Evidence of meeting #80 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
—unless there is unanimous consent to do otherwise. I'm guessing there is not, Mr. Masse.
Are there any more comments? Otherwise, I can feel everybody's position.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
You would like to ask for unanimous consent to postpone the vote on CPC-1.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Is there unanimous consent for postponing the vote on CPC-1 and NDP-1? They are the same.
6:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I'm sorry, Mr. Masse, but it was worth trying.
If there are no more comments on CPC-1, I would call the vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 1)
That brings us to clause 1.
Mr. Perkins.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'd like to propose CPC-2.
CPC-2 deals with the issue of real estate. Criminals, as we know, have long used real estate, immovable assets and purchasing through corporations to launder their money. A lot of that's been going on in British Columbia, but it's going on across the entire country, specifically with regard to real property immovables in the scope of the public registry. This, perhaps, might be suspenders and a belt, but in legislation, I kind of like suspenders and a belt to make sure that it's there. It will help discourage criminals from parking their money in Canadian real estate, which we know is a major problem in Canada.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you very much, Mr. Perkins.
Are there any comments on amendment CPC-2, which was just proposed by Mr. Perkins?
If there are no comments, I suggest we go to a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 1 agreed to)
(On clause 2)
Are there amendments on clause 2?
Mr. Masse, do you have an amendment to move on clause 2?
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I have an amendment that Bill C-42, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 2 with the following: “$100,000”.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
What's the name of the amendment, Mr. Masse, just the number? Is it NDP-2?
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes, it has to be.
Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Masse. You can go ahead and move your amendment.
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Generally speaking, I want to increase the fines and penalties, and that's to make this up to $100,000. I won't speak to it too much other than just to say that it's to make our fines and penalties—and this will be similar to what I'll be submitting later on in clause 5—a little more appropriate than what we currently have. Also, just to remind everybody, it's “up to” so it doesn't mandate. There's the full review and everything. It just gives more flexibility and opportunity for the fines.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.
Are there any comments on NDP-2?
I see Mr. Perkins.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I think we've heard testimony before, but I would support this amendment. I don't think $200,000 is enough. I think it's a modest amount for doing business. I like that it's “up to”, so it obviously could be less if required. One might even argue that $1 million is perhaps a little low, but pick your number.
I would love to see these things sometimes—being a new guy here—attached to some sort of CPI escalator. In five or 10 years from now, this may seem like a low number. I support this amendment.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you very much, Mr. Perkins.
Are there any more comments on NDP-2? I will call the amendment to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 3)
Shall clause 3 carry?
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
(On clause 4)
We're moving on now to clause 4. Are there amendments on clause 4?
I have Mr. Perkins.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'll give everyone a chance to catch up to CPC-19.
As written, Bill C-42 does not require the director of Corporations Canada to share information collected from the registrars of corporations with their provincial counterparts, as we read it.
The Liberals talked about interoperability of the federal public registry, but I think it has to be a little more specific in this bill. Provinces and the federal government must be on the same page in information sharing, if possible. We're proposing this amendment to try to make sure that we're better tied on that sharing of information.
I actually wouldn't mind having the officials comment on this.
6:50 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Certainly, the intent is obviously for the director of Corporations Canada to share the information with provinces and territories. The “may provide” in this particular case is there because the provinces and territories have not yet all—to date—accepted to participate in a pan-Canadian registry.
Absent actual formal participation, this would have an obligation for the director of Corporations Canada to send potentially sensitive information to a province with no capacity to receive it or potentially to a registry that is not yet interoperable with the federal one. Our goal here was to say “may provide”, and obviously, the intent, the whole goal of this, is to make it interoperable, but there are instances where it would not be appropriate to do so.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
If I could ask about that, even if a province hasn't set up its own registry, would it not be of some value for that government as well to understand the data? They may have information they would want to share with the federal government about those corporations.
6:50 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
It depends on the treatment of that information.
Obviously, the privacy assessment on this particular bill was done on the remit of the degree to which all participating parties were subject to the same regime. The notion that beneficial ownership information collected by the director of Corporations Canada would flow to an organization without a registry introduces potential risks.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Most provinces have a privacy law consistent with federal privacy law, do they not, plus or minus?
6:50 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
I think the treatment of the information, obviously, and how it's dealt with once it's received by the province. It's essentially compelling the director to potentially send information where there isn't an actual docking capacity.
6:50 p.m.
Martin Simard Senior Director, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
I can add that, if you look at the entirety of the provision, it's not upon request. You would create a provision that the director of Corporations Canada “shall” send the information, even if nobody else is on the line. The province has not requested the information. You create this obligation to share. It's not like “share upon request”, which you often see in the law.