting Canadians for the pricing structure that exists. Especially when we have a price point that is determined in a market that is not based on the product and its availability, laundering artificially inflates it. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

That is the problem. Now we have Bill C-42, which is a step in the right direction to address some of those things. The question is whether it goes far enough, and I will get to the ways that I do not think it does. However, it does address some of the challenges and attempts to ensure that some of the currently existing loopholes that allow Canada to be this safe haven, as I mentioned, are addressed.

One thing is to ensure that there is greater accountability for those who are purchasing businesses that have those large financial interests in this country. The reason this is important is to ensure that there is that registry and that ability to have accountability at every stage of the corporate process. For those who have no reason to hide their actions, of course, this is not something that will concern them. There may be some reporting requirements through financial institutions and whatnot, but if a person is not doing anything wrong, these burdens are not something that would be part of the daily life of the accounting of a business's operations; that is valuable.

When it comes to the fines, and we have certainly heard a lot about the fines as we have had debate about this issue, there would be an increase in the penalties, both monetary penalties and possible prison sentences. Certainly, I think that is important, although I will note the irony that it seems as though the Liberals have this habit of being soft on crime in many regards, but they want to send a signal through the legislation, it would seem, that Canada is willing to get tough when it comes to white-collar crime. However, there are certainly some challenges when it comes to the crime that is affecting so many Canadians.

There are a number of aspects that build on some of the actions that have been taken by the previous Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which saw this as a challenge and started to make some of those changes. Notably, back in 2014, I believe, there were some significant changes that the Harper government made to ensure that it would tighten up some of the areas that were loopholes at that point in time. A number of steps have been taken over the last number of years.

I believe my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills said it well when he talked about a chain being only as strong as its weakest link. We are seeing that there could be some holes plugged in the challenges that Canada faces when it comes to money laundering. However, it is fundamentally important to ensure that we do not stop here.

A lot of this discussion took place at committee, and I know folks who are watching are interested in seeing some of that. The work that the committee did highlighted some opportunities that existed in terms of strengthening this legislation, and we saw a few amendments pass. However, a whole host of other amendments could have made this legislation stronger.

To address some of this strange occurrence that happens increasingly with the government, it seems to be quick to rush everything through, because it is a crisis. This is unfortunate; as it is rushing things through, it often ends up having to go back and fix the challenges or the gaps that could and should have been addressed in the earlier stages of the process. At the industry committee, there were some challenges brought up, including from some senior public servants who were concerned about the possibility of challenges when it comes to implementation. There are privacy concerns that the Liberals have to address, and this is simply another part of those areas.

To conclude, it is incumbent on us all in this place to do our utmost to ensure that every bill that comes forward is debated thoroughly and that we have engagement from the affected stakeholders. When it comes to something like this, it may not be on the forefront of many Canadians' minds, but it is fundamentally important that we get it right, so that we can stop Canada from being a safe haven for money laundering in this world.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-42, which is the government's proposal for a beneficial ownership registry.

I would like to critique this registry, because this is an incredibly important issue. The fact of the matter is that Canada has become a haven for global money laundering. In fact, do not take it from me. Here is just some international reporting on Canada. In the New York Times, just a few months ago, on March 25, an article written by Ian Austen, the Times journalist who covers Canada, begins with the sentence, “Canada is such an attractive place for money laundering that there’s even a special name to describe the activity here: ‘snow washing’.”

The U.S. State Department, in 2019, designated Canada as a “major money laundering country”. In fact, I pulled up the State Department's report from March 2022, titled “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report”, volume 2. The report says, under “Canada”, that it is estimated that between “$36 billion [and] $91 billion is laundered annually in Canada”. Assuming those are U.S. dollars, that represents, roughly, between $50 billion and $120 billion a year that is laundered through this country. One hundred and twenty billion dollars a year is roughly 5% of our GDP. Five per cent of our GDP consists of money laundering.

That March 2022 report says, “Noted deficiencies include limited oversight of the domestic non-profit sector, gaps in [customer due diligence] responsibilities for [designated non-financial businesses and professions], and a lack of beneficial ownership transparency for trusts and similar legal mechanisms.” Therefore, not only has our status as a money-laundering haven and, by consequence, a sanctions-avoiding haven and a proceeds-of-international-crime haven become documented in The New York Times; it has also been noticed by the State Department.

It is not just internationally that it has been documented. In the province of British Columbia, there was a huge commission of inquiry into money laundering. Its final report was published in June 2022 by the Honourable Austin Cullen, who was the commissioner. The commission found that billions of dollars were being laundered through British Columbia companies, British Columbia real estate and British Columbia trusts, and that this was having a deleterious impact on people living in British Columbia. This report came out just last year, highlighting the problems with money laundering in just one province, which represents roughly 10% of Canada's population. It is clear that we have a problem with money laundering and that, by consequence, we also have a problem with becoming a destination for the proceeds of sanctions evasion and a destination for the proceeds of international criminal activity. The government introduced this legislation, in part, to try to respond to these very real concerns, but the problem with the legislation in front of us is that it is deeply flawed.

I asked the Library of Parliament to do some research on the number of federally incorporated entities in Canada. The information it provided for me was that, for the year 2020, the most recent year for which data have been provided, the number of CBCA corporations, federally incorporated entities, is 421,301. The problem is that there are some 4.3 million businesses in Canada, of which only roughly 10% are CBCA corporations.

Ninety per cent of businesses in Canada are incorporated under 10 different provincial statutes, of the ten different provinces, and these corporations and trusts would not be included in Bill C-42's beneficial ownership registry. The Liberal government would say that it is working with the provinces to encourage them to create a beneficial ownership registry. The problem is that one province, Alberta, has not made any moves to create one. The problem with the other provinces is that their beneficial ownership registries have major loopholes in them. The only beneficial ownership registry in the country that is worth the paper it is written on is that of the province of British Columbia. That proposed registry includes provincially incorporated entities, trusts and real estate; it is capturing all of that in its registry. As a result, that provincial registry, combined with the federal one, would include all companies in the province of British Columbia. The problem for the other nine provinces is that they are not including real estate, which the Cullen commission in British Columbia identified as a major asset through which money, international money in particular, is being laundered.

The registry in front of us would only be as good as the weakest link in the entire system, and at least eight of the 10 provinces are not including real estate in their beneficial ownership registry. As a result, people overseas trying to avoid sanctions enforcement and trying to launder the illicit proceeds of crime and terrorism would be able to use Canadian real estate in eight out of 10 provinces to continue to launder their money, just like the Cullen commission identified in the province of British Columbia. Those individuals overseas and outside of Canada who want to avoid sanctions or want to launder the illicit proceeds of their crimes or terrorism could do so through provinces where a beneficial ownership registry for provincially incorporated entities has yet to be proposed. It is clear that the proposed beneficial ownership registry that the government has put in front of us today would not solve the problem of Canada's status as a destination for snow washing, a destination for international money laundering.

What the government should have done is to have used the broad and deep criminal powers accorded to it in the Constitution, which courts in this country, through various rulings, have long upheld as being broad and deep, to create a national beneficial ownership registry that would have included all companies in Canada, whether they are incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act or whether they are incorporated under one of 10 provincial statutes. It should have included all trusts in Canada, whether they were incorporated federally or provincially, and it should have included the beneficial owners of all real estate, real property in Canada, in order to ensure that we start cracking down on those who would use our country as a haven for money laundering for the proceeds of terrorism or for the proceeds of crime. The Liberal government did not proceed down that path, so, once again, we would have implementation of a good idea from the government in a very flawed manner, as it has been with so many things that the government has made announcements about.

I will finish here. The beneficial ownership registry in front of the House today would not plug the hole that has allowed this country to become such a haven and such a destination country for sanctions evasion for the proceeds of crime, for the proceeds of terrorism and for money laundering in general that landed us, in March, on the front page of the New York Times, and in the State Department's assessment of global havens for money laundering.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by recognizing that there are plenty of partisan games being played in our Parliament right now and that the governing party has every right to advance its legislative agenda.

When it comes to limiting debate on Bill C-42, though, we just began it last sitting day. I believe there have been four speeches so far. That is fewer than the number of parties represented in this House. If we take a further step back, this is the eighth time that debate will be limited since May 1. In fact, I could only find four instances where we have not had debate limited.

Is it not a concern to the minister and others in the governing party that by moving forward in this way and by mismanaging the agenda to this extent, it is enshrining an approach that allows others to do the exact same thing when are be power?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, I am the only member in this chamber who participated in the amendment stage of Bill C-42. I will point out that we worked in good faith with all members of this House of Commons to put forward common-sense amendments to the legislation.

The hour before we had clause-by-clause, we had some of the most critical witnesses appear on this bill. They were from Transparency International. One of their key recommendations, in the hour before we had the amendment stage, was to adopt language from Bill 20, the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023, of British Columbia, which would have strengthened the provisions in the legislation regarding identity, specifically noting, “The records, information or proof must be provided under subsection (1) in the prescribed form and manner.” It also would have required that the bill strengthen the ability of the director of Corporations Canada to receive information on identity and citizenship so the bill could work clearly.

What is problematic in this case is that we wanted to bring forward good amendments. The NDP even brought good amendments forward, but the government voted against them simply because it had witnesses appear the hour preceding clause-by-clause. If we are going to have good legislation, we cannot have a parliamentary practice where witnesses appear the hour before. We limited ourselves from making the bill as good as it could have been simply because of that tactic by the government.

No, we have not stalled on the bill. We have worked in good faith to get the best legislation possible for Canadians, even to achieve the government's objectives of better interoperability, better standards and better threshold requirements. However, unfortunately, the government voted against all that and is now bringing in closure at the last minute instead of getting the bill right.

Whatever has been said by the minister and the parliamentary secretary so far has been false. We have been there to move the legislation along, and the government has used tactics to delay work to get the best clauses possible and to improve it in good faith for all Canadians.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his wise leadership in the House.

I agree with the member's comment. It is not just the dilatory tactics and the wasting of time. It is that the Leader of the Opposition is relishing in that in front of the media, being proud of the fact he is trying to grind Parliament down to a stop to prevent good pieces of legislation from moving forward. These are bills such as this one, Bill C-42, and Bill C-40, which I mentioned an hour ago. Over the last month, we have witnessed, time and time again, the misuse of time, the use of delay tactics and the real negativity these bring to the House of Commons.

We want to move forward with this bill because it is a positive bill for Canadians. We want to move forward with this bill because it would help us fight organized crime, money laundering and terrorist financing, and would give us better principles of corporate governance. We rely on the market to do many things in our country and in our economy. For that market to function properly, we need corporate governance structures that are transparent and that allow proper corporate decisions to be made, for the purposes of not only shareholders but also the Canadian public, to the extent that we allow the market to regulate these kinds of issues.

It is an important bill, and we need to pass it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having spent my life in opposition, I do know that the one tool the opposition has is time. We have the time to speed things up and the time to slow things down. However, at the end of the day, time is about serving the Canadian people.

I see Bill C-42, which has the beneficial ownership registry. It is legislation to deal with Russian oligarchs. We could be debating that. Instead, we have been having to witness Conservatives with their long litany of whining, perceived slights and imagined microaggressions. It is always about them and their feelings. I get a feeling that European soccer teams might hire them over the summer to give them lessons on how to do the theatrics of lying on the grass and holding a knee.

Meanwhile, we have legislation to get done. We are staying until midnight, night after night. Instead of the Conservatives standing up for their constituents and talking about legislation that needs to get passed, they are talking about themselves, how bad they feel and how their feelings have been hurt.

I would ask the hon. member to give us a basic sense of the level of importance of getting this legislation through.

Bill C-42—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Motions in Amendment

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-42 at report stage. I will be talking about themes that have already been explored today.

One of the reasons a public beneficial ownership registry is so important is because Canada, notoriously, is losing tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue ever year as a result of tax havens. That is where Canadian corporations are able to declare their revenue in other jurisdictions, and then either bring that money back into the country or not, without paying any sort of tax. That means, despite corporations doing their business and raising their revenue here in Canada, they are finding ways out of paying their fair share.

That is from a more general point of view and about paying into general revenue that then goes to paying for things such as the Canada health transfer and other important sources of funding that ensure Canadians have access to health care, education and the other important services they depend upon. It is also because these companies are making use of a fair amount of Canadian infrastructure, which Canadians pay for through the public purse, to create the profits they are getting. It is only right that they pay their fair share.

If we look at the share of government revenue that comes from business and corporate tax over the last number of decades, that share has been decreasing considerably against the share that working Canadians are paying. We do end up in a difficult situation that is not financially tenable, where corporate Canada is no longer paying as much of the bill as it used to for government services.

One of the tools to do that is to better define the extent to which tax revenue is being avoided or escaped by corporate players in Canada. Part of that puzzle is lifting the veil of secrecy that so often covers various business arrangements and makes it hard to tell who needs to be held to account for their business practices.

Even though I think it is an interesting idea to have a global minimum tax, which is not to say that means Canada has to have a minimum corporate tax, we have a lot of other competitive advantages that make us an attractive place for investment, and Canada should not sell itself short in that regard.

Nevertheless, even if we did have a world minimum corporate tax, it is not going to address the issues of secrecy that a public beneficial ownership registry rightly addresses. It is also important to say that, in the current context and over the course of the last year or so, the arguments for a beneficial public ownership registry have become even more urgent because there is another side to this story.

When I talk about the veil of secrecy around corporate actors and ensuring they are paying their fair share, that is just one part of the story. We also know that there are malignant actors who are not just getting out of paying their fair share of taxes, but who are doing far more. I think of some of the Russia oligarchs who are known to be close associates of Vladimir Putin, who is currently waging an illegal and unjust war in Ukraine. Canada, unfortunately, is one of the places where they have seen fit to stash some of their cash and assets.

To be able to properly enforce sanctions against people like that, we have to lift the veil of secrecy around corporate ownership because those are the spaces where these kinds of folks are hiding. That is why we have seen so many of Canada's allies across the world, in the last 18 months or so, really accelerate their own programs for beneficial public ownership registries. This is why Canada cannot be left behind.

My understanding is that, to implement this registry, it will take some time after the legislation passes to do that. That is why I believe it is important this legislation pass before we break for the summer. That gives about six months to the end of the year for officials to, with a legislated mandate from Parliament, begin to put this registry into effect.

That is one thing we can do to support Ukraine and ensure that Canada is not a haven for those that would do Ukraine harm. It is why this has to pass with urgency.

I take some of the points that were made earlier in debate about the imperfections of the process at committee. What I am hearing is that there is some goodwill around this bill and a willingness, I hope, as we move forward, to look at some of the weaknesses of the bill and improve upon it in the future. However, I would rather see us improving upon something that is in place than continuing to talk about what might come to be in a context where the buddies of Vladimir Putin are having a relatively free run here in Canada because we do not have the information we need to adequately track those sanctions.

I will give an example. There has been talk about lowering the ownership threshold under the public beneficial ownership registry. That is an idea I am quite open to, but I am also mindful that, if this registry is going to be a success, we need to have participation from the provinces. My understanding is that, where provincial registries already exist, the threshold is around 25%, so that is a conversation the federal government needs to have to work with the provinces to bring everyone along together in order to lower that threshold. If we end up with a federal registry with a lower threshold and some provinces decide not to participate, or to delay their participation, I do not think we will be doing ourselves a service.

That is why, while there is room for legitimate criticism and an opportunity to do better as we learn more about public beneficial ownership registries, it should not delay this legislation's passing before summer, so this can be brought into place in a timely way. Then Canada would be able to begin applying more pressure, as it rightly should, to folks who are supporting Vladimir Putin and his illegal war in Ukraine.

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

Madam Speaker, as previously stated, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-42. This bill will reveal who is really behind shell corporations. The bill will make it easier to fight tax evasion, money laundering and the financing of illegal activities.

Furthermore, the process that resulted in this legislation is beyond reproach and respects the jurisdictions and autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. This approach is becoming increasingly rare in Ottawa, and we applaud it in this case. Finally, I would like to remind the House that Quebec already has its own registry.

However, for anyone who believes in tax fairness, surely it is high time we cracked down on tax havens. As members know, by using them, the ultra-wealthy are evading taxes like never before, and so are the big banks, multinationals and web giants. These companies justify their actions on the grounds that their schemes are legal, even though their greed is completely immoral.

I would now like to refer to two economists, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who clearly illustrate the method in their book The Triumph of Injustice.

First, they explain that the legal framework for multinationals has changed little since they were first developed in the 1920s. Subsidiaries of the same multinational are treated as autonomous entities. For example, “Apple Ireland must be considered for tax purposes as a firm of its own, distinct from Apple USA.” Since Ireland's tax rate is half that of the United States, it is in the multinational's interest to transfer its profits there to pay half the tax.

In theory, subsidiaries must exchange goods and services at market value, on an arm's-length basis, as if the entities were independent of each other. In practice, however, they have considerable leeway to shift profits to tax havens.

The principle, which has barely changed, was developed in the 1990s by tax optimization consultancies. It involves the sale between subsidiaries of assets that have no market price, such as logos, brands, management services or financial services.

The economists give some examples:

What's the price of Apple's logo? It's impossible to know: This logo has never been sold in any market. What's the price of Nike's iconic “swoosh”? What's the price of Google's search and advertisement technology? Since these logos and trademarks and patents are never traded externally, firms can pick whatever price suits them.

The firms sell all-in services, that is, a creative intragroup transaction accompanied by a certified “correct” transfer price. Saez and Zucman explain what this means:

Thanks to the proliferation of intragroup transactions conducted at doctored prices, high profits [in the hundreds of billions of dollars] end up being recorded in subsidiaries where tax rates are low, and low profits in places where they are high.

The economists estimate that $800 billion U.S. in multinationals' profits is transferred to tax havens. That represents 40% of their global profits and 60% of the profits of U.S. multinationals.

Variations on these schemes are made available throughout the world by the Big Four accounting firms, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

It is always the same thing. Here are two examples provided by the authors:

In 2003, a year before it was listed as a public company in August 2004, Google sold its search and advertising technology to its own “Google Holdings,” a subsidiary incorporated in Ireland but for Irish tax purposes a tax resident of Bermuda, an island in the Atlantic where its “mind and management” are supposedly located.

Transfer pricing was kept secret, but it was certainly low. Otherwise, it would have had to be declared to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Saez and Zucman estimate the figure at $700 million U.S., tops, when the same algorithms have, for example, enabled Google Holdings to report $22.7 billion U.S. for doing business in Bermuda in 2017 alone. That is 30 times more for a single year. Talk about the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Economists have pointed out that, in Asia, Singapore is the location used instead of Bermuda. Its tax rate for multinationals is also nil, or zero.

Here is the second example. In 2004, Skype, which was founded by a Swede and a Dane, transferred the better part of its technology to its Irish subsidiary. However, thanks to LuxLeaks, the leak of confidential documents from PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2014, we know the details of that transaction. The cost of the technology transfer was estimated at 25,000 euros, which is scandalous, given that Skype was bought by eBay a year later in 2005 for $2.6 billion U.S., over 100,000 times the price of the transfer. Saez and Zucman explain that corporate tax dodging schemes are quite simple. They said the following:

At its core, it involves manipulating the price of intragroup transactions in goods (like iMacs), services (as when a US firm buys “management advice” from an affiliated party in Switzerland), assets (such as Google selling its search and advertisement technology to its Bermuda subsidiary), or loans (as happened during the Netherlands Antilles frenzy of the early 1980s).

In that regard, the Netherlands Antilles frenzy was a sort of dress rehearsal for the use of tax havens. It started in the late 1970s and was banned in the late 1980s. This new corporate tax evasion industry fits within the context of the emergence of the neo-liberal ideology, which occurred at the same time as the boom in tax havens for individuals. Saez and Zucman illustrated that as follows, and I quote:

Here is how it worked. A US firm would set up a subsidiary on the island of Aruba, Bonaire, or Curaçao. It would then have this affiliate borrow money from a European bank at the prevailing interest rate, around 3%, and lend it back to the US parent company at a much higher interest rate, around 8%.

The difference in rates helped shift the profits from the United States to the Caribbean.

As we know, the use of tax havens really took off in the 1990s. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, neo-liberalism triumphed. The new generation of executives focused their corporate role on serving the shareholders exclusively. In the meantime, the share of profits earned overseas doubled from 15% to 30% for American multinationals.

The response from wealthy states was to lower the corporate tax rate, which did not help repatriate their profits. Between 1985 and 2018, the average corporate tax rate was halved, going from 49% to 24%. As the two economists point out, in the early 1950s, corporations paid as much in taxes as individuals. Today, with the tax cuts and the use of tax havens, this ratio has changed dramatically. Businesses contribute 10 times less than individuals. Back home, in Quebec, this imbalance has been documented extensively by Professor Lauzon.

Multinationals now reign supreme; they artificially relocate their profits to tax havens to avoid paying taxes. The profits they do not relocate are taxed at half the rate they were 30 years ago. Not to mention that they outsource their real activities to countries where the people are underpaid, allowing their profits to swell even more.

The solution to this injustice is first and foremost political. In fact, that is the pretext that multinationals use. According to their rhetoric, all of this is legal. What is more, they undertake a colossal amount of lobbying to keep it that way. Saez and Zucman take issue with that:

It's a weak defense: nothing of substance happens in Bermuda, so it stands to reason that Google has booked $22.7 billion in revenue in that island to avoid taxes, in violation of the economic substance doctrine.

The authors conclude it will take a revolution in how things are done if we want to change the game, saying, “In need of a Copernican revolution, [the OECD has] been busy refining the Ptolemaic model”.

I therefore invite the House and this government to be the revolution the world needs.