Debates of April 28th, 2023

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we should have a beneficial owner threshold that actually says who controls these companies. A lot of them will be in separate nominated accounts that might have the same person behind them, but eventually we need to see our way to who those people are. As my colleague is, I think, alluding to, if there are 11 people owning 9% of a corporation, none of those has a full 10%. In that case, the beneficial ownership should be quite clear that it is the same entities that control that corporation. He is right; we should capture making sure we are talking about beneficial ownership of at least 10% or more. There comes a point in time when one is just a passive investor, but at 10%, one is actually a participant, in my opinion.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond Hill.

I rise to speak to Bill C-42, which would implement a public and searchable beneficial ownership registry of corporations governed under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

We have an issue with money ‎laundering and terrorist financing. To deal with this, we need tools and mechanisms in Canada that are in line with international best practices. Creating a public and searchable registry would increase the transparency of beneficial owners of federally regulated Canadian corporations, which would increase corporate accountability and improve public trust in corporate institutions.

These measures would help protect Canadians against money laundering and terrorist financing, deter tax evasion and tax avoidance, and make sure Canada remains an attractive place to conduct business.

I will take a moment to mention what corporations are. Corporations exist basically to allow individuals to channel their capital for the benefit of making profits. The corporation, as we know, came into existence in the 1844 act in Britain, and the shareholders were granted limited liabilities in 1855. In 1866, the United States court declared that a corporation is a natural person. Basically, while the corporation channels the resources for investment in a commercial enterprise, it limits the liability of the person to the capital contributed.

I will quote from an article published in New Internationalist:

What is a corporation? Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary defines it as “an ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility”. It is a legal construct, a charter granted by the state to a group of investors to gather private funds for a specific purpose. Originally, charters were granted in the service of a public purpose, and could be revoked if this were not fulfilled. The relationship between state and corporation is a complex one. Over the past 400 years corporations have conquered territory and brought in resources for the state, breaking laws put in place to constrain them and gaining in power and privilege. History shows a repetitive cycle of corporations over-reaching, causing such social turmoil that the state is forced to rein them back in through regulation.

Now, corporations are being created for no other purpose than to evade or avoid taxes. Supreme courts around the world have ruled on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, and mentioned that if there is any transaction followed by an individual or a corporation that does not have any impact or consequence other than to reduce or eliminate tax, the transaction can be declared null and void.

We need to take all steps to rein back and plug the loopholes that are exploited by individuals and corporations to avoid or evade paying their fair share of taxes.

In budget 2022, we committed to implementing a public and searchable registry of beneficial ownership information. The registry would cover corporations governed under the Canada Business Corporations Act and would be scalable to allow access to the beneficial ownership data held by provinces and territories that agree to participate. The objective of the registry is to provide relevant authorities with timely access to accurate and up-to-date information about the true controlling individuals of corporations in order to combat illegal activities, including money laundering, corruption and tax evasion.

Greater transparency would also improve corporate accountability more generally and thus help protect the public, improve trust in corporate institutions and ensure a well-functioning marketplace. As it currently stands, corporations are already obligated to compile some beneficial ownership information. Upon the entering into force of this new piece of legislation, corporations would need to collect additional information from their beneficial owners, like citizenship and residential address, and send the information in their register of individuals with significant control to Corporations Canada on an annual basis and within 15 days of the day on which a change is recorded in their register.

There are a couple of shortcomings in the current bill, which can be overcome. One is with respect to fully publicly disclosing the names and citizenship of shareholders or members of corporations. The fundamental question is this: Why should the public not be aware of who is investing in a corporation, 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 state through various acts, so why should the public not be aware of individuals who are shareholders, including their citizenship?

I do understand the need for their privacy of information like the address of the shareholder, which is something that has been addressed, but there is no reason why the names and citizenship of the shareholders of any corporation should be kept from becoming public. Especially, we Canadians should be aware of foreign nationals investing in Canadian corporations; disclosing their citizenship is a must.

There is another solution, which is that the information may be disclosed only if a threshold of ownership is significant and exceeds a certain mark. For significant shareholding, the threshold is 25% in some jurisdictions and 10% in other jurisdictions. However, using a threshold to limit disclosure requirements creates a loophole that can easily be exploited. If the threshold is fixed at 25%, five people could form a corporation with 20% each or 11 people could form a corporation if the threshold is 10%.

On the positive side, through this bill, we have sought to limit administrative burden by leveraging existing intake and reporting mechanisms that federal corporations are already familiar with. For example, federal corporations are already required to update Corporations Canada within 15 days after a change of directors occurs and to file an annual return.

We have carefully considered domestic and international best practices in developing the proposed beneficial ownership registry regime, including the U.K. system. We also made sure the proposed model would meet and exceed the standards for beneficial ownership transparency maintained by the Financial Action Task Force, a global anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing body of which Canada is a founding member.

In closing, I want to reiterate that this is a good bill that is very much required. We have to bring Canadian standards in line with international best practices. However, there are certain shortcomings, which I think should and must be addressed at the committee stage. I am sure that with the co-operation of all parties in this House, this bill will get passed and will become legislation sooner rather than later.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean raised two areas of amendment: on disclosure of information, such as citizenship, and on the significant interest threshold, which members on our side have raised during the debate today as well.

I would like the member's opinion about whether the Liberal Party is open to further amendments on the penalties for corporations and individuals. In some cases, penalties in the legislation go up to $200,000, but are as low as $5,000 in other cases for corporations. Would the member opposite be open to further amendments to ensure that people who seek to launder money in Canada and have a registered corporation at the federal level would be accountable to higher penalties?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first on the question of disclosure of information, my understanding is that the bill does disclose citizenship and other details to various law enforcement agencies. However, my view is that citizenship information must be available to the public, too.

On the question of imposing penalties, personally I am in favour of changing the penalties if they are too lenient. We have to make it worthwhile. Penalties for the people who break the law should be sufficiently high to cause at least some pain.

Bill C-47—Notice of time allocation motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28.

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 said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

The Canada Business Corporations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commenting on the time allocation that was just imposed on us.

I just want to remind my colleagues in the House that the Standing Committee on Finance is already doing a pre-study of Bill C-47. It is progressing very well. Work is moving forward. We are sitting until midnight. This allows my colleagues who want to speak to Bill C-47 to do so. There was no need for the government to impose time allocation. This infringes on the rights of members of Parliament in the House. It is shameful.

What does my hon. colleague think of this?

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

I will remind members that there is a lot of latitude in debate, but we are meant to be speaking to Bill C-42 at this time.

That being said, I will allow the hon. member for Nepean to respond.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the question is not part of Bill C-42 that we are debating.

I would like to take this opportunity to solicit the support of the Bloc Québécois to pass this important legislation that we are debating today.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of money laundering, the impact on housing has been significant. In fact, in British Columbia, it has been indicated that it has contributed to inflating the cost of housing as much as 5%.

With this piece of legislation, could the member advise whether or not it would be effective in addressing the issue particularly on the land registry perspective?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the land registry can be dealt with in this bill. I am not particularly sure, but I do agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member on the impact of corporations investing in real estate and driving up the prices unnaturally, causing a hardship for Canadians in owning a property.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been demonstrating very strong leadership by bringing forward the legislation. We get a sense of the support for the legislation and hope to see it pass. There is an obligation, if I can put it that way, for other jurisdictions in Canada, the provinces, in particular, to step up at the same time.

Ottawa is more than happy to assist in working with them where it is needed, but it is important that other jurisdictions also take action of sorts. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of that.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up a very important consideration. The nature of the Canadian system is that corporations can be set up under provincial jurisdiction. They do have certain limits on various things, like the threshold for disclosure of ownership. Through this bill, we have provided for the reporting mechanism to be streamlined, working with the provinces. On the other aspects of the bill, I hope that the provinces will step up and work with the federal government to have a uniform system in place in Canada.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the chamber on Bill C-42, which would amend the Canada Business Corporation Act, or CBCA, and make consequential changes to other statutes.

We are here to discuss this proposed legislation because a lack of beneficial ownership transparency is impairing Canada's ability to combat serious financial crimes, such as fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. It also limits our capacity to enforce domestic and international sanctions and to effectively trace and freeze financial assets. Finally, it is impacting the trust of Canadians and foreign investors in our marketplace.

Our inability to quickly and quietly identify a company's beneficial owner delays criminal investigations; denies law enforcement leads to potential suspects, witnesses and evidence; and impairs the identification and seizure of suspected proceeds of crime. It also reduces the ability of private businesses to protect themselves.

Bad actors have long used corporate vehicles to obscure the ownership and control of assets to the detriment of Canadians' and other's confidence in private businesses. A public beneficiary ownership registry would complement the existing tools of law enforcement, while facilitating the identification of changes of ownership without the risk of alerting the suspects of an ongoing investigation. In turn, this would help prevent the dissipation of criminal assets subject to investigation or freezing orders.

The need for this type of registry has, by now, been well established, notably by public consultation held by the Government of Canada in 2020, as well as the Commission of Inquiry Into Money Laundering in British Columbia more recently. Such registries have, moreover, existed in the United Kingdom and many countries since 2016 and have proven a useful tool in deterring misuse of corporations for illicit financial activity by law enforcement, journalists and civil society.

In 2018, for example, Transparency International found that the then Czech prime minister was the sole beneficiary of two trust funds owning shares of a Czech conglomerate in receipt of EU subsidies. In a significant conflict of interest, Slovakia's public registry showed that the prime minister remained the ultimate owner of these trusts.

In 2019, the department responsible for the U.K. registry, the world pioneer, published a review of lessons learned so far. All law enforcement organizations the department spoke to had used the registry to inform criminal investigation, with most reporting using it at least weekly and noting the positive effect it had on their work. According to other resources, the U.K. registry was accessed more than two billion times a year.

More recently, the OpenLux investigation by journalists who had compiled and analyzed data from the Luxembourg's public beneficial ownership registry uncovered politically exposed persons, criminal organizations, an arms dealer and oligarchs linked to Luxembourg companies.

A beneficial ownership registry would also serve tax authorities here and abroad, who would be able to use the information to track and fix tax evasion and aggressive avoidance. The Panama papers, as well as other mass leaks, have shown that private players look for places with weak beneficial ownership transparency and then layer ownership of corporate entities across those jurisdictions to obscure personal ownership interests and income. The longer the chain of entities between the income and the beneficial owners, the harder the truth is to ascertain.

We should not underestimate the significant burden tax evasion and avoidance have on the Canadian economy. More generally, placing beneficial ownership information in an accessible registry would provide criminal and civil intelligence value, helping law enforcement and regulators stay abreast of evolving fraud cases, trends and ways corporations may facilitate these trends.

This awareness supports actionable intelligence to generate investigative leads. Certain government authorities may also have a bonafide interest in identifying the beneficial owner of the corporations they do business with, licence or oversee.

Making beneficial ownership information publicly available further supports good governance and trust. All businesses can check who they are doing business with by reviewing the registry of potential suppliers and customers, and businesses regulated for anti-money laundering purposes can consult the registry to support their due diligence.

Registries and the transparency they foster further serve as a deterrent to illicit actors. When reporting and disclosure requirements are tightened against a particular sector, product or service, prospective criminals will shift their tactics to find alternative ways of laundering funds. By depriving owners of their anonymity, registries will make Canada a less desirable jurisdiction to commit financial crime, forcing them to use more risky criminal vehicles or to go somewhere else entirely.

All in all, it is clear that the registry proposed by the bill would significantly improve Canada's ability to fight financial crime. It would help public authorities verify owners across corporate layers, help businesses better validate the identity of their trading partners, fight money laundering, fight tax aversion, and render more difficult the use of corporations for illicit activities. I hope all members of the House will join us in supporting the passage of this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting speech. We obviously agree on Bill C‑42. With regard to the fight against tax havens, my colleague talked about the Panama papers scandal. Does he agree with me that, despite all the money that has been invested and all the laws that are in place to give us the power to intervene, Canada is still lagging behind other countries on this?

The Canada Revenue Agency recovered less money than Revenu Québec. Let us compare the numbers. The United Kingdom recovered $317 million, Germany recovered $246 million, Spain recovered $209 million, France recovered $179 million, Australia recovered $173 million, and Canada recovered $21 million. Is that acceptable?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, naturally it is not that simple. However, all those tools that exist are still open to us, and we are hoping this bill will further strengthen the regime we have and allow us to increase our vigilance over those types of illicit activities.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have with the bill is the ability of law enforcement agencies in Canada to use the information in a correct way to go after money launderers and those who would be committing crimes under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

I was pleased to see that the member for Richmond Hill referenced the Cullen commission in British Columbia. I wonder if the Liberals would be open to exploring at committee stage further clarifications as to the power of law enforcement to use this tool to get to the root of the criminals who are undertaking money laundering in Canada, denigrating our institutions, and as a result, Canadians losing faith in the ability of our law enforcement to combat these kinds of crimes.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are looking forward to getting this bill to committee where we can explore all the opportunities available to us to further strengthen it. Any measures, tools, regulations or legislation that help our law enforcement officers to identify the criminals and people who are money laundering, using the values of the Canadian people in a very negative way, need to be addressed. They need to be empowered.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the issue around how money laundering is impacting real estate is very significant. In fact, a special panel did a review on this in British Columbia, and one of its top recommendations was to have a beneficial ownership of land registries across the country. B.C. did that, and I believe we need to do that, given the housing crisis we are faced with. The conservative estimate on the impacts of money laundering on real estate in British Columbia is at least a 5% hit with respect to the cost to housing.

I have previously asked this question. It appears the government members do not think this is incorporated into the bill. My question for the member is this: Does he feel this should be incorporated into the bill to ensure that we also tackle money laundering through real estate?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, we need to make sure that we tackle money laundering through real estate.

I believe that, if the real estate is purchased through corporations, the current bill would be able to assist, but I strongly suggest that we introduce a land registry with a clear indication of who the beneficiaries are, because that in itself is a tool to flip real estate and further assist in the laundering of money.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-42 today. I think it is very important for us to recognize that, as time goes by, we have had, very much, a heightened sense of awareness on such an important issue. If I reflect back to a number of years ago, very rarely would we hear about the types of situations that are being debated today inside the chamber.

We are very much aware of things, such as the Paradise papers and issues surrounding corporations, the issues surrounding money laundering and so many other issues. Canada and other countries around the world are looking at ways we can deal with the issue of beneficial ownership and the impact it is having. We are looking at a registry and trying to improve the system.

Listening to the many comments today from members across the way, and members within the Liberal caucus, we find that there seems to be fairly widespread support. Yes, I respect that opposition members and others do have questions about the legislation. I suspect that will be the opportunity, once we get into the committee stage, to look at what possibilities there might be to strengthen the legislation.

I have actually been encouraged by the debate thus far on the legislation. I have had the opportunity to ask a few questions, and I would like to be able to highlight a few concerns, in a broad way, that I have.

If I were to respond to the debate today, there are a couple of things that come up. In particular, the NDP made reference to the whole issue of tax fairness and lost revenues. I think that, if we were to canvass Canadians as a whole, we would find that Canadians do not mind paying their taxes, as long as there is a sense of fairness to it.

People want to pay or are prepared to pay their fair share. That is the reason why, if we take a look at it, over the last number of years, virtually since we have been in government, the government has taken a number of actions to build on the fact that Canadians' expectations are that we improve and make the system better for all. I do not know how many times I have had the opportunity to talk about some of the initial initiatives we have taken as a government.

I would like to start off from the particular point that, shortly after being elected, in recognizing Canada's middle class and supporting Canada's middle class, there were a number of tax initiatives taken, as well as actions by the government.

I would like to amplify a couple of those initiatives. The first one that comes to mind, of course, is the tax reduction legislation we brought forward at the beginning of the mandate for the middle class. It was a piece of legislation, very clear, to ensure there is a higher sense of tax fairness by enabling a break for the middle class.

At the same time, if we will recall, there was an additional tax that was put on Canada's wealthiest 1%. That is something we recognize is an issue in tax fairness. We have also seen other budgetary measures.

I mentioned the issue of tax avoidance and those individuals who go out of their way in order to pay their fair share of taxes. This is something that, I would suggest, we can look at through a lens of tax fairness. However, if we are going to be true to our word, we need to properly resource the CRA to go after those individuals, groups or corporations that are trying to avoid paying taxes in questionable ways.

There was a significant amount of money allocated to CRA over a couple of budgets. Prepandemic, we saw an additional investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. Do not quote me on this, but I believe if we were to combine the total investments that the federal government has put in supporting CRA in going after individuals or corporations trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, it is likely just over $1 billion. The expectation for CRA is to look at ways to recover money from lost taxes.

The last time I looked, the number of records being looked at was well over 1,000. Pre-2015, it might have been fewer than 100. So we know that CRA is in fact much more proactive today than it has been in the past. Again, from my perspective, it is about looking at ways to ensure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness.

In the recent budget, we have a sense, in terms of taxes, with respect to banks and insurance companies where inappropriately high profits were taken. We have seen taxes being put onto those sectors in the most recent budgets, again, with the goal of ensuring that there is a higher sense of tax fairness.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona also made reference to the whole issue of corporate tax. I noticed that he tried to group the Liberals and the Conservatives together by saying that whether it was Liberals or Conservatives, we believe in giving corporate tax breaks. Yes, there have been corporate tax breaks. I am not one who believes in the trickle-down theory of corporate tax breaks personally, but I would suggest to the member that when the NDP has had the opportunity to govern, particularly in my home province of Manitoba when I was in opposition during NPD Premier Gary Doer's administration, there were corporate tax reductions. I think we have political parties of all stripes that have implemented corporate tax deductions. However, Canadians are very concerned when they hear of that, especially if they are having to pay their taxes when there are all sorts of inflationary demands.

So, if we take a look at the comments I just put on the record, there is a need for Bill C-42.

Bill C-42 is an attempt by the government to do a number of things. It is not only ensuring that there is tax fairness, but also a higher sense of transparency and accountability.

As has been pointed out, money laundering is a very serious issue in Canada, in some provinces more than others. It has caused a great deal of hardship. The best example is likely the one the member across the way mentioned in regard to housing.

We have speculators and people who want to launder money using housing as a tool. Not everyone who invests in housing in Canada is necessarily money laundering. I am not trying to say that, but we do know that money laundering does take place in our residential communities and in the development of condominiums.

The member made reference to Vancouver and British Columbia. We know it goes far beyond any one province. We can talk about what is taking place in Toronto and find that there is laundering and speculation. That does drive up the cost of housing.

With the budgetary measures that we have taken in the past and the budget implementation bills in the past, we have tried to put in some restrictions in order to prevent that foreign ownership, or even put a tax on individuals who are not living in or a resident of Canada, with the idea of having a fairer share of taxation.

The issue with respect to the transparency and accountability of corporations really does kick in here. At the end of the day, when we look at the Canada Business Corporations Act, it is all about the modernization of that legislation to ensure there is a higher sense of corporate transparency and accountability.

From my perspective, if we take a look at the primary tool, we are going to have a registry that is open and public, and quite searchable for ownership information or beneficial ownership. By doing that, I believe there will be a huge difference.

If we look at what the Canada Business Corporations Act does, it enables certificates of compliance, as an example. If a corporation is not in compliance with the legislation, we would have a tool that would ensure that the corporation might not get that certificate. That can have a profound impact on the corporation itself. Without that certificate of compliance, it would have difficulties with things such as loans and suppliers.

At the end of the day, I believe the passage of this, and the establishment of a public, searchable beneficial ownership registry, would ensure there is a lot less money not taken into account, so less money laundering and less money being used in illegitimate forms. For me, that is something we need to recognize within the legislation.

The government has been committed to a robust and effective regime to combat money laundering and terrorist financing to improve the public trust in our corporations. It does not take much for a corporation to fall on the wrong side of the whole issue of money laundering and the impact it has on the corporate community. A vast majority of our corporations are in fact good entities that contribute in many different ways. It is not just jobs. It is all forms of opportunities, community development and so forth. Because of the bad apples that are out there, it does leave a negative stain.

Therefore, when we talk about the legislation trying to minimize issues like money laundering and improving accountability and transparency, a vast majority of corporate stakeholders do not have any problem with this. The consultation that has taken place goes back to 2020, going right into 2022 where there was a great deal of consultation with different stakeholders and interest groups. There were even foreign consultations with other nations.

We want to make sure that we get it right. We appreciate the privacy issues and that has been raised here. With respect to what had taken place in Europe, there was a court decision in regard to the issue of privacy, so we do want to tread carefully on that particular issue. However, it is absolutely critical that we continue to see the legislation move forward because it would make a difference.

There are some provinces that have actually gone further than other provinces. Quebec has passed its legislation and I believe it has been implemented. I am not 100% sure of that. Because in a federal system we have to take into consideration that there are jurisdictional issues, we have to be aware that some provinces still need to do a whole lot more than other provinces. Therefore, taking a pan-Canadian approach to looking at best practices and looking at the legislation that we are bringing forward today would go a long way in ensuring that not only those federally regulated corporations that are registered through the Canada Business Corporations Act but also those in provincial and territorial jurisdictions will have that obligation of ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability.

In looking at the legislation and listening to the comments, I believe I have a fair reflection in terms of many of the comments that were said earlier today. I would encourage members to view the legislation in part in terms of the commitment that has been made to try to get this passed before the end of this year, which is faster than we had initially indicated. However, in order to do that, we look to opposition parties to follow through on some of the words that they have stated today in terms of that tentative principled support that they are providing and allow the legislation to go to committee. I would think that would be a positive thing, given that all parties seem to support the principle of the legislation.

Therefore, I would encourage members to take the issues, as I know they have, of money laundering and of ensuring more accountability and transparency within a very important sector, in the name of making sure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. Again, that, to me, is what it is all rooted in. Canadians do not mind paying their fair share of taxes and it is very upsetting when they hear of the money laundering that takes place, or of individuals or corporations wanting to get off the hook for paying their fair share of taxes.

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

Madam Speaker, overall, as the member for Winnipeg North summarized, we have been having a pretty comprehensive debate on Bill C-42. There have been suggested amendments from each party, with broad unanimity that we need to take further action to combat money laundering in Canada and its impact on the housing market. I was particularly pleased that a number of members on all sides raised the Cullen commission and the impact crimes are having, especially on British Columbia.

The future public beneficial registry will be a tool to combat the use of illicit funds in our economy. Is the Liberal Party open to providing further clarification as to the extent of the power of law enforcement to use it? What other tools can we give our law enforcement agencies to make sure that money laundering is finally combatted in the way Canadians expect us to do?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the member of Parliament represents an area in British Columbia. Nowhere in Canada have we seen the issue of money laundering raised and brought to our attention more than in British Columbia. It has been raised through the media, showing the complexities of the problems resulting from money laundering. There are very strong criminal and tax avoidance elements to it. It is an issue that is very upsetting for Canadians, because it is about tax fairness. Canadians expect that the government is going to do what it can in order to resolve the issues. I say that pre-emptively to indicate to the member that it is really important for Ottawa to continue to work with the Province of British Columbia and look at joint ways in which we can deal with that very serious issue.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech.

My colleague from Joliette mentioned, in a question posed a little earlier, that Revenu Québec had done a much better job than the CRA on tax evasion by recouping significant amounts, which was one of the arguments used by the Bloc Québécois to justify giving Quebec full taxation powers by implementing a single tax return.

I would like my colleague to comment on the idea that this bill will make it even easier for Quebec to recoup even more money hidden in tax havens by tax evaders, providing further justification for giving Quebec full authority over its tax returns.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is in Canada's best interest to have each province create its own collection agencies. We would have 10 or 12 different ones: Revenue Quebec, Revenue Manitoba, Revenue Alberta and so forth. I would be concerned.

Once it was provided the additional financial resources during the pandemic, the CRA demonstrated how successful it can be. There have been well over a thousand investigations. CRA is well equipped to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are well represented.

I am also concerned about those valuable CRA jobs in the province of Quebec. At the end of the day, people in Quebec and the rest of Canada are well served by the CRA. Once it is provided with the proper resources, it will be able to deal with a lot of the things we expect it to do. That is one of the reasons we funded it with just under $1 billion to do so.