Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Canada Business Corporations Act, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. Bearer shares are indeed an important issue, and Canada is still doing quite poorly compared to the rest of the world, since the bill has not yet received royal assent. Canada's system makes it possible to easily hide the identity of who owns shares or a business. Canada must absolutely examine this issue.

A number of other countries have already taken action to prevent companies from concealing their owners' identities. Companies generally do not do this for good reasons, so we must address this issue in order to combat money laundering and organized crime. This is certainly a step in the right direction, but once again, something important is missing; this bill should be targeting existing shares, and not just shares that will be issued in the future.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also rise in the House to briefly speak to Bill C-25 and the Senate amendments that were returned and on which we are called upon to comment. My colleagues have already done so, and I will not repeat what has been said.

I would like to start by mentioning that the bill has several flaws. Above all, it does not go far enough on certain issues. We are currently discussing similar issues at the Standing Committee on Finance as some of my colleagues know. We have even heard from witnesses on the transparency of Canadian businesses and corporate registries, which make it possible to identify the owners. One of the shortcomings pointed out by several reputable international organizations is Canada's lack of transparency with respect to corporate registries and corporate regulations. This was pointed out many times. We are ranked near the bottom on corporate transparency.

There is a new term in Canada known as snow washing. Some wealthy individuals use Canada to hide the real identities of their businesses' owners. Canada's corporate laws are not often revised. In fact, the last time they were was 40 years ago. Bill C-25 was the perfect opportunity to address these international recriminations about the lack of transparency around our businesses, but unfortunately the government chose not to do so. This is one of the reasons why we proposed amendments to try to rectify the situation. Our attempts were in vain, and I disagree with the government's position on this.

This bill was also an opportunity to fix a problem that comes up all the time at the Standing Committee on Finance. I could even talk about my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, who questioned a tax expert, André Lareau. This expert testified in committee as part of our review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, which touches on what we are debating today. Prof. Lareau told the committee that Bill C-25 was a step in the right direction because it would prohibit bearer shares, which make it pretty easy to conceal shareholders' real identities. Unfortunately, Prof. Lareau said that this would not stop the existing shares from being converted into registered instruments.

My colleague even confirmed the existence of this loophole, saying that we had to look at all of the shares that are out there, not just those that will be issued after the bill receives royal assent. Unfortunately, to date, we have rarely had the opportunity to review our laws on corporations, co-operatives, and non-profit organizations. Nevertheless, we hope that the government made note of that loophole and will consider doing something about it in the near future.

In short, corporate transparency around the identity of beneficial owners remains an important issue that has not been sufficiently addressed in this bill. The government should examine that issue soon since Canada will continue to draw criticism regarding corporate transparency.

The government has already taken some action in that regard. It reached an agreement with the provincial ministers under which every company must enter the name of its beneficial owner in the provincial registries. That is a step forward and even though there are dissenting voices that say that this is not the way to go, there is still an apparent willingness to have a registry of beneficial owners, which our party believes is extremely important. I hope that the government intends to consider this issue soon in order to resolve the major problem of corporate transparency.

I hope that I have done the member for Windsor West proud. He has done remarkable work on this file. I hope that the rest of the debate on the transparency of corporations, co-operatives, non-profit organizations, and their boards of directors will be productive.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question for my colleague, and I thank him for his work on this file.

My colleague said that his party supports the provisions in Bill C-25. With respect to strengthening diversity and gender parity on corporate boards, I am wondering if his party's position has changed. In the previous Parliament, when his party was in power, my colleague took issue with a bill aimed at improving diversity and gender parity on the boards of federal crown corporations. I am wondering whether his view or position on this matter has changed, given that he supports this bill today.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his speech. I also thank the members in the other chamber for contributing to this debate.

My question is about how the bill has been roundly criticized for being weak. There are some very important issues surrounding corporate transparency in Canada. The Standing Committee on Finance is discussing money laundering and proceeds of crime, an issue that is often raised. Another such issue concerns beneficial ownership, or knowing who, exactly, owns a business. Unfortunately, this bill is yet another missed opportunity to address the lack of transparency in Canada's provincial and federal business registries.

Can my colleague explain why they decided to consider these transparency proposals but not to not include them in Bill C-25? If they intend to do so, when?

[Canada Revenue Agency, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative strategy of muzzling organizations that criticize its environmental policy lives on with the Liberals.

Charitable organizations left a meeting with the Minister of Finance this week feeling dissatisfied and disappointed, and convinced that this issue is not a priority and that the government has no intention of modernizing the rules. However, the Liberals had promised to do so during the last election, as we can see on page 34 of the Liberal platform.

Can the government explain this baffling flip-flop?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is demonstrating bad faith in suggesting that we do not want to talk about the budget. Earlier, as I was asking his colleague a question, I said that if he kept quiet and did not rise, nobody else on this side of the House would rise either. Accordingly, as per our rules, the debate would have gone to a vote immediately. There would have been a vote and we could have moved on to the item on the agenda, which is the budget. Clearly, my colleague's insistence on continuing to talk is preventing us from getting back to the debate on the budget, Bill C-74.

Why did my colleague rise when he could have kept quiet so the question could be put immediately?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to what my colleague just said. I promise my friend from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia that if, at the end of his speech and after questions and comments, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche does not rise, no members on this side of the House will rise to speak to the motion. This means that those of us on this side of the House are prepared to vote to dispose of the motion.

Can my colleague guarantee that, after questions and comments, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche will not rise, allowing the question to be put?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and particularly his expertise on this matter. We worked together on matters of conflicts of interest, ethics, and lobbying. I would like to know whether he has any further thoughts on the consequences of reports like this one from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Offenders may be fined up to $500, but that is not a lot of money for someone like the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister. There is also a practice whereby ministers who break the law have to pay back their inappropriate spending. In fact, that was the case for a minister in the current Prime Minister's Liberal government who used a limousine outside the normal course of her duties.

Any inappropriate or illegal gift needs to be declared immediately and returned to the person who sent it. Taxpayers must be reimbursed for any inappropriate spending.

What does my colleague think about the consequences of this kind of condemnation by the conflict of interest commissioner?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to be taking lessons from certain American politicians, and it is disappointing to hear him distort the truth and revise history as he sees fit and make wild accusations against his opponents. He spent 10 minutes talking about transparency and the fact that the Liberals have embraced proactive disclosure. He said there was some resistance.

I need to correct a few things my colleague said. The current system for disclosing expenses works consistently across the board; in other words, it applies equally to everyone. That is precisely what we were advocating for at the time. Under the current system, Financial Management Operations, which oversees members' expenses, has itself standards for the disclosure of information. I want my colleague to take note of that.

Also, he said at the beginning of his speech that this debate is unnecessary and a waste of time, and yet we are talking about a rather thick document in which the former commissioner of conflict of interest and ethics mentioned some very important things, particularly modernizing and improving the Conflict of Interest Act.

Is the member saying that there is no need to take time to talk about the Conflict of Interest Act in the House, in order to determine how to strengthen it and make it more effective and rigorous?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He touched very briefly on the Prime Minister's desperate attempt to justify his trip and claim that, according to his lawyers, he did not violate section 12, which mentions airplanes. The English and French versions actually say two different things. The English version uses the word “aircraft”, I think, and the French one uses the word “avion”, which means airplane. Obviously, he went with the version that suited him when he justified his trip and the use of a private helicopter on the grounds that a helicopter is not an airplane. He went with the French version, claiming that, when the two versions differ, the one that makes the most sense or best captures the legislative intent takes precedence.

He is trying to convince Canadians that, when he was planning the trip, he read section 12 of the Conflict of Interest Act before agreeing to go on the trip, saw the words “aircraft” and “avion”, and decided to go with the French version and accept the trip on the grounds that he was complying with section 12. That is an act of true desperation.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?