An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

Jim Flaherty  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

This enactment amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enhance the client identification, record-keeping and reporting measures applicable to financial institutions and intermediaries. It establishes a registration regime for money services businesses and foreign exchange dealers and creates a new offence for not registering.
It allows the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose additional information to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and to make disclosures to additional agencies.
It permits the Centre to exchange compliance-related information with its foreign counterparts and permits the Canada Border Services Agency to share information about the application of the cross-border currency reporting regime with its foreign counterparts. It also includes a consequential amendment to the Canada Border Services Agency Act.
It creates an administrative monetary penalty regime.
It amends the Income Tax Act to allow the Canada Revenue Agency to disclose to the Centre, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service information about charities suspected of being involved in terrorist financing activities.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-25s:

C-25 (2022) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2022-23
C-25 (2021) An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend another Act
C-25 (2016) Law An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act
C-25 (2014) Law Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 10:55 a.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question earlier of the parliamentary secretary with respect to what was in and what was out and the response I received was that precious metals were in, precious stones were in, jewellery was in, there was talk of real estate being in and things of that nature.

I went back and read the bill. What it appears is that precious metals are in but some of the others are not.

I just had a quick conversation with the parliamentary secretary, to be fair to her, and she said that she would do that by regulation. However, I think it speaks to the member's first and most significant, which is that there is a transmission of funds by means other than merely cash or electronic transmission.

Could the hon. member comment on the inclusion of other forms of valuable transmissions other than merely cash or electronic transmission and whether that should be, from his experience as minister of revenue, included by way of statute or by way of regulation?

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 10:55 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for doing a little bit of due diligence and actually checking the act because it certainly was my impression that forms of wealth other than cash were not included in the bill, notwithstanding what the parliamentary secretary said earlier. I am glad the member, at least to a degree, confirmed that.

I definitely agree that this is a critical element. With my experience in banking we all know that these criminals are clever. We need to be one step ahead of them and not one step behind them.

I think it is critical that these other forms of wealth be included in a meaningful and strong way. I would be inclined, in response to my colleague's question, to put them right into the legislation.

However, in part, that is a technical matter and we should hear from the department and the technical experts on that matter. My initial inclination would be that we need to make this a very strong bill. We need to be two steps ahead, not two steps behind the criminal element. Subject to privacy concerns, which I also mentioned, we need to take a very strong, proactive and vigorous stance in this area.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to address Bill C-25. I would like to reread the title of the bill, so that Quebeckers and Canadians clearly understand what this legislation is about.

This bill is entitled An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. As people may have already figured out, I wish to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois will support this legislation, because of the importance of the fight against terrorist financing.

We feel that this is a major challenge and that such a bill is necessary, particularly since the fight against organized crime has always been a priority for the Bloc Québécois. Hon. members may remember the work done by our colleague Richard Marceau, the former member of Parliament for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, who succeeded in having this House pass a private member's bill reversing the burden of proof in the case of the proceeds of crime.

As a result of interventions by the Bloc Québécois in this House, the federal government has decided to amend the Criminal Code so that criminals now must prove that the fruits of their labour or proceeds of crime are acquired otherwise, that is, legally. Previously, the onus was on the Crown and the government to prove that criminals' income or assets were proceeds of crime. Today, the onus is reversed, and the accused must prove that he or she worked to acquire certain assets.

Such situations exist in Quebec, and in my riding, I have seen amazing stories that can often turn out to be terrible stories of crime. Reporters and the media have given nicknames such as “Richie Rich” or “Peter Cash” to some criminals, whose personal possessions and equipment include planes, helicopters, luxury cars and waterfront properties. These people were so nicknamed by the community, because others knew that they were involved in illegal activities and had different sources of income from their own. As well, for safety reasons, neighbours do not dare question how some people have acquired certain assets.

Now, when they are charged, the burden of proof rests on them. This is an initiative of former member Richard Marceau, a lawyer who, as the Bloc Québécois critic, introduced a private member's bill and convinced Parliament to reverse the burden of proof in this case. The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of the interests of Quebeckers, but it has also always fought against organized crime.

Our colleague from Sainte-Hyacinthe—Bagot openly criticized marijuana producers. He even received anonymous calls threatening his life. During the 2000 election campaign, the leader of the Bloc Québécois had to have RCMP officers with him wherever he went because he had received threats after the Bloc Québécois dared to tackle organized crime.

The men and women of the Bloc Québécois will always rise proudly in this House to speak out for citizens who, all too often, are threatened and find themselves powerless in the face of organized crime, the ramifications of which are especially significant since marijuana growing has become an international business supported not only by organized crime, but also by biker gangs and street gangs.

None of that will make the Bloc Québécois members back off from their role as champions or leading experts in the fight against organized crime. Understandably, Mr. Speaker, we will also be championing Bill C-25; in other words, we will be supporting it.

However, in supporting this kind of bill, which deals with terrorist financing, including, of course,money laundering and organized crime, one definitely must respect the privacy rights of citizens. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance between upholding the public interest and fighting organized crime, terrorism and money laundering, while at the same time respecting the rights of individuals, honest Quebeckers who might come under investigation.

That is why it is essential to ensure that any information that may be requested concerning citizens or individuals not be used for any purpose other than the one for which it was requested.

Again, in fighting and defending themselves against organized crime, Quebeckers can be proud to rely on the Bloc Québécois members to stand up for them and ensure that information concerning their private lives will never be used for any other purpose or made public.

We have seen it happen. Earlier, I heard a Liberal member who was a minister in the Liberal government say that the Liberals have always been staunch defenders of interests and privacy. It was under their watch, though, that banks carrying out information processing through subsidiaries outside—

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer on a point of order.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague.

It seems there are not enough members in the House to proceed.

May we please have a quorum call?

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

Would the clerk please count the members present?

And the count having been taken:

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

I am pleased to inform the House that we have quorum.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel may continue.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from Hull—Aylmer wanted to ensure that I had a good audience for my speech. Then again, perhaps he asked for a quorum call because I was talking about the Liberal Party, which claimed to be the great defender of citizens' interests because of its fight to protect personal information even though it failed at the task when it was in power.

Under that party's mandate, more personal information than ever ended up in foreign hands, largely because Canadian banks were allowed to do business with affiliates in the United States. Laws protecting personal information are not the same in the United States as they are in Canada.

Honest citizens were sometimes harassed by foreign parties trying to sell them all kinds of products, especially banking services. Canadian banks allowed their American affiliates to make personal information available. This all happened on the Liberals' watch. I hope that the member for Hull—Aylmer wanted more people to hear my speech. I hope it was not because of the part where I said how poorly the Liberal government performed when it was in power.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 in order to protect personal information and privacy. Quebeckers and Canadians can count on members of the Bloc Québécois to defend and protect their interests in committee by having the Privacy Commissioner and the Access to Information Commissioner appear before the committee to explain what is good about the bill and what should be added in order to protect personal information. It is all very well to take action against money laundering, terrorist activities and organized crime, but we must also protect honest citizens who could end up under investigation for nothing.

I will provide some background, since Bill C-25 did not come out of nowhere. Despite the Conservative government's good faith, it did not invent the wheel. One thing is for certain, the Conservatives did not invent Kyoto. Everyone agrees on that.

Bill C-25 is a successor to Bill C-22, which was introduced by the Liberal government and broadened the coverage of the act. Bill C-25 amends Bill C-22. In other words, Bill C-22 made it mandatory for federally regulated financial institutions, currency exchange businesses, casinos and other intermediaries to report suspicious financial transactions. Suspicious financial transactions are cash deposits exceeding $7,500.

The former government's Bill C-22 applied to financial institutions, currency exchange businesses, casinos and other financial intermediaries. The Conservative government is broadening this coverage and therefore increasing the responsibility of all agencies which, in addition to dealing in securities, also deal in other financial instruments, and of all persons and entities engaged in the business of remitting funds or transmitting funds by any means or through any person, entity or electronic funds transfer network, or of issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller’s cheques or other similar negotiable instruments.

We can offer our congratulations to the Conservative government for having extended monitoring activities to include not only banks and institutions that transfer money regularly, but also to other entities that are often not openly included. This applies to electronic funds transfers and businesses that sell or purchase money orders, travellers' cheques and other negotiable items. Thus, monitoring activities have been extended. We do not want these organizations used for money laundering. I think we can support this.

It also extends to government departments and agents that sell precious metals under regulation. Members of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that there is some degree of illegal trade in diamonds and gold, among others, which are not necessarily liquid assets, but are precious metals that can be used as currency in money laundering.

I believe that the Conservative government listened closely and covered these potential complaints from various stakeholders.

Previously, all the entities targeted by the legislation had to contact the centre, under section 83(1) of the Criminal Code, which sets out the obligation to inform the RCMP or CSIS of any property that belongs to a terrorist group. The new bill adds section 8 of the United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations. Those entities must therefore contact the RCMP and CSIS.

The new bill prohibits all entities from opening an account for an individual if that person's identity cannot be established. Not only is there no obligation, entities are in fact prohibited from opening a bank account. The bank must then contact the RCMP or CSIS directly to launch an investigation.

Furthermore, the bill states that prior to doing business with a politically exposed foreign person—a judge, head of state, minister or other individual who has held a specific office—the institution must obtain the approval of senior management before entering into any transaction with the individual.

Thus, one cannot do business with exposed persons from another country or who would be likely to carry out types of transfers or financing for terrorist activities. They are required to obtain specific authorizations from senior management of banks.

In addition, if a Canadian organization does business with a foreign bank, it is required to take measures to ensure that the foreign bank is not a shell bank, to obtain senior management approval, and to set out in writing all transactions.

In short, there is an obligation not only to know with whom one is doing business but also to scrutinize the banks with which one is doing business. Consequently, when a client wants to conduct transactions with foreign financial institutions, the bank is obliged to verify the credentials and to ensure that the sales, transactions or other operations are not fictitious. Its responsibility has been increased.

In the case of electronic funds transfers, the bank or other business must include the name, address, and the client's account number or other reference number, whether sending or receiving such transfers.

Electronic funds transfers are very popular now. The old bill was implemented in 2001 by the former government, which, once again, did not do its job. The new bill has been introduced for a reason. The Liberal government did nothing for five years. It did not manage to bring a bill into being. Obviously, things have changed since then, and significant numbers of financial transactions take place through electronic funds transfers. That is why the government introduced this new bill, which covers electronic funds transfers.

This new bill follows the United States' lead by requiring entities to establish a program to evaluate their ability to detect transactions that involve laundering the proceeds of crime and financing terrorist activities.

That is what the Bloc Québécois has trouble accepting. If we want to do what the Americans do, we should not only do what they do right, but avoid doing what they do wrong. That is why the Bloc Québécois is being so careful. This is about the ability to detect transactions that involve laundering the proceeds of crime. It would be nice to have that ability and to intervene, but we have to make sure we protect personal information.

Obviously, we will not be investigating. As we saw with the Maher Arar affair, we have to be careful with our investigations. Even with bank investigations, we have to be sure we have a situation that requires it. We cannot investigate just for the fun of it. We would risk arresting honest citizens who might find themselves under the microscope because we want to be just like the Americans, who figure that while they are at it, they might as well investigate a whole bunch of people. We must also avoid American-style mistakes, like casting too wide a net. They often proceed on the basis of race, religion, gender and so on. We are better off using a case-by-case approach and having really good reasons for investigating. Otherwise it is too easy to make mistakes.

The members of the Bloc Québécois will continue to defend the interests of Quebeckers and ensure that the Canadian government does not make the same mistakes as the American government. Any investigations with respect to detection must be justified, not conducted without good reason. Any evaluation of certain bank transactions cannot be done carelessly, because this could lead to honest citizens being investigated without cause.

Furthermore, we must ensure that no information on citizens who should not even have been investigated is shared with the United States, or any other country. In short, we must ensure that the Canadian government does not make the same mistakes as the Americans. Once again, only the Bloc Québécois can guarantee this to Quebeckers.

Bill C-25 subjects Canadian banks' foreign subsidiaries to the same rules as the Canadian banks themselves. It was high time, because the Liberals made the mistake of allowing our Canadian banks with foreign subsidiaries to share information, even though foreign laws often do not have the same respect for privacy. This is true of American laws.

To that end, Revenue Canada agents will now have the authority to give the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre any information they receive from another agent, under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act. The aim of this new authority is to better fight against the financing of terrorist groups through charitable organizations and through businesses that perform electronic funds transfers. Once again, I would like to point out that the registration of charities must be carefully monitored, although charities are normally made up of honest citizens.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will fight tooth and nail for privacy and personal information protection. One may be open to the idea of all categories of organizations being monitored for money laundering, but efforts have to be made to ensure that charities, which bring together law-abiding citizens, not be subject, as they are in the United States, to a systematic analysis of their data bases or have their members subjected to money laundering analyses.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25, as long as honest citizens, honest Quebeckers are free from undue monitoring by government organizations eager to copy the Americans, who seem to think that, while they are at it, they might as well monitor or investigate just about everyone. We do not want that. That is not consistent with the philosophy of life and values that the citizens of Quebec have chosen for themselves. We want the privacy and personal information of honest citizens to be protected. Once again, they can count on the Bloc Québécois.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel very much for his speech. He touched upon the issue of offshore subsidiaries. I would like to know whether he sees a link between money laundering and certain tax havens.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the objectives of this bill is precisely to prevent Canadian banks from moving into tax havens and dishonest Quebec or Canadian citizens from conducting transactions and thus engaging in money laundering. I think there is a great willingness to act.

Of course, this is a little complex. We know that the bank network is more complex. Some of our banks feel that they are too small and would really like to merge in order to conquer the world. Often, this is in the interest of shareholders who receive their dividends every three months. However, it must not be against the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians.

I thank my colleague for his question, which is totally justified. He knows that the Bloc Québécois will be able to protect Quebeckers' interests with this type of bill.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:40 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I believe I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

You are under questions and comments. You have the floor to ask a question.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:40 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague made an important speech. I would like him to talk more about tax havens. Indeed, this bill deals with the issue of illegal activities, but there is something else to consider in general terms. Are his colleagues talking, in some committees, about places where there is tax avoidance?

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActGovernment Orders

October 20th, 2006 / 12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is talking about tax avoidance. When we address money laundering we are also addressing tax avoidance.

I agree with her, this bill is not going to resolve the problem of tax avoidance. Every committee in charge of reviewing products from the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Finance must make an additional united effort to fight tax avoidance, which causes money losses.

We often wonder why the Conservative government decided to cut programs for the least fortunate and for women, and any program that can help those in need. The government probably felt it needed the money. Maybe it could have kept the programs, and really gone after those who practice tax avoidance and cut the tax credits for its friends the oil companies. This would have been a nice way to show its human and humanitarian side, but instead the government showed its stern side to the least fortunate in society.

The Conservative government cut SCPI programs, programs to fight poverty, programs to help women and support programs for minority communities that want to challenge their government. The government is often in opposition with francophone minorities in Canada.

The government could have helped the least fortunate in society by cutting tax credits or addressing tax avoidance, instead of cutting programs.