Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 63 - Evidence - May 29, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 29, 2019 (Afternoon meeting)
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day, at 1:32 p.m., to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 17 of Part 4, and in Subdivisions B, C and D of Division 2 of Part 4 of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures.
Senator Serge Joyal (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, it is with great pleasure that I welcome you this afternoon, and the Honourable David Lametti, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He is accompanied by Ms. Nathalie G. Drouin, Deputy Minister, and Ms. Isabelle Jacques, Assistant Deputy Minister.
Minister, we are pleased to hear from you about the budget provisions that affect your department and the responsibilities of this committee, namely the amendments to the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, on money laundering provisions. We have a time limit. I know you also have to go back to the other place. You have the floor.
Hon. David Lametti, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to all of you, and thank you for welcoming me once again with my colleagues.
I am delighted to be here today to talk to you about some of the initiatives our government is proposing in Budget 2019. On the one hand, it is about increasing the integrity of the asylum system and appointing three new Federal Court judges related to this initiative.
[English]
I note that Minister Blair will be appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs to discuss our government’s Border Enforcement Strategy. To that end, Minister Blair is our government’s point person for this comprehensive initiative.
As the new Federal Court judicial positions in Division 17 of Bill C-97, which we are here to discuss today, are closely related to our government’s Border Enforcement Strategy led by Minister Blair, I will nonetheless refer briefly to it as it relates to the Federal Court positions.
Given my responsibility for the Criminal Code, I will also discuss our proposed changes to that law contained in Division 2, Subdivision B of Bill C-97 as it relates to our government’s money laundering initiative.
However, Minister Blair as well as Minister Morneau, who will be appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, are best placed to speak for fulsomely to the measures contained in Subdivision C and D of Division 2 of Bill C-97.
These collective efforts involving the work of three ministers fulfill our government’s commitment to address these issues and recognize the seriousness posed by money laundering and organized crime to Canada’s national security.
With respect to the measure taken in Division 17, our government is taking concrete steps to manage and deter irregular migration while assessing the best way to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and overall management of the asylum system in the long term. The aim is an asylum system that is fair, fast and final. To this end, Budget 2019 announced investments of $1.18 billion over five years, starting in 2019-20, and $55 million per year ongoing, which will increase the asylum system’s capacity to provide timely protection to refugees, while supporting our Border Enforcement Strategy.
[Translation]
To support the implementation of our strategy, Division 16 of Bill C-97 provides for certain targeted legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Although they are beyond the scope of your study today, it should be mentioned that these changes, as a whole, are intended to improve the management of claims and discourage irregular migration.
With these changes, our government will continue to provide the necessary protection to those in need, while preserving the integrity of the refugee determination system.
[English]
I bring this to your attention because the measures in Division 16 of Bill C-97 will likely have a direct impact on the workload of the Federal Court.
As discussed, the Border Enforcement Strategy includes funding to increase the processing capacity of the system from around 26,000 claims per year currently to 50,000 asylum claims per year by fiscal year 2020-21.
As new efficiencies and increases to the capacity of the asylum system gain traction, the volume of cases processed through the system will grow. This will increase the volume of asylum cases reaching the Federal Court. This includes leave applications, judicial reviews and motions to stay a removal order.
[Translation]
Thus, Budget 2019 provides funding to add three judges to the Federal Court’s staff, which would increase from 36 to 39 judges. This addition is contained in Division 17 of Bill C-97, which provides for an amendment to subsection 5.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act. The Federal Court needs these three additional judges to deal with the expected increase in cases to be processed which is expected to result from proposed changes to the refugee determination system.
[English]
Increased volume would have a major impact on access to justice, not only for asylum seekers but for all individuals coming before the Federal Court.
As you are aware, the Federal Court is Canada’s national trial court. It hears and decides federal legal disputes whose subject matter has been assigned to the court by Parliament. These disputes include claims against the Government of Canada, civil suits between private parties in federally regulated areas, and reviews of the decisions of most federal tribunals. Adding new judges will help all Canadians access justice in a timely fashion relating to all matters under the court’s jurisdiction.
While we expect that new judges will be required to deal with an anticipated increase in cases at the Federal Court, the decision to appoint judges to fill the newly created positions will be based on careful monitoring and tracking.
[Translation]
The appointment of new judges will only be made if it can be demonstrated that it is necessary based on the volume of cases to be processed or on the analysis of new cases that is anticipated.
Of course, we cannot simply transfer the problem by simply solving the backlog of asylum claims to create a bottleneck elsewhere. For this reason, new judicial positions will be created to prevent the Federal Court from accumulating delays, which would not only slow down the processing of refugee claims, but also hinder the court’s ability to effectively manage all of these cases, as previously discussed.
[English]
With respect to the measure contained in Subdivision B of Division 2, our government takes very seriously the threat posed by money laundering and organized crime to Canada’s national security and the integrity of our financial sector.
[Translation]
Section 462.31 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the offence of money laundering, prohibits anyone from knowingly participating in transactions that seek to conceal or transfer property or proceeds of crime into the legal economy. Currently, this offence necessarily implies that the accused knows or believes that the property or proceeds were obtained or generated, in whole or in part, by crime.
Clause 103 of the bill would amend this offence to add the psychological element of “recklessness.” Prosecution could now be initiated against an accused who has been reckless about the fact that the property or proceeds were obtained or generated, in whole or in part, by crime.
[English]
As such, this amendment will allow prosecutors to prosecute money laundering more easily. In appropriate cases going forward, prosecutors will thus be able to succeed in prosecuting money laundering where the defendant was reckless as to whether or not the property was derived from crime. That is to say that the accused was aware of a substantial risk that the property was the proceeds of crime but nonetheless continued with the prohibited activity.
It bears mention that during the November 2018 parliamentary review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance recommended a series of measures to strengthen and modernize Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime. Our amendment to add the element of recklessness to the money laundering offence in the Criminal Code constitutes an important element of these measures.
In short, this proposed Criminal Code amendment will support the investigation and prosecution of professional money launderers by adding an additional tool.
However, I must note that law enforcement will still need to take on complex investigations and gather the necessary evidence to build a successful prosecution. That is why, through Budget 2019, we are also providing significant new funding to assist with prosecutions and investigations amounting to $68.9 million to the RCMP and $50 million for the CRA’s real estate audit teams.
I have my two departmental colleagues here with me, along with my deputy, for any questions of a more technical nature and we look forward to answering any questions you have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister.
I would now invite Senator Dupuis, deputy chair of the committee, to open discussions with the minister this afternoon.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, minister, for being with us today. I would like to come back to the new offence of recklessness, the amendment to section 462.31 of the Criminal Code.
According to your interpretation, what distinction can be made between the words “knowing” and “believing” that proceeds have been obtained directly or indirectly from crime, with respect to the words “or being reckless”? In other words, in relation to this new legal concept, what made you choose this language, and how can we distinguish the “knowing” from the “believing”?
Mr. Lametti: First, I would like to point out that in law, this is not a new concept. In criminal law, there is already a standard of recklessness for other offences. This is something that is known and the standards are already legally known. We have expanded the moral element, the mens rea, criminal intent. Previously, it was active knowledge and it was necessary to know or to believe that the assets obtained were the proceeds of crime.
Now it is a matter of substantial risk. If there was a substantial risk and it was ignored, we could have the element of mens rea necessary to charge someone.
Senator Dupuis: If I understand correctly, a gender-based analysis of Bill C-97 was done. I don’t believe I heard that this analysis focused on the part of Bill C-97 dealing with money laundering related to human trafficking, including sex trafficking, that affects vulnerable young women. Can you tell us if this has been taken into consideration in your department?
Mr. Lametti: I’ll ask Isabelle to answer you.
Isabelle Jacques, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Finance Canada: This analysis has been done. With respect to Bill C-97, a comparative analysis was conducted for each of the elements under consideration. I do not know if it was comprehensive enough to cover trafficking in persons. I can commit to come back to you with an answer and see what assessment we made on this subject.
Senator Dupuis: Yes, because I know that not so long ago, the Ontario Provincial Police, the OPP, made a direct link between money laundering and human trafficking, particularly the trafficking of vulnerable young women in this context. That’s why I would like to have that information.
Ms. Jacques: Yes.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, minister, for being here today to answer our questions.
Minister, I appreciate that the government has started to implement measures to combat money laundering. Experts will tell us that money laundering is an old, open secret. It is nothing new.
According to a recent C.D. Howe Institute report on money laundering, Canada is behind the times when it comes to fighting the crime. Last month, British Columbia’s government introduced legislation aimed at preventing tax evasion and money laundering by looking to identify anonymous property owners through a registry that will be public in 2020. It also called for a public inquiry into this matter.
Minister, if the federal government is serious about combating tax evasion and money laundering, why not implement a federal public registry of beneficial ownership and call for a public inquiry to look into this matter?
Mr. Lametti: Thank you for that question. I met with Minister Eby this past week in Vancouver, and we are cooperating fully with what the Government of British Columbia is doing with respect to combating money laundering.
We already have a number of tools in place and we have, as a government, invested significant resources in Budget 2019 into the RCMP and their organized crime unit and anti-money laundering investigations, as well as the CRA and FINTRAC in the Department of Finance. Those three federal institutions are being given the means to combat money laundering in a more robust fashion after we had seen drastic cuts, particularly to the RCMP budget, by the previous Conservative government.
We’re giving the means back to our agencies to investigate. We’re working with the Government of British Columbia. We will support their efforts and will watch carefully what happens with their commission of inquiry.
We appreciate that real estate is part of the problem. It falls under provincial jurisdiction but we will work with the Government of B.C. and have committed to do that. Minister Blair in particular has been working quite closely with Minister Eby in British Columbia.
Senator McIntyre: Are you prepared to call for a public inquiry into this matter, and are you prepared to implement a federal public registry of beneficial ownership? The bill is silent on this issue.
Mr. Lametti: Thank you for reminding me on the beneficial ownership point. We have made it easier for our investigative agencies, such as the CRA and FINTRAC, to better track beneficial ownership under current legislation. Without having a full-blown public registry, which we’ve neither supported nor eliminated as a possibility, we have, in the meantime, made it easier for our investigative bodies to see who actually owns and who is the beneficial owner of any particular property in question.
As regards a full public inquiry, I don’t have a statement to make in that regard. As I said, for the time being, we are putting a great deal of resources into the investigation through the CRA, FINTRAC and the RCMP, and we’re going to work with the Government of British Columbia, see where we are and see how matters proceed.
Senator McIntyre: My final question is regarding amendments to the Federal Courts Act. Considering that, as of May 3 of this year, there were five judicial vacancies at the Federal Court, how long will it take to fill the three new judge positions?
Mr. Lametti: Again, we’re going to watch the situation carefully to see how the numbers go. We’re creating the possibility of three more positions, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, which we will carefully follow. Other court appointments, including those to the Federal Court, are proceeding. I can assure you of that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you for being here with us today, minister.
I looked at the amendments, and in particular the change in the definition with respect to the issue of recklessness versus wilful blindness. This gives the impression that we will be tougher, and that we will be able to charge more people who are involved in money laundering or this type of fraud. On the other hand, we have Bill C-75, which we are currently studying, which will include hybrid offences for white collar crimes. I looked at an OECD report on maximum penalties for offences related to tax offences or the like, and observed that in terms of prison sentences among OECD countries Canada is one of the least stringent countries. We impose a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, while most other countries impose more than five years. Moreover, we are not dealing with the aspect of trusts, as my colleague mentioned earlier.
Do you really feel that this amendment to the bill will solve the problem, or should your government not go much further and be more aggressive and insistent, particularly on the issue of trusts, rather than on the issue of tax evasion and money laundering? You know the trust business; it’s a private business, so it’s impossible to know who’s hiding behind it.
Mr. Lametti: This is a good question; thank you very much. First, I have already spoken publicly, including before this committee, I believe, to say that we will study the issue of mandatory minimum sentences in depth in the near future. Perhaps this could be part of the solution? I don’t know. I will wait for the result of such a study.
However, the action we will take is important because it will affect people who close their eyes and who should have had doubts in some cases, given the substantial risks. So it is very important, as a legal standard, to take the measure we have just taken. This is serious, in the sense that there is a lot of money at stake. The key element, in any case, are investigations and the power of investigators to uncover the practices and people involved in money laundering.
Senator Carignan: I don’t want to undermine your optimism, but with the trust system in place that makes it very easy to get around the law, launder money and hide in tax havens — Canada is a small tax haven, just because of the use of trusts. Do you really think that your amendment will make Canada a victorious country in its fight against tax evasion? I have difficulty sharing your optimism.
Mr. Lametti: As I just said, this is an important step. With respect to trusts and their transparency, we have given our investigators more power to look into previous years. We will see what happens; I am optimistic.
Senator Carignan: I have a more technical question, which deals with subparagraph 114(1)(a.1), which authorizes the minister to provide any official of the federal public administration and any employee of a provincial or municipal authority with advisory and other services relating to the seizure, restraint, custody, management and forfeiture of property. Can you explain to us what the minister’s provision of consultative and other services will add? What does that mean, “and other”?
Mr. Lametti: I will refer to Ms. Jacques’ expertise to answer you.
Ms. Jacques: With respect to the consultative services, Public Services and Procurement Canada can only provide services to some investigators at this time. They want to expand the scope of services that can be offered to deal with seized property. At the moment, it is impossible to do so, and they are not authorized to do so. They wanted to ensure that property seized pursuant to a prosecution or used in a money laundering context could be processed for use and resale.
The department of public works has some expertise in this area, and they wanted to take advantage of it to use this expertise and avoid duplication within the federal government.
Senator Carignan: Can you give examples of what “and other” means? I’m trying to imagine what it could be.
Ms. Jacques: I can’t tell you what exactly is being referred to, because this subsection was not part of today’s assessment, but I can commit to providing you with this information later.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you for being here. Before I ask my question, I could say, given that you’re apparently looking at mandatory minimum penalties, you might want to look at Bill S-251. You could adopt it and move forward.
In terms of the issues here, in the FINTRAC report issued in 2016, it was recognized that victims of human trafficking are often used as a way to facilitate money laundering — your department is well aware of that — by acting as personal and business account holders. Would Subdivision D respond to that concern? Also, do the amendments in Division 4 improve the access of beneficial ownership information in order to address those money laundering and human trafficking issues — or their ties to human trafficking?
Mr. Lametti: I think the answer is “yes, in part” to both parts of your question. The access to beneficial ownership information might be helpful; it catches it in part. It’s a larger provision, but it might be helpful in that regard. It’s the same thing with the change in the definition or the mens rea component of the crime. Again, it is meant to target the larger question of money laundering but once again, if you’re willfully reckless and you ignore or close your eyes to an elevated risk that you are perhaps participating in human trafficking when you ought to have asked another question, then we’ve enlarged the net of mens rea under which we could capture that behaviour.
Senator Pate: How will you guard against individuals who are victimized and become the front runners or account holders in such money-laundering operations? I’m thinking of massage parlours and other places where we often see a person who is criminalized was first victimized.
Mr. Lametti: That’s a larger question and something that we hope falls under the domain of Minister Goodale, but it’s something we hope to be able to sensitize people at every stage of the investigative and criminal process. You hope that investigating officers and prosecutors will all be sensitized to that fact. You never want to victimize someone twice nor do you want the system to victimize them when they’ve already been victimized by another actor who is guilty of a criminal offence.
I share your concern and I hope that we as a society, as well as a government, will put measures into place to prevent that kind of revictimization.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, minister, for having come in the company of two people for whom I have great respect.
I had questions about recklessness as compared to blindness, but it may be an examination question for a law school student who is asked to distinguish between the two. So I’m going to leave that out.
How many prosecutions are there per year for money laundering offences under the Criminal Code? Is it really a provision that is not widely used because of the definition of the mens rea, or because of investigations that are too complex?
Nathalie G. Drouin, Deputy Minister, Department of Justice Canada: I do not have the data on hand, but few prosecutions are brought under the Criminal Code provisions. The addition of the mens rea will likely give Crown counsel a new reason to use the section. Obviously, this will not be a panacea in terms of new cases, but adding this provision will make it easier to lay charges.
Mr. Lametti: With regard to money laundering, for example, money launderers must employ people who do not ask questions. So they need professionals who are able to take the money without question and invest or do something else legitimate with the money.
The measure we have just added could be used to target those people who should have asked questions.
Senator Dalphond: We can think of notaries who participate in a transaction and whose fees are paid in cash with a suitcase full of bills?
Mr. Lametti: Exactly.
Senator Dalphond: My other question is related to the number of prosecutions. In several provinces, there are many laws that allow proceeds of crime to be seized through civil proceedings rather than criminal proceedings. Thus, establishing the burden of proof is not very complex, and witnesses — including the person being seized — can also be compelled to testify. Can these civil actions to seize property interfere with the process, making it easier for Crown counsel in the provinces to simply seize and confiscate the property, rather than initiate proceedings to have an offender charged with money laundering?
Ms. Drouin: In fact, it provides an additional tool, especially in situations where there is not enough evidence to lay criminal charges, which still ensure public protection. It is a complementary tool.
Senator Dalphond: I have one last question on how the mechanisms work. I see that the Quebec Ministry of Revenue is being added to the list of agencies that will have access to the information collected by FINTRAC. Will this allow for the detection of provincial tax offences?
Mr. Lametti: Yes, and it’s also proof of cooperation. That provides a partial answer to Senator Carignan’s question earlier. Federal and provincial government agencies must cooperate. That’s a good example. Information must be shared to charge those who are guilty.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Thank you for being here, minister. I am not normally a member of this committee, so I want to take the opportunity to ask a few questions.
I will follow up on the question that Senator Carignan directed your way in terms of this consultative service. Would this consultative service apply to goods including, for example, marijuana that was seized by the provincial and municipal authorities? Also, who asked for this particular amendment?
Mr. Lametti: Again, this is actually outside the scope of my responsibilities for the bill. If Ms. Jacques has an answer, I would invite her to provide it, but otherwise we will undertake to get you an answer.
Ms. Jacques: I do not have an answer to say whether it would also impact cannabis, but I will follow up and see what it was meant to cover.
Senator MacDonald: This question is more about process, because I have attended a lot of committees over the years and looked at a lot of bills. We are finding in this bill and on this particular measure amendments to the Criminal Code showing up in a Budget Implementation Act. Why is this occurring and why is this reoccurring? I don’t understand why Criminal Code amendments should end up in a Budget Implementation Act, and I think a lot of people share that concern.
Mr. Lametti: The budgetary measures were there both on the immigration side and on the tracking of money laundering side, so we invested more money as a country through the budget in these various areas, and the other amendments are there in support of that.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Senator Sinclair: Many of my questions have been dealt with by my former judicial brother and now senatorial brother but I did have a couple of other questions.
Having dealt with the issue of the difference between reckless driving in provincial legislation and dangerous driving in the Criminal Code and the mental element applicable to both, I’m a little concerned about the possibility of reducing the mental element for a criminal offence, as has been suggested might be the case. it sounds to me like this has been considered, but I was looking for a Charter statement with regard to this particular set of amendments in the Budget Implementation Act. Is there a Charter statement with regard to these provisions?
Mr. Lametti: There is a Charter analysis that Minister Blair has deposited today in front of the Senate committee that he appeared before and we can undertake to get that to you. There was an analysis done on the immigration parts and that’s what Minister Blair deposited today.
Ms. Drouin: We didn’t table any background.
Mr. Lametti: No, I don’t think we tabled any background on the mens rea part.
Senator Sinclair: Do you have one, or are you going to develop one to take a look at the question of the Charter implications of reducing the mental element of a criminal offence, particularly in the area of recklessness? I’m curious whether that has been carefully considered.
Mr. Lametti: We could undertake to do that. My sense is that given other areas in the Criminal Code where recklessness is used as part of the mental element, I doubt very much we’re going to run into any Charter problems with that, but we can come back to you more formally.
Senator Lankin: Thank you to you, minister, and to your officials for being here today.
I checked with Senator Doyle and he talked about you speaking to the provision to introduce the element of recklessness to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime. I spent a number of years in the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and, of course, we were very attentive to what was going on within the properties and to what was going on in British Columbia and the inquiry there.
There has also been much talk about real estate transactions as another area. Are those particular examples that you think might be caught by this provision that you are introducing. Are there other examples? I think the same questions that Senator Sinclair raised in terms of the threshold of proof would apply here, but I’m more interested in the other kinds of activities you are aware of that caused you to introduce this provision.
Mr. Lametti: Yes, we are hoping that we will be more effective in fighting money laundering in domains like real estate. If somebody pays for a house in cash it may or ought to raise questions, for example.
I have mentioned already in the course of the questions and answers today that we are working closely with British Columbia and with Minister Eby. Minister Blair has established a very good relationship with Minister Eby and we are going to be very supportive of what the Government of British Columbia is doing moving forward.
Again, real estate is but one area. Organized crime tends to be involved in a great many activities, sadly, and a lot of those activities are used for money laundering. We’re hoping that this provision will help us to enlarge the catchment, if you will, of criminal activity.
Senator Lankin: I appreciate that that is the intent. Specifically, we all see and read the news coverage of real estate and casinos as domains of organized crime. Are there other notable examples that you would bring to our attention? Hopefully you will catch others over time with this kind of a provision because it will drive investigations. Can you give us any other examples?
Mr. Lametti: We have had the example in this discussion of human trafficking and drugs, obviously, as well as other domains where organized crime is often present.
Senator Lankin: Is there any aspect that also looks at terrorism security fundraising? There is an element within that that has the potential — and I don’t know whether it is actively used — for this as well.
Mr. Lametti: Again, the scope of my participation in this bill has been fairly limited to the two things about which I spoke today. The larger question of fighting terrorism —
Senator Lankin: Sorry, I’m talking about money laundering. It might not seem obvious. There is potential but I’m not asking you specifically about that. Are there other examples of which you are aware that caused your government, beyond the well-known examples of casinos and real estate, to bring this provision forward? You have mentioned drugs and human trafficking, which I agree are two examples. Are there other examples?
Mr. Lametti: Again, I wasn’t there for the development. I was not in this post while this part of the bill was being developed, but I would add terrorist groups are often involved in money laundering and hopefully it catches them, too.
Ms. Jacques: The intent is to capture that, but also any goods sold on the black market. It could be something as innocuous as a piece of equipment or anything people purchase thinking there may be something wrong with the product they are acquiring, but being reckless about it. There are a number of transactions that occur on a daily basis that would be captured by this. On top of those big-ticket items that you mentioned, those are the main ones that were contemplated.
Senator Lankin: My last query is an area of concern that relates to what Senator Sinclair was raising in another context about recklessness and the threshold of evidence of proof and mental intent. In some of these areas, the further you get from the obvious big dollar transaction of real estate in cash or casinos, which are prime, individuals can be caught up in this in a way that, to knowledgeable people, would seem reckless but not necessarily so.
I’m not a lawyer. I just want to understand how you envision this provision applying to people. On the flip side, what kind of due diligence do people need to be advised to do, or what kind of outreach and education is needed to let people know about the kind of things they could get caught up in? There are a lot of consumers who are unknowing.
Mr. Lametti: I have already mentioned the idea of substantial risk. It’s a smell test in a sense that when there is a substantial risk, you can’t just close your eyes to it. Substantial is important; it’s not just any risk.
The burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a criminal case — or the criminal standard — is always on the Crown and the Crown prosecutor to show. There is that safeguard in place, in a sense, in favour of the individual to not be caught in a web where they had no idea that they would be caught and no reason to believe they ought to have been caught.
Again, the idea of substantial risk opens up a category where one really should have known or should have asked the question because there was this elephant in the room, quite frankly. It doesn’t go so far as to catch everything. Again, the burden of proof in the criminal law standard is a good source of protection for the individual.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Renée Dupuis (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Minister, I have a question about what information FINTRAC will be able to share, and more specifically with whom. We talked earlier about the Canada Revenue Agency, but the bill also refers to the Competition Bureau. What is the rationale for including the Competition Bureau in this amendment?
Ms. Jacques: The Competition Bureau has noted that many frauds are committed. There are all kinds of fraudulent schemes organized in the form of mass calling campaigns to defraud various people, and the elderly in particular. So we wanted to share information. FINTRAC will be able to share information with the Competition Bureau in an effort to stop these fraudulent schemes that target the most vulnerable people. There are all kinds of calls being made to make people trust the caller and spend money. Given its responsibilities, the government has decided to allow FINTRAC to share information with the Competition Bureau in an attempt to limit this type of fraud.
The Deputy Chair: I see there are no further questions. Minister, I want to thank you for making yourself available with relatively short notice to help us understand this part of the bill that concerns you in particular. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Jacques and Ms. Drouin.
Mr. Lametti: Thank you, Madam Chair, to all of you and to my colleagues.
The Deputy Chair: The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)