bcgov
Information Sharing Agreements for accessing RTR
Information sharing agreements need to be in place to give access under the following provisions:
- P2P Beneficial Ownership Registry. If BC wishes to participate in the pan canadian beneficial ownership registry we must ensure that legislation supports data sharing, and an ISA is in place.
From Bill 20:
-
If an applicable information-sharing agreement is in place, a person or entity referred to in section 5 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (Canada) may search and inspect prescribed information in the registrar’s transparency register for prescribed purposes.
-
If an applicable information-sharing agreement is in place, a prescribed person or a person in a prescribed class of persons may search and inspect prescribed information in the registrar’s transparency register for prescribed purposes.
-
If an applicable information-sharing agreement is in place, a corporate registrar (in or out of Canada) may search and inspect the registrar’s transparency register in accordance with that agreement.
- [ ] Check with Policy/legal for updates/regulations relating to this
- [ ] Check with Digital Delivery re: ISA template used for partners
- [ ] Establish approval flow
- [ ] Draft and revise
Updates for #1 and #8
- A call took place with Nicholas Eisner (Systemscope) to discuss what information may be shared if BC committed to the P2P Beneficial Ownership registry at a later time. Dani and Dwayne were unable to attend but are being included in communications.
- Policy (Samar) notes she has sent questions to legal counsel for clarification at which time she will set up a meeting to discuss our ability to share data. Note, to share public beneficial ownership data for public consumption or competent authority beneficial ownership data for competent authority consumption may require legislative changes.
- It is possible we may be able to use an ISA as a vessel to allow sharing
- I've brought to policies attention that Digital Delivery handles ISA's for BC. With an existing ISA for MRAS we could likely lean on that with minor changes. Note, Systemscope's design adds additional details into the MRAS messaging
Next Steps
- Samar has set up an Information Sharing meeting for May 15, 2024 which includes digital delivery, policy, Sinead and Sal.
Proposed Data Sharing List
Public Search Significant Individual Information • Full legal name • Birth year • Citizenship or Permanent Residency Related Business Information • Company name • Incorporation number / registration number • Business number • Business status • Registered office location (only city and province) • Date of company creation (e.g incorporation, continuation into BC)
Competent Authority Search Significant Individual Information • Full legal name • Birth date (year, month, date) • Last known address • Control of Votes and Shares (percentage range) • Type(s) of control of shares and or votes – Registered Owner / Beneficial Owner / Indirect Control • Type of control of the right to elect, appoint or remove a majority of the company’s directors – Direct Control, Indirect Control, Significant Influence Control • Determination of Incapacity • Citizenship or permanent residency • Tax residency • Date when control started and ended
Related Business Information • Company name • Incorporation number / registration number • Business number • Business status • Registered office location (only city and province) • Date of company creation (e.g incorporation, continuation into BC)
@Apt766525 thank you for the information above. I would like to raise this to policy, and might tackle it outside of the UX/UI meeting. Since we have already engaged them on the ISA for Systemscope (and potential legislative changes) this may fit with that work. You'd noted the information available would be more than public but less than competent authorities. My hope is we could avoid creating a third search option and leverage what is available for competent authorities. Can you provide background on why you'd noted the information they are provided is less than what a competent authority would see?
@mstanton1 Referring to the above comment, the policy reason for writing the legislation this way was to “future” proof the RTR for any possible requests for information from any person or entity. The persons or entities referred to in the above noted sections are not necessarily law enforcement, taxing authorities or regulators, so they do not meet the requirements to be competent authorities.
These persons or entities will not necessarily need all the information in the registry either and the policy rational for that is to ensure that information is kept confidential when necessary. For example, not all persons or entities referred to in those sections will require a SIN and as you know this is a highly sensitive piece of information. It is important that we not share information that is not directly relevant to the work of those requesting it.
Not all these persons or entities will receive the SIN, and not all will not receive it. The information they can access from the RTR, and why they can access it, will be spelled out in regulation. So, one entity could get the SIN, full name, and full DOB, but another entity might only get the full name, citizenship, and tax residency, but not the SIN at all.
It will not be known what person or entity will get what information until they provide us with their requested information, and we complete an analysis for the business case of why they should be provided that information and for what purposes.
As per RAID https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/raid--work-space-617c3d4cef313f001d715a7c/issues/gh/bcgov-registries/raid/369 executive leadership has made a decision to participate in the Federal pilot. Potential risks have been flagged and inclusion in the pilot will determine if we can pursue full participation without any additional concerns.