Yes. I read his testimony, and I agree that it was very compelling.
I think this speaks to this issue of beneficial ownership. I think that's what you're getting at. The reason I didn't mention it was that I didn't want to be repetitive. There is a consensus emerging among some of the witnesses who have come here, I feel, and perhaps among the committee as well, that there is some need for greater transparency when it comes to beneficial ownership.
It seems to me that the question was not “if” but who it was going to be available to, and whether it's going to be publicly available or available just to financial institutions. As a general principle, I think the greater the transparency the better.
I would also say this. I'm sneaking this in, but I'm going to try to keep it as much on your topic as possible. I recently spoke to a friend who is a charities lawyer. He talked about the fact that non-profits have very minimal filing requirements and very minimal oversight compared to charities, which do have more. As a result, there is a greater opportunity for money laundering to take place through non-profits. That speaks to your issue about the lack of transparency.
For instance, let's say we have a foreign state and their funds come in through some illicit means. They give their funds to a non-profit in Canada, let's say, and the non-profit gives them—I'm just using this as an example—to a radicalized mosque here in Canada. That mosque would have to report the donation very minimally as coming from the Canadian non-profit, but it obscures where the funds ultimately came from, which is that foreign state that may have obtained those funds in an illegal way.