Evidence of meeting #189 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is simply a drafting clean-up on the bill.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's been moved. Is there any discussion on Liberal-1?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 182 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 183)
Mr. Julian, on NDP-4, I'll give you some time to get your paperwork together.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, you'll recall the very extensive discussions we had around beneficial ownership and ensuring that we have identification around that for the Canada Business Corporations Act. We're looking for more detail around the information that's provided in the amendments to clause 183. Those amendments are offered for the consideration of the committee.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A couple of things in the amendment I think need to be put on the table, if you will.
One changes a modest penalty for what could be a corporate record-keeping administrative error, increasing the fine from not exceeding $5,000 to not exceeding $500,000. We don't want to be overly burdensome when people make a small clerical error. I think that is one of the key elements that certainly, from our perspective, can't be supported.
I think the other thing is the penalties and the outcomes of the discussion with the federal, provincial and territorial tables—
Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
This will go to both NDP-4 and NDP-5.
The nature of the obligations, the amount of the penalties, are all outcomes of an ongoing federal-provincial-territorial discussion, and work on the beneficial ownership transparency shouldn't be changed, certainly without discussions with them. As government, we can certainly add regulation at a later date, if indeed it's appropriate.
Again, going back to the penalties for what we'll call “minor infractions”, we want them not to be unduly harsh. I think it would be inconsistent with the intention of the act's framework. The importance of continuing to have those conversations and respect for those conversations with the federal, provincial and territorial governments is a key element of why NDP-4 and NDP-5 will not be supported.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have Ms. Hemmings and Mr. Schaan here as well, if there are any questions or clarifications for the officials.
Mr. Julian, do you want to add anything further?
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Julian is proposing to add a clause that requires an affidavit asserting the truthfulness of what's being filed. Does the United Kingdom do that in their register?
Mark Schaan Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
To the best of my knowledge, no. Their verification processes are subject to the individuals themselves. No affidavit is required.
Conservative
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
The number of corporations that may choose to have a beneficial owner in place would require each of them to seek an affidavit from all those individuals. In our view, this provision was deemed administratively burdensome.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The question is being called on amendment NDP-4.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move to NDP-5, Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On NDP-5, Ms. Rudd spoke to it already. I would just suggest that I disagree with her.
The administrative penalties right now are too small. I think the reality is that having a range of penalties that allows for what could be an egregious contravention of the law is something that should be an option. When it is just a tap on the wrist, for particularly larger or wealthier corporations, effectively what it does is it provides an incentive for non-compliance. But if the administrative penalties are of such a range that, yes, indeed, if there is a small transgression, it's treated as a small transgression, but a larger, more systematic violation of the law is treated with more importance, that compels compliance with the law. The reality is that, I think if you ask most Canadians, they would want to see, for larger, more significant transgressions, more of an ability for fines that match the size and scope of the transgression.
Expanding in this section the ability to fine up to $500,000 doesn't in any way force large fines for minor transgressions, but it does give more options for more significant ones. That's why I move this amendment.
London North Centre, Lib.
It was spoken to by Ms. Rudd, but I will add a couple of points here.
The government is able to add certain further requirements by regulation at a later date if appropriate. More to the point that was just raised by Mr. Julian, penalties for minor infractions should not be unduly harsh. The reason is that it would be inconsistent with the act's framework, and certain deliberate infractions by directors and shareholders are in fact subject to more significant monetary penalties of up to $200,000.
There are other issues, but I think they've been spoken to. I can't support it.
November 20th, 2018 / 1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have Mr. Julian and NDP-6 in the same clause.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
NDP-6 amends the bill by replacing line 8 on page 137 with the following:
their personal representatives and any prescribed person or entity, on sending to the corpora-
It expands the scope of that particular proposed section. I so move.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
The amendment provides for potentially greater access to the registry by prescribed persons or entities with the required affidavit. The scope of the register is consistent with the statute's current framework.
I'm going back to my previous comments about this being part of the outcome of the federal, provincial and territorial work and shouldn't be changed, certainly, again, without consultation with them. Any duly authorized investigative authority will be able to gain access to the records as necessary within this current framework.
I also will say that the government is also pursuing further consultations on access to ISC information by investigative authorities and others, and plans to engage on these issues again as part of the ongoing FPT work.
I think I'm going to come back to my comments earlier and reiterate that the federal, provincial and territorial conversations must be respected, and this amendment does not do that. For that reason I will not be supporting this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right. Is there any further discussion on this one?
(Amendment negatived on division)
We have NDP-7.