Debates of March 31st, 2023

Canada Business Corporations Act

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

moved that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this morning to talk about Bill C-42, which is a very important bill. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Canadians about the important role Bill C-42 will play in combatting money laundering and bringing greater transparency to corporate Canada.

Today, I am proud to speak to Bill C-42, which deals with amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act as well as other acts, to create a public beneficial ownership registry for businesses incorporated federally. Our government is committed to a robust and effective regime that will combat money laundering and tax evasion, improve Canadians' trust in the marketplace and make Canada a leader in corporate transparency. Creating a free, public and searchable registry of beneficial owners of federally regulated Canadian corporations would increase corporate accountability and improve public trust in corporate institutions.

Why do we need a public beneficial ownership registry?

Corporations are the driving force behind our economic growth, innovation and competitiveness. They are the primary source of jobs and prosperity for Canadians. They are the means for entrepreneurs to make strategic investments and take calculated risks without jeopardizing their financial stability.

Unfortunately, bad actors can misuse the legal structures of corporations to engage in illicit activities such as money laundering, corruption and tax evasion. Corporate entities can be misused to avoid economic sanctions and to impair the tracing or freezing of assets. This reprehensible conduct can in turn have serious negative consequences for Canadians, notably impacting crime rates and tax revenues. For these reasons, Canada's federal and provincial finance ministers agreed in 2017 to pursue legislative amendments to improve transparency with regard to the individuals who ultimately control businesses incorporated in Canada.

Shortly thereafter, the Canada Business Corporations Act was amended to require federal corporations to hold accurate, up-to-date information on their beneficial owners. Additional changes were enacted to allow law enforcement and tax authorities to requisition this information when they believed it would be relevant to an investigation. All of these changes came into force in 2019. Since then, nearly all provinces have followed suit and enacted similar amendments in their respective jurisdictions, and now our government is taking a significant step toward a more transparent marketplace.

Through this bill, we are seeking to implement a pan-Canadian registry of the beneficial ownership information collected by corporations. This is a bold and significant undertaking that we are doing as a government.

First and foremost, it would strengthen Canada's efforts to prevent and combat financial crimes by providing law enforcement agencies with timely leads on potential suspects, witnesses and evidence. The registry would also facilitate tax administration and the identification and seizure of suspected proceeds of crime and terrorism financing. More generally, the registry would improve corporate accountability and thus help protect the public, improve trust in business institutions and ensure a well-functioning marketplace.

Simply put, increasing beneficial ownership transparency will enhance Canada's good international reputation as a safe, fair and competitive place to do business and provide even greater legitimacy to law-abiding Canadian businesses.

Unfortunately, over the years, some individuals have managed to take advantage of Canada's corporate framework to try to hide assets and hide other criminal activity. We need to work together to tackle this unacceptable practice.

In budget 2022, our government announced plans to accelerate the creation of a public beneficial ownership registry. Obviously, since corporate law is a shared jurisdiction, the registry will apply to the approximately 500,000 entities governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act. However, in developing the registry, we will ensure that provinces and territories that agree to join forces with us to combat tax evasion will have access to that shared data.

I will note what Bill C-42 would amend.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-42 represent the second series of changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act in relation to the creation of the registry. The first series of amendments, which were adopted by Parliament last June, would require federally incorporated companies to proactively submit information on their beneficial owners to Corporations Canada on an annual basis or when a change of control occurs. They would also allow Corporations Canada to disclose all or part of that information to an investigative body, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, otherwise known as FINTRAC, and other prescribed entities.

Furthermore, the amendments proposed in Bill C-42 would require corporations to collect and send additional information about their individuals of significant control, namely residential address and citizenship. They would also require that Corporations Canada make publicly available a portion of this information, while introducing an exemption regime for certain at-risk individuals, including minors. The bill also includes protections for whistle-blowers, bolsters investigation powers of Corporations Canada and creates new penalties to ensure robust compliance with the new regime.

Bill C-42 further proposes consequential amendments to other federal statutes, namely the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act, to facilitate information sharing and data validation in order to maintain the accuracy of the information in the registry.

Let me elaborate now on a few key features of the upcoming registry that deserve highlighting.

First, Bill C-42 would adopt a charter-compliant, made-in-Canada balance between corporate transparency and the protection of privacy. A number of key elements of information, including the name and address of each individual with significant control, would be publicly accessible and searchable. Other more sensitive data points, such as date of birth and citizenship, would only be available to law enforcement and certain authorized entities.

In addition, Bill C-42 proposes to permit exemptions from publication for minors as well as individuals who are incapacitated or who fear for their safety. All in all, this would ensure the registry is useful to foreign law enforcement agencies and regulated entities under anti-money laundering legislation, as well as media and not-for-profit organizations, while ensuring that it is not being misused for fraud, discrimination or other nefarious activities.

Second, the government is making a significant effort to ensure the integrity of the data available to law enforcement and the public. The experience of other jurisdictions has shown that the value of a registry is directly correlated to the accuracy of the data it contains. If the information is not current or reliable, police, tax authorities and financial intelligence analysts will stop relying on it, which would defeat the purpose.

For that reason, the government is proposing a rigorous system to ensure compliance, and it will include administrative and criminal penalties.

For example, companies that fail to provide information about beneficial ownership to Corporations Canada may be prevented from obtaining a certificate of compliance, which is often required to support a loan application or to enter into a contract with a supplier or even a potential buyer.

Corporations Canada also has the power to carry out the administrative dissolution of a business, which is a powerful deterrent to repeated and extended lack of compliance.

From a criminal law perspective, an administrator or manager of a business who knowingly violates the requirements for beneficial ownership transparency could be fined up to $200,000 or be sentenced to six months in prison. These are among the harshest penalties in the world for this type of offence.

The government is also taking a robust ecosystem approach to data verification and validation. The director of Corporations Canada would, to begin with, be empowered to request proof of the steps taken by a corporation to verify its beneficial ownership information, enabling the creation of a risk-based audit system. Whistle-blowers would be explicitly protected to incentivize the disclosure of corporate wrongdoings, and consequential amendments would ensure that the information can be cross-referenced with relevant data collected by the government pursuant to the Income Tax Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Third, I want businesses to know that we have made and will continue to make every effort to limit the administrative burden of the new requirements. The government is well aware that the vast majority of business corporations are small and law-abiding and wants to ensure Canada remains a place of choice to invest and grow.

The bill would minimize the administrative burden by leveraging existing intake and reporting mechanisms that businesses incorporated federally are already familiar with. Corporations would, for example, have to report their beneficial owners on an annual basis, which aligns with the annual updates they are already required to file on other corporate matters. The requirement for corporations to report information within 15 days of a change also aligns well with the requirement already in place for directors.

The government would also assist corporations by publishing guidance documents and engaging in education efforts to ensure corporations are not unwittingly failing to comply with their new obligations.

Now let us talk a little about collaboration with the provinces and territories.

We started working on beneficial ownership transparency with the provinces and territories just over five years ago, and that successful collaboration continues to this day.

We recognize that corporate law is an area of shared jurisdiction and that any legislative amendment to facilitate the collection of information on beneficial ownership under that umbrella would ultimately be up to the discretion of each legislature within the Canadian federation.

That being said, we are very aware of the importance of maximizing coverage to ensure that the pan-Canadian registry reaches its full potential.

That is why we are working hard to ensure that the federal registry is scalable and provides access to the beneficial ownership data held by provinces and territories that agree to participate, as we committed to doing in budget 2022.

I am pleased to see that the Government of Quebec will soon launch its own beneficial ownership registry, and my department is in regular contact with the Quebec teams to ensure the interoperability of our registries.

One of my colleagues in the House even told me that the registry was online as of today. We will do the same with all of the provinces and territories that have this same objective of enhancing corporate transparency.

Let me say a word about international best practices. Canada is working closely with many of its international counterparts that have introduced or are about to introduce a beneficial ownership registry. The majority of the G7 and Five Eyes countries, as well as 112 other countries, have promised to put this in place, but few have finalized the implementation. With financial crimes being increasingly cross-border, which I think all colleagues can agree on, we need to contribute to the global fight against these crimes.

Indeed, as a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force, which is the intergovernmental standards-setting body for financial transparency led by the G20, it is incumbent upon Canada to act in tandem with other countries and international partners to stem further proliferation of illicit corporate activity. Strengthening beneficial ownership transparency, as we are doing through this bill, would allow Canada to do its part in the global fight against financial crimes and align with international best practices.

Let me conclude with a few remarks.

The government has committed to protecting Canadians from money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion and avoidance, while ensuring that Canada remains an attractive place to do business.

Making beneficial ownership information publicly available supports broader corporate transparency, good governance and trust. Police and tax authorities will have ready access to the data they need to enforce the law; regulated entities such as banks and realtors will have a new tool to support their due diligence obligations; investigative journalists and NGOs will be better equipped to trace ownership across entities and jurisdictions; and entrepreneurs and consumers will know whom they are doing business with, injecting more trust in the marketplace.

We are already hearing from transparency organizations that this bill would be a massive blow to money launderers. I call on my colleagues in the House from all sides to join forces and support it. I think Canadians expect that from all of us.

I encourage all parties to support Bill C-42 and work with the government to ensure that it is passed quickly. I think that is necessary and it is exactly what Canadians want. The sooner the legal framework is in place, the sooner we can launch the registry and reap the benefits of enhanced transparency.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canada is a safe haven for money laundering. It is a known fact, and it is getting worse by the day.

Would the minister be able to advise us of the following? First, how much would this bill limit or downsize the money laundering market in Canada and, second, what is the amount of money laundering in Canada that is known to the minister or the government?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows I have enormous respect for him, and I take it from his comments that he will be supporting Bill C-42.

The genesis of Bill C-42 is to combat money laundering. It is to make Canada best in class. It is to make Canada a leader in the G7. The faster this House can pass Bill C-42, the better off we will all be. I dream that we could even do that by unanimous consent so that we can move to phase this in very quickly. The reason is that the longer we wait, the less we will be capable of fighting the fight that we need to fight, not only domestically but internationally. We want the public registry to be operational by the end of 2023.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for this important bill and for his speech, which was very informative. We learned a lot, which is good. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-42, and we are prepared to do what it takes to get it passed more quickly.

We were concerned about respect for jurisdictions and the different securities, but everything is there. As the minister said, this has been a successful collaboration. As I told him, the registry has been online in Quebec since 9 o'clock this morning. The Government of Quebec is the first government in North America to do this.

I have a bit of a technical question. If company A is owned by company B, which is owned by company C, then we can track down who the beneficial owner is, but what happens if a company is in another less co-operative country where there is no automatic information sharing, such as a tax haven? Will Bill C-42 make it possible to identify the real owner?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. Every one of his colleagues holds him in high esteem, and he is always there to defend Quebec's interests and to help advance all financial matters and tax measures in the House.

On behalf of the government, I want to note his support for Bill C-42, which is important, because the more time that goes by, the longer we delay implementing measures to combat fraud and various crimes.

To answer his question, I will say that there are now 112 countries that have committed to implementing similar measures to combat illegal activities—that is, various types of fraud—and to ensure greater rigour and enable different organizations to identify the beneficial owners.

The act provides for measures requiring heads of corporations to trace beneficial owners with a positive obligation to ask questions and obtain that information.

It is clear that we will need to continue working with our partners around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that a well-designed registry is needed to facilitate the enforcement of sanctions, as in the case of Vladimir Putin and his Russian oligarchs.

We also know that it is important to ensure that the most wealthy Canadians pay their fair share. I am very pleased to see progress in that regard. We also know that the participation of the provinces and territories is vital to the success of this type of registry. Could the minister provide an update on the state of negotiations between the federal government and the provinces and territories?

Does he have some idea of when all the provinces and territories will be contributing to the federal registry?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question. This is an esteemed colleague who, I believe, is also prepared to move this bill forward quickly. As I was saying, it is in Canada's best interest for us to adopt such a framework.

My colleague will have noticed that we ensured that this registry would be capable of what is known as interoperability. We chose to adopt a standard, in fact, the international standard, to enable this interoperability, not only with the registries that we hope the provinces and territories will adopt but also with international registries.

As my colleague was saying earlier, there may be businesses located in other administrative regions. Canada is positioning itself as a leader. Obviously, the House will send a strong message to the provinces and territories. Consequently, I implore my colleagues from all parties to support this bill. I think we will be able to count on support from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, as well as, I hope, our Conservative colleagues to take a step in the right direction so that we have measures to ensure transparency and allow us to fight tax evasion.

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

Madam Speaker, proposed subsection 21.‍303(3), “Exemption on application”, notes, “the Director may choose to not make it available to the public, subject to any terms that the Director thinks fit”. Under proposed subparagraph 21.‍303(3)(b)(iii), at the top of page 4, it says, “prescribed circumstances apply to the individual.” There is a lot of leeway in the bill, as it is currently written, for the director of Corporations Canada to determine what information could be exempt.

I am wondering if the government is open to some clarification or any type of schedule that we could develop to ensure that the maximum number of corporations that should be in the registry are in fact covered. I would also note that the points on interoperability with the province will likely need some clarification as well, just to ensure that the registry is in fact pan-Canadian.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his contribution, and I think his words lead us to believe that the Conservatives will be supportive.

On the first issue, there are some exemptions. One that comes to mind is around minors, for example, and other people who could be at risk when providing that information. What we need to know is that what would be public and searchable would be the name and address of the beneficial owner. What law enforcement authorities would have access to, in addition to that, would be the date of birth and citizenship. We can have a split to make sure that we provide as much relevant information as possible to the public and other entities to be able to search, but I would be open to see what we can do on that, with the caveat that we go fast. The number of exclusions is very limited and they are based on consultation.

With respect to interoperability, my colleague will have noted that we developed and used the beneficial ownership data standard, or what we call BODS, which is the international standard, exactly to make sure we can have as many people as possible be able to contribute and ultimately provide the level of accuracy and searchability that we would want to see.

I welcome the member's contribution.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, corporations exist basically to allow individuals to channel their capital for the benefit of making profits. I think the corporation as we know it came into existence in the 1844 act in Britain, and the shareholders were granted limited liabilities in 1855. In 1866, the United States code declared that a corporation is a natural person.

The key thing that I want to focus on is the tax evasion and tax avoidance. Supreme courts around the world have ruled on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion and identified that if there is any transaction in the process followed by an individual or a corporation that does not have any impact other than to reduce or eliminate tax, the transaction can be declared null and void.

Coming back to the corporations here, why should the public not be aware of individuals who are investing money into corporations, including their citizenship being known? It is not the fundamental right of any individual that he or she can be a shareholder. It is a privilege offered by the states through various acts, so why should the public not be aware of individuals who are the shareholders, including their citizenship—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the minister time to answer.

The hon. minister.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is a key member of our team and is always there to make sure that when it comes to financial matters, this government listens to different stakeholders.

What we see is a kind of compromise that we have been able to draw based on best practices, also with the OECD. What is going to be made public is the name and address. What law enforcement authorities will have access to is date of birth and citizenship.

There are reasons for that in terms of discrimination and misuse of information. I think that, on balance, we strike the right balance in the act, but I take the member's point and I want to thank him for his contribution. He is a very esteemed member of our team.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling this bill today.

We are here today to debate Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. The government's stated objective in introducing this legislation is to protect Canadians against money laundering and terrorist financing, deter tax evasion and tax avoidance, and make sure Canada is an attractive place to conduct business.

The Conservatives support the concept of a national public registry of beneficial owners of companies. This is an important tool in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The Cullen commission in British Columbia has also called for the creation of such a registry. Created in 2019 by Premier John Horgan in response to four reports highlighting the alarming number of money laundering cases in my province, the Cullen commission made 101 recommendations. Recommendation 52 called on the province to work with its federal, provincial and territorial partners to ensure that, by the end of 2023, a publicly accessible, pan-Canadian corporate beneficial ownership registry is in place.

However, much can be done to improve this bill and guarantee that it is effective. The Conservatives believe that in order to reach the objectives of this registry, the bill must be amended. First, the government must work with the provinces and territories to ensure that it is a pan‑Canadian registry. Second, there must be harsher sanctions for contravening the Canada Business Corporations Act, or the CBCA. Third, the threshold for significant control must be lowered. Fourth, the functionality of the public registry must be clarified.

In budget 2018, as the minister noted, the government amended the CBCA to introduce requirements for corporations to maintain a registry of individuals with significant control of the corporation. “Significant control” is defined as someone owning or controlling at least 25% of a corporation's shares. Budget 2022 added a requirement that corporations provide their registers to the government every year and to report any new information to the registry within 15 days. This bill would require Corporations Canada to make public some of the information collected under the 2022 reporting requirements.

Conservatives have long called for more action to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, so it is good to see the bill tabled in Parliament today. However, as I noted in French, there are many gaps in the legislation, and it is our objective to see some concrete amendments and considerations brought forward to this bill at the committee stage.

I wanted to take a minute to talk about the impact and history of money laundering. For far too long, Canada has had a reputation as a safe haven for dirty money. Our current laws that in place to combat money laundering and the proceeds of crime are perceived internationally as being weak. This has led to a wave of dirty money being laundered in Canada, particularly in my home province of British Columbia. Casinos, real estate, businesses and more have long been used to launder money in B.C., and the RCMP, local law enforcement and FINTRAC, in some cases, have been almost powerless to stop it.

When the Panama papers were leaked in 2016, it was exposed that international criminals have long exploited the gaps in Canada's corporate beneficial ownership regulatory scheme to engage in corrupt conduct through federally, provincially and territorially administered corporations. Organizations such as Transparency International have been calling on Canada to create a public registry of corporate beneficial ownership for a long time. As I noted in French, the Cullen Commission in B.C. has also called for this registry. Among the recommendations was a pan-Canadian registry to be established in 2023.

The commission's report highlighted how drug dealers utilize numbered corporations to stash death money from the fentanyl trade, then take that drug money and put it into the housing market in British Columbia, which has led, in some cases, to prices being driven up. Had a registry been in place sooner, perhaps less money from drug deals would have been laundered and perhaps it could have prevented lives from being lost. A corporate registry does have a lot of consequences, and that is why our party supports it.

Now I will briefly get into some of the shortcomings we see in this bill. The first is the lack of any requirement of the government to seek information-sharing agreements with the provinces and territories so the registry can be effective. The corporate registry will be only as strong as the provinces and territories that opt into it. Without them on board, this registry would only apply to about 5% of corporations in Canada. Thankfully, some provinces and territories have already taken the lead on this front and have been implementing registries since the changes to the CBCA were announced in last year's budget. Without all of them on board, criminals will just take their dirty money to the jurisdiction with the least strongest regulations.

It is my hope that, at committee, amendments will be adopted to ensure the federal government is required to pursue agreements with the provinces and territories on information sharing to ensure the registry is truly pan-Canadian and interoperable. I can note that, with many of the registries in place, there is a varying degree of information shared. Many do follow the amendments put forward in budget 2022, but I still think there is a lot of work we can do to make sure our registry is comprehensive.

The second is that we need to look at strengthening some of the penalties. Parliament needs to consider the registry in the context of the ability of law enforcement to combat the use of illegal funds. The current penalties under the CBCA, and the new ones proposed in Bill C-42, may be too weak to have the desired effect. We must ensure that corporations are compliant with the rules for the registry to be effective. The government should consider strengthening the penalties and making some offences indictable. Many of the fines could simply now be perceived by some corporations using illicit funds as the cost of doing business.

Another issue with the penalties is that they do not punish corporations that violate the act nearly as strongly as they do individuals. All of the offences that currently exist, and those proposed in this bill that apply to corporations, are punishable by a fine of I believe $5,000. However, the strongest penalty applying to individuals is found under section 21.4 of the CBCA, which has a fine not exceeding $200,000 and a term of imprisonment of six months, as the minister also mentioned. We must ensure that corporations that do not comply with these regulations are held just as accountable as the individuals involved. A $5,000 fine would be chump change for some people who would be affected under this proposed bill.

We need to also look at the threshold for disclosure. The CBCA currently defines significant control under section 2.1 as an individual who owns or controls a significant number of shares in a corporation, which is defined as 25% or more. This is quite a high threshold. Currently, security regulators in Canada, for example, Ontario Securities Commission, have a set threshold of just 10% for public disclosure requirements. Regardless of where we set the threshold, people will try to avoid reporting by ensuring their ownership or control is slightly below it. There are lots of ways for individuals with significant control to pass by the threshold. However, a lower threshold means fewer opportunities for criminals to simply slip under the radar.

We also need to be cognizant of how this will apply in the context of stacked ownership structures and trusts. It would be wise of the House to consider aligning these regulations with those currently imposed on publicly traded companies by amending this bill to change the threshold to 10% and look at the impact of trusts in very close detail at the committee stage.

We also need to look at the functionality of the registry. When it comes to how this registry will work and what information will be made available to the public, this bill is concerningly quiet. It does outline in section 21.303:

(1) The Director shall make available to the public the following information sent to the Director under section 21.‍21 for each individual with significant control:

(a) their name;

(b) their address for service, if it has been provided to the corporation;

(c) their residential address, if their address for service has not been provided to the corporation;

(d) the information referred to in paragraphs 21.‍1(1)‍(c) and (d); and

(e) any other prescribed information.

The first issue here lies in paragraph (e). What exactly does it mean by “prescribed information”? This needs clarification, as the information made publicly available must keep in mind privacy interests. I will note the minister did partially answer my question during his debate when he said citizenship would not be required in the registry. I will take a moment to comment on that.

What if an individual in another country who does not reside in Canada has a corporation in Canada? Should citizenship information in the context of a foreign owner of a Canadian corporation apply or, as another member in the House of Commons mentioned, in the case of a stacked corporation where certain shares of the company are owned by an individual in another country, should citizenship information be applied in that context? In the context of terrorism and money laundering, perhaps it would be to our benefit in some cases where citizenship is, indeed, known.

I look forward at the committee stage to really delve into this in detail because I think everyone in Canada wants to get this registry right. Everyone in Canada wants to give our law enforcement the tools it needs to finally begin combatting money laundering. We have seen the impact of it in British Columbia. We have seen the empty condos and the illicit funds from the drug trade being used, through corporations, to launder that money. We need to move away from what many people call the “Vancouver model” to take action right now. The commitment of the Conservative Party is to work with the government to ensure that our laws are strengthened, and that fewer lives are lost because of the drug trade, by establishing some form of a beneficial ownership registry.

Finally, I would like to touch upon how the registry would function. The bill is very vague in what prescribed circumstances would be. Will law enforcement still be able to access the information of those exempted for the purposes of an investigation? Another issue with the guidelines for the registry are the exemptions that have been put in place. We do know, as the minister mentioned after my question, that it would not apply to people 18 years of age or younger, but we need to strengthen the language around exemptions.

In closing, this bill is a good first step. That is why the Conservatives will be supporting it at second reading. However, key oversights must be addressed during the committee process. We must ensure that the penalties for violating the act are strong enough, and I am not certain that summary convictions are strong enough. We must ensure that law enforcement and FINTRAC have the ability to easily access the information they need to track down those laundering money and financing terrorism. We must ensure that corporations involved in criminal activities are held just as accountable as individuals, and for the registry to be effective, we must make the participation of provinces and territories a key priority.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the industry committee to strengthen this bill and ensure it truly provides transparency to the public and gives law enforcement the tools necessary to track down money launderers and those funding terrorism. More must be done to reduce the risk of corporations being misused for illicit activities such as money laundering and tax evasion.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned a number of things that are really fundamental in illicit money being used in real estate, for example, in the city of Vancouver, which he mentioned.

I want to thank the member for being on board with Bill C-42. The best way to do more to combat illegal activities and increase corporation accountability is to adopt Bill C-42. How quickly are the Conservatives prepared to work with the government to put an end to money laundering in Canada and adopt Bill C-42?

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

Madam Speaker, the objective of the Conservative Party on this legislation is to have a robust debate, in good faith, at second reading. There are a lot of experts in every party who have information on corporate trusts and how corporations are structured in Canada, and I think every party has something to contribute on that. We want to move quickly on this bill, but we also want to have a robust debate.

Our objective is to get the bill to committee where we can have a robust study. I could perhaps share more with the minister, and maybe our House leaders can determine what the priority of the House of Commons is with respect to seeing this bill pass.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to point out that his French is very good, and tell him that I really appreciate the fact that he gave part of his speech in French.

I was also impressed with the quality of his speech and the research and thought that went into it. Like him, I recognize that Bill C‑42 is a step in the right direction, but that there is still much to do to tackle money laundering, crime and the use of tax havens.

My colleague raised certain concerns. He spoke about possible amendments to be made to Bill C‑42 to improve it. I would like him to present them again and provide a brief explanation.

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

Madam Speaker, some of these amendments would seek to determine the role of the provinces and territories in guaranteeing the interoperability of this registry. We must also study the Canada Corporations Act threshold.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his remarks, both for their substance as well as for their tone. So far, this morning's debate has been a great example of what we could accomplish as legislators if we avoided the temptation of hyperbole and we focused on the content of legislation.

The member talked a little about penalties and judging whether the penalties that are in the initial draft of the legislation are adequate. I wonder if he wants to speak a little more to that question. Perhaps he could give the House some sense of whether there are existing standards he thinks we should be looking to in order to come up with appropriate penalties and how we might determine adequate penalties.

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

Madam Speaker, regarding penalties, I want to think of the worst-case scenarios. For years, we have heard so many stories in British Columbia about why the Cullen Commission was put in place, about the impact of money laundering and the billions of dollars that have been laundered into corporations, largely at the provincial level.

I do not want any fees or penalties to be seen as the cost of doing business for certain corporations. We need to look at strengthening those penalties. We need to hear from a suite of experts in law enforcement, maybe experts from FINTRAC and law enforcement at CSIS, to ensure that we get this right and that we use this tool to provide some trust for Canadians in our law enforcement institutions to be able to make a difference.

I do not have specifics. All I know is that, at $200,000 or in some cases $5,000, it would be seen as the cost of doing business. We want to make it actually hurt when someone tries to break the law in Canada.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of areas of clarification, in my mind, that need to be addressed, and perhaps it would be done through committee.

One is the type of asset that is caught by this legislation. For example, a beneficial owner is someone for whom an asset is held in trust. There could be shares of a corporation held in trust by a shareholder for someone else, whether that shareholder is an individual or a corporation. Also, the assets of a corporation could be held in trust for an owner or a group of owners.

One of the things that I would like to have clarified is whether this just applies to shares being held in trust for beneficial owners or if it actually applies to the assets of a corporation that are held in trust for owners. What happens, for example, when those beneficial owners, in turn, decide to set up trust arrangements with other people holding their beneficial ownerships in trust for others?

Second, there are 500,000 corporations under the CBCA. There could literally be tens of millions of these trust arrangements in existence across the country. What resources would be dedicated to making sure we could track them?

Finally, I was a little concerned that personal addresses would be published. Most of these trust arrangements are legitimate business practices and a much smaller number are for money laundering. I just want to highlight that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon the time to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very important question from my colleague from Winnipeg. One of the big gaps in this legislation is in clarifying the relationship between significant interests and the role trusts play in corporate structures at all levels of corporate registries in Canada right now and the impact that would have on the interoperability and the overall effectiveness of a corporate registry as we move forward. The member also pointed out the significance of this registry in the context of those provincial bodies. We need to make sure that there is interoperability, of course, to ensure its effectiveness in completing its stated goals.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague on the question of disclosing the citizenship of the shareholders of a corporation. There should not be any legal protection offered to foreigners who invest in Canadian corporations. We have been seeing that corporations are being incorporated with no other purpose than to have transactions and processes that lead to nothing but tax avoidance and, in some cases, even to money laundering.

I want to touch on something the member mentioned about the significant shareholding and the threshold, which is 25% in some jurisdictions and 10% in some jurisdictions. As the member very clearly stated, that is a loophole where, very easily, five people could form a corporation with 20% each or 11 people could form a corporation. Therefore, should there be any threshold at all that prevents the disclosure of the beneficiary?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague from Nepean outlined the issue that probably needs to be studied the most in this legislation, and that is significant interest. I do not have a specific answer to his question right now, but we need to have that debate in Parliament about the impact of significant interest and corporate stacked ownership structures that need to be viewed in the light of money laundering and tax avoidance or tax evasion.

I will just quickly touch upon the impact of addresses as well, which is another point of this bill, and it relates to citizenship. We need to clarify our charter obligations regarding individual privacy, but we also need to make sure to be practical that in some cases Canadian corporations are used for illicit purposes and in some cases we should know the citizenship of those individuals who are using said corporations.

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

Madam Speaker, what do the Panama papers, the Pandora papers and the Paradise papers all have in common? They are leaks that revealed who was hiding behind shell corporations in tax havens, those anonymous companies for which it would be otherwise impossible to determine actual ownership. Without those leaks, it was only possible to identify the names of the administrators, typically a big corporate law or accounting firm.

By lifting the corporate veil, these leaks helped identify wealthy fraudsters hiding money from the tax man or criminals hiding dirty money out of sight. When it is impossible to identify who is hiding behind a shell company, that opens the door for profiteers and fraudsters of all kinds, people who refuse to pay their fair share of taxes at the expense of everyone else, people who recirculate ill-gotten gains in the real economy by hiding behind secret companies. It is not normal to need to rely on leaks, whistle-blowers, hackers or journalists to find out what is behind these companies. That information should be public.

There is nothing like transparency for combatting fraud. That is essentially what Bill C-42 addresses. It amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to force the directors of federally incorporated businesses to report their real owners to Corporations Canada. Then, Corporations Canada can create a registry of the real company owners, a public registry that anyone can consult. Bill C‑42 will introduce a bit of transparency, which is a good thing. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑42, and I encourage all parliamentarians to do the same.

Before I get into the details of the bill, I want to tell members a secret. When I saw that the government had introduced a bill to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, I was worried. As members know, business ownership and property rights fall under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, these things are governed by the Civil Code. Every province has its own securities commission. In Quebec, we have the Autorité des marchés financiers.

However, over the last several years, Quebec and the provinces decided to coordinate and harmonize their respective laws. Since they all have very similar legislation, registration with the Autorité des marchés financiers is automatically recognized by all of the provinces. That means that a Quebec company can easily raise capital and do business outside Quebec through mutual recognition under what is known as the passport system.

Since this works well, Ottawa has no reason to interfere, there is no need for federal securities regulations, and Quebec's jurisdiction over financial matters would be respected. Without that respect, we would likely see Toronto become the centre of financial activity at the expense of Quebec, particularly Montreal's financial sector.

However, this is viable only if governments continue to work together and essentially harmonize their laws. That is why I was concerned when I saw that the government wanted to change the Canada Business Corporations Act. If Ottawa acts unilaterally, as this government all too often does, if it has not aligned its efforts with Quebec and the Canadian provinces, if the laws are no longer similar, the mutual recognition system will not be as successful. Ottawa will then have the excuse it is looking for to justify its desire to centralize everything, as it has been trying to do for three decades.

However, I did breathe a huge sigh of relief when I saw Bill C-42. As I mentioned earlier, Bill C‑42 will establish a searchable public registry of the real owners of businesses. This commitment to transparency reflects a unanimous decision made at the G20. It has been implemented properly in Canada in a manner that respects each party, so I say bravo. The federal government and the finance ministers of Quebec and all the provinces have coordinated their efforts and agreed to work together, while respecting one another's independence.

In 2017, they all independently agreed to change their respective laws to require companies to collect, in their own registries, the data needed to identify the real owners. At the federal level, this was done in June 2022 with the passage of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill. This data is beginning to be collated and made available to the authorities in the event of suspected fraud.

In 2018, they came to an agreement on how companies were to share this data with their respective governments and how the governments were to make the data public. That is what we are debating today. There was no need for federal standards where Ottawa would put itself in charge and tell Quebec what to do. Everything was done respectfully.

The National Assembly of Quebec passed Bill 78 in June 2021. This legislation reflects the agreements made in 2017 and 2018. Quebec was the first government in America to pass such legislation. It is interesting that this debate is being held today, on March 31, 2023, because Quebec's Bill 78 goes into force today. Since nine o'clock this morning, the registry of real owners can be consulted in Quebec on the site of the Enterprise Registrar.

Since not all businesses have provided their information as yet, the search engine is not yet active, but it will be soon. It will be operational within the year. With the passage of Bill C‑42, the federal government will do the same for federally incorporated businesses. The provinces have passed or are preparing to pass similar legislation.

I see that members' statements will commence momentarily. I will continue my speech once we resume debate on this bill.