Debates of June 20th, 2023

Order and Decorum in the House

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised, we have seen this time and time again. It seems like the Conservative Party does not want to go by the Standing Orders and the rules of this House. I am beginning to take these points of orders as being a direct attack on the Speaker and the Speaker's ability to rule over this House.

In these last remaining hours, I would ask that we please continue, knowing that no party in this House is above the Standing Orders of this House.

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

I take the hon. member's comments, which will certainly be taken under consideration in the ruling that the Speaker will return to the House with.

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 third time and passed.

Canada Business Corporations Act

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

Madam Speaker, I was on a roll until I was interrupted. I was actually saying some positive things about the Conservative Party.

At the end of the day, it is good, healthy legislation. One of the things to recognize is that Ottawa plays a leadership role on the issue of money laundering that is taking place in Canada and on the other types of illegal financial transactions that we see.

We are not the only level of government that has to play this role. We have to recognize that there are provincial and territorial governments that have responsibility for corporations and small businesses in their jurisdictions. We have seen that some provinces have been more proactive in terms of trying to deal with issues such as money laundering, the funding of terrorism and tax avoidance. They have actually already started the process.

It is not like it is an issue that has been overwhelmed by governments around the world. More and more, we are getting attention paid to this particular issue. One would expect that a government, in recognizing it, would want to bring forward legislation, as this government has. It has done a very thorough job in the development of the legislation, and presented it to the House. I suspect that is one of the reasons we are getting the support that we are from all parties inside the House.

There is a scale within the legislation that would enable Ottawa to incorporate the provincial and territorial participation. I believe we have a couple of provinces in Canada, Quebec and possibly British Columbia, but do not quote me on that, that have actually already come forward with legislation. That legislation would complement the federal registry that we are attempting to put in place through the framework that is being established with Bill C-42.

It is a commitment that we made to Canadians quite a while ago. In fact, it was in budget 2022 that we talked about establishing the framework, or, should I say, establishing the bill. We did not know the number then, but it is Bill C-42. It is a commitment that is being fulfilled by the Prime Minister and the government to support the building of confidence in corporations.

I look at the bigger picture. We often hear how important small businesses are, and the biggest corporations often start as small businesses. In the last year, I have been to a number of announcements of small businesses, and even medium-sized businesses, opening up in Winnipeg North. They have contributed to the overall success of our economy over the years. We can talk about small businesses being the backbone of the Canadian economy, creating the hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs that are so very important.

Many of those small businesses are going to be the medium-sized and larger businesses of the future. They are the businesses that ultimately believe in the importance of issues such as trade and international trade. At the end of the day, as I indicated in previous speeches, trade is very important to Canada.

As a country that is so dependent on trade, it is important that we send a message around the world that we take money laundering seriously. We take the issue of funds that could indirectly or even directly go to terrorist organizations seriously.

By doing that, I would argue we are demonstrating leadership not only from within our national boundaries, but even beyond them. It is not an easy task. As I say, at the end of the day, within this legislation, we provide enough scale to allow for provincial jurisdictions. Those numbers are actually even larger, in terms of the number of corporations and businesses, than what we would have in Ottawa. I suspect, if we were to canvass these jurisdictions, we would find that all of us benefit if we can pool the resources and get everyone onside in the form of a larger national registry, and that is what this legislation is doing.

Corporations do a lot of amazing things. There is no doubt about that in the business community, but there is a percentage of those companies that do a great disservice. Those are the ones that continue to seek out ways, directly or indirectly, to launder money or to cause issues related to real estate, such as speculation of property, tax avoidance or even tax evasion. There is a difference.

We also see the issue of terrorism being financed, all through illegal money. Members should be aware that money laundering takes many different forms. I know British Columbia is a good example of it in terms of the casinos. Illegal money comes in, gets washed and then somehow exits as clean, filtered or cleansed money. That has cost millions of dollars.

We can talk about cryptocurrency. A number of months ago, there was an article in the Winnipeg Free Press on the police department cautioning people about fraud taking place with cryptocurrency. These are the types of things we need to be aware of. That is why we need to be careful.

I know we often mock the leader of the Conservative Party because of his attitudes toward endorsing cryptocurrency. He talks about it being a good way to fight inflation. At the end of the day, we have to be very careful. It is one of those possible tools that can, in fact, be used for unethical financial exchanges.

We are very dependent on our financial institutions and the protections that we put into place to track money that is flowing into Canada, and even money that is not flowing into Canada but has been acquired in an illegal fashion. We need to be cognizant of that fact. That is why, if someone goes into a bank and makes a deposit of more than $10,000, there is an obligation to report it.

There are many outstanding Canadians who work at our financial institutions who are very aware of the types of things to watch out for. We need to watch out for certain behaviours that take place. They also play a critical role in terms of protecting the integrity of our system.

From my perspective, and I would ultimately argue in the best interests of Canadians as a whole, the government takes actions where it can, like it is doing regarding Bill C-42, with the idea of establishing additional confidence in the public regarding corporations.

There is something that I should make a quick reference to, as I felt quite good about it a couple of budgets back. The federal government found that we had a lot of people outside of Canada investing in real estate who were driving the costs up. In particular, cities like Vancouver and Toronto were being subjected to all forms of speculative investments. There were also issues surrounding money-laundering allegations and so forth in real estate, in particular in condo developments. I heard about some of the empty units. Imagine building a unit that is worth $2 million-plus and no one is living in it. After I talked to some people, I found out that a huge percentage of the overall new condos being developed in communities like Toronto and Vancouver were empty. They were sitting empty. One of the measures the government put in place to try to deal with that issue was a special tax for non-residents.

Like many others, I think housing should be all about homes for people. However, they are becoming more of an investment, and a lot of the investments are driving up costs, especially with some of the vacancy rates across the country. It could be that or just a mindset that is often referenced about corporations in general: Corporations are greedy, and there is a lot of corruption, laundering and tax evasion or avoidance. A lack of trust is often found among the public in regard to corporations.

That is why when looking at the very heart of Bill C-42, what we are really talking about is corporate accountability and public trust in our corporate institutions. We see this because of the requirement to have a public, searchable ownership registry. That is at the core of the Canada Business Corporations Act and the amendment the government is proposing today. One could ultimately argue that the industry itself has been saying it wants to see this legislation.

The other day when I was speaking to this legislation, it was interesting. I was one of the individuals expecting to see the legislation ultimately pass unanimously or very close to unanimously. That will depend on what the leader of the Green Party and its other members do. That is the type of support potential it has.

I often suggest that members see the legislation for what it is worth and listen to the comments being made at the committee stage. If members really want to help restore confidence in our corporations, one of the best things they can do is get this legislation passed so we can make a very strong statement. That statement deals with the beneficial ownership that individuals have in corporations, which would have to be part of a registry. Individuals could then find out about ownership when someone has a major portion of that ownership. I know that some want to see a lower percentage and that others might want to see a higher percentage. However, at the end of the day, what we are seeing, which I think is 25%, is an acceptable percentage for now.

At least let us get the legislation through. By doing that, we are establishing the framework. I would then hope to see more discussions taking place at the different provincial legislatures in support of it.

I talked about smaller businesses in our communities and the impact they have. I do not want to in any way try to imply that corporations as a whole need the legislation as much as it is important that the legislation is there to support corporations. We will find that law-abiding corporations and businesses are actually very supportive of the legislation. They understand the need for it. It is the idea that we have a registry that would enable consequential penalties. I would like to cite one in particular. By passing this law, to use a very specific example, corporations that fail to provide their beneficial ownership information to Corporations Canada may be prevented from obtaining a certificate of compliance.

Keep in mind that if they cannot get that certificate of compliance, that has an impact on their ability to borrow funds. If a corporation wants to expand and go to a bank, they will need that certificate, in good part because without that certificate, chances are they will not be able to get financing. This is not to mention exports. Many corporations today are dependent on exports. To get those exports and have the market, these certificates are absolutely critical.

If I look at it from that perspective, I think of my own community of Manitoba and some of the corporations that have done exceptionally well. The other day I talked about Hylife. Hylife is a company located in Neepawa, Manitoba, that creates hundreds of direct jobs, not to mention hundreds of indirect jobs. We can find out who those beneficial owners are, which is really important. It is the same thing with New Flyer Industries. These are in provincial jurisdiction, but some are in federal jurisdiction.

We are talking about millions of dollars in transactions. If we look at New Flyer Industries, a huge corporation—

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

My apologies. We have come to the end of the hon. member's time for his speech.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the member for Winnipeg North.

He mentioned money laundering and the real estate market. We know, as reports are telling us, that the main factor causing disaster in the real estate market and inflation in the real estate market, besides government policies, is money laundering. There is a blind spot that launderers and criminals have found to break through the real estate market and make it unaffordable for the average Canadian to buy.

I believe it is too late now. Although this bill is a step in the right direction, it is too late to really solve such a fundamental problem in that area. Can the hon. member tell us where the government has failed? The government did fail, we have to admit, in protecting the real estate market from launderers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is fair, whether it is the Conservatives in Ontario or the NDP in British Columbia, to point a finger at them and say they have failed, or at Ottawa and say it has failed, because I think all three governments have brought forward different initiatives to try to prevent real estate speculation and keep pricing more affordable for Canadians.

At the end of the day, we have a national government that is prepared to invest in housing. Has there been laundering in real estate? Of course we believe there has been. However, we are working with provincial jurisdictions and financial and real estate associations to try to minimize it, because by doing that, we will in fact make homes more affordable.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, 450 news outlets in Canada have closed since 2008. At least one-third of Canadian journalism jobs have disappeared. I am wondering what the member can share with us this evening about why it took so long to start the work on implementing this important move in the right direction.

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

I do not usually do this, but we are talking about Bill C-42 right now and not Bill C-18.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not mind commenting on Bill C-18.

Bill C-18 is wonderful legislation, and I am very glad the member and the NDP are supporting it. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party is like a fish out of water and flip-flopped once again—

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

We are not being relevant to the bill being discussed right now.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to put the hon. parliamentary secretary out of any sense of suspense over how I will vote on this bill. I will probably vote for it.

The reason I waffled was that I was so impressed the other day by the speech from the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who took us through, as a collective, what it was like to be in committee and to have the evidence from Transparency International put forward minutes before clause-by-clause amendments. Those improvements could have been made.

Transparency International is the gold standard, and Canada has been falling behind. Obviously we need the beneficial registry. We need this legislation, and we should have had it years ago. However, it is not great to be famous, as a country, for being a great place for money laundering, and we could have done better. I just wanted to explain that to the parliamentary secretary.

I do not how the member for Kitchener Centre will vote. We do not whip votes here. We find it liberating for people to represent their constituents. In any case, I will be voting for it, but with some considerable regret that the bill was pushed through without entertaining good amendments based on witness testimony.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would not underestimate the member's influence over her colleague, her seatmate, and I highly recommend that she recommend to him that he join her in supporting this legislation, because it is good legislation.

One thing that I hope I have emphasized at great length is recognizing that Ottawa plays a strong national leadership role. I would like to emphasize and re-emphasize how important it is that Ottawa continue to work with provincial jurisdictions, in particular, to ensure that we can expand the registry so that all Canadians will be that much more emboldened to feel we have public confidence and trust in corporations. The bill would ultimately add more value to our economy, because even corporations want to see this type of legislation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to Transparency International, between $43 billion and $113 billion a year is laundered or is lost to tax evasion.

Obviously the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑42, which calls for more transparency from businesses in order to determine who exactly is hiding behind these businesses.

My question for my colleague is on the need for co-operation between the federal government and the Government of Quebec. In fact, Quebec has already brought in measures to improve transparency and to prevent tax evasion. How does my colleague see this co-operation?

Business ownership and business ownership law are areas of provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. How does my colleague think the federal government will be able to bring this bill into force while securing real co-operation and getting the necessary information, which belongs to and is the responsibility of the provinces, including Quebec?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important we recognize that the legislation establishes a searchable public ownership registry of a scale that the provinces that want to be able to participate in it can participate. I do not know all of the nuances. I know Quebec has been very progressive in advancing some legislation already. I would like to think that all provinces and municipalities would. In fact, members of this House can talk to their provincial counterparts and recommend that. After all, we all benefit if there is one registry that enables us to tap into it. When I say all, I am talking about the communities that we represent and corporations in general.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, we had two committee meetings on this bill at the industry committee, one with officials and the minister and the other with a couple of witnesses, including the RCMP and Transparency International. As the leader of the Green Party said, Transparency International proposed a number of important changes. I put forward those amendments and the government voted against every one of them.

It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary mentioned real estate and provincial co-operation. I put forward amendments proposing that residential or real estate assets be included and the Liberal Party voted against them.

I put forward an amendment where, if a provincial government has a provincial beneficial registry, the federal government would enter into an agreement so they could share the data back and forth and the Liberals voted against it.

Therefore, I hear the words, but I do not see the votes, and I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could explain that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what the member does not necessarily indicate is that this a minority situation, so if he was losing votes at committee, that means it was not just the Liberal Party but the majority of the committee membership did not support the Conservative amendments, so it is not fair for him to say that it is the Liberal Party.

What I have witnessed is that this government has no objection to adding strength to legislation if a bill or amendment can add true value to it. It is up to the critics of the parties to work within the committee to maybe do a bit of lobbying with the minister, which never hurts, and if there are things we can do to make the legislation more sound and better in a timely fashion we are always open to those ideas. Keep in mind that one always needs a majority, even at committee, in order to pass an amendment. We do not have a majority, but maybe we will after the next election.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, Facebook's decision to block Canadian news targets major media outlets—

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

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are not here to debate Bill C-18; we are here to debate Bill C-42. The member was asking about Facebook.

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

We are debating Bill C-42.

I thank the hon. member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley .

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to one particular issue that has to do with the significant interest clause, which the member discussed during his speech. He said that it was okay for now, which leads me to think he might think it should be lower. The fact of the matter is it should be lower and is a major hindrance to making this legislation as effective as it could be. I wonder why the committee did not support that.

Your argument earlier made no sense at all. If the Liberals had voted for it, it would have passed with the Conservative votes.

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

I want to remind the hon. member that it is not my argument.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I was attempting to say is this. There were some who would have liked to have seen it lower and some who may have wanted to see it higher. I believe 25% is what they agreed to and that is what was passed at committee.

As I indicated to the previous—

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

I am sorry, but we have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.