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 was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in October 2007.


Jim Flaherty  Conservative


This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.


This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.


All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

November 2nd, 2006 / 12:10 p.m.
See context


Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Do you think it's an appropriate title, Mr. Law? Do you think Bill C-25 is addressing what may potentially be a big problem in Canada?

November 2nd, 2006 / 12:10 p.m.
See context


Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Thank you.

Mr. Timmins, in 2004 the Auditor General tabled a report called “Implementation of the National Initiative to Combat Money Laundering”. You've indicated that, superficially at least, it seems that Bill C-25 is taking steps toward what the report was recommending. This wouldn't be before Parliament if we didn't think there was a problem, that there weren't potential loopholes that could be exploited. Is that correct?

November 2nd, 2006 / noon
See context

Senior Vice-President, Corporate Operations, and General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association

Warren Law

That's an issue of how we define correspondent banking versus how other countries define it. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there's one area in particular where I think we may be too broad in our definition, and that's with respect to this issue of foreign exchange transactions. As I understand it, under Bill C-25, if a person goes into a bank branch here in Canada and wants to transfer money to a location outside the country, and does not have an account with the bank, you have to have a correspondent banking relationship under Bill C-25. That means that you have to have a formal relationship between the two banks, etc. We think this is going a bit too far. We think that when you look at what other countries have done, this is going too far. We think that as a result, some consideration should be given to amending this legislation to narrow it a little bit, to deleting from the definition the reference to foreign exchange transactions.

Do you have anything to add?

November 2nd, 2006 / 11:45 a.m.
See context

Senior Vice-President, Corporate Operations, and General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association

Warren Law

I'm going to turn this over to Mr. King for a moment, but I think a very beneficial step has been taken in Bill C-25 in the sense that it's been extended to attempted suspicious transactions. We would certainly support that.

In terms of what is meant by a “suspicious transaction”, do you want to give some examples?

November 2nd, 2006 / 11:45 a.m.
See context


Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Thank you.

If I still have a bit of time, I would like to ask Mr. Law a more general question. Under Bill C-25, individuals, entities are also required to report suspicious attempted transactions.

What constitutes a suspicious attempted transaction? Do you already have guidelines for determining what constitutes a suspicious attempted transaction, or would this have to be specified?

November 2nd, 2006 / 11:40 a.m.
See context

Senior Vice-President, Corporate Operations, and General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association

Warren Law

Generally speaking, we're quite happy with Bill C-25.

With respect to this issue, which I raised in my opening remarks and which Mr. Bernier mentioned in his opening remarks, it's a question of competitiveness, for one thing. If you look at Bill C-25, in the case of banks in particular, there's a distinction that's made in the legislation between foreign subsidiaries of Canadian banks and foreign branches of Canadian banks. They're treated differently under the legislation with respect to extending client identification requirements to these entities. We have a problem with this, given the fact that it seems to be a bit of an artificial distinction to say that different requirements should apply to branches and different requirements should apply to subsidiaries.

There's also the issue—and I think this is also something Mr. Bernier touched upon—of the fact that in Bill C-25 the requirement is made that the client identification requirements apply to foreign subsidiaries in non-FATF countries—and that's the Financial Action Task Force. We think this is a bit too narrow. Given the fact there are other FATF-affiliated organizations that cover a wide range of countries in the Caribbean, in Africa, in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia—

November 2nd, 2006 / 11:30 a.m.
See context

Jean-Pierre Bernier General Counsel, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to participate in this study of Bill C-25.

In the interest of time, I will jump to the bottom of page 3 of my written remarks.

The industry welcomes the committee's initiative to review the proposed amendments to Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist-financing legislation to ensure that its provisions are consistent with the goals publicly stated by the Minister of Finance in the key recommendations of the Senate banking committee report.

The Senate banking committee, in its October 2006 report, recommended, under the heading "Life Insurance Companies", that the federal government, in considering amendments to the act, employ the risk-based approach in determining the level of client identification, record keeping, and reporting requirements for all reporting entities.

The risk-based approach is reflected in clause 8 of the bill, and in our view these provisions are drafted in an appropriate manner. We are encouraged by the fact that the Minister of Finance has stated twice in his backgrounder on Bill C-25 that the legislative amendments are designed for, and I quote, "minimizing the compliance burden".

This well-stated objective is of paramount importance to all reporting entities under the act, including life insurers and life insurance agents and brokers. A risk-based approach is the appropriate way to achieve the goal of minimizing the compliance burden while also achieving the goal of detecting and preventing money laundering and terrorist financing activities.

In essence, a risk-based approach takes into account the risk profile of the regulated entity's products and transactions and ensures that resources are focused efficiently and effectively. While the life and health insurance industry feels that the risk-based approach is appropriately reflected in Bill C-25, it is noteworthy that the word "prescribed", to mean prescribed by regulation yet to come, appears 54 times in the bill. This is a strong indication that a significant number of provisions will be subject to prescriptive rules, to be set in regulation. The use of the risk-based approach in drafting the regulations pursuant to Bill C-25 is crucial. Only a genuine risk-based approach would enable insurers to concentrate on managing the real money laundering risk they face rather than on simply trying to manage regulatory or compliance risk and worrying, as a result, about the details of the regulator's rules.

To make any compliance program effective and efficient, whether it is mandated by law or otherwise, people must think risk, not box-ticking. Overly detailed regulations must be avoided in order to deliver the three key elements of the risk-based approach: proportionality, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness.

With respect to corporate governance, the existing supervisory framework applicable to life insurance companies in Canada does recognize that institutions will adopt individual approaches to the management of reputation risk. Overly detailed regulations will not only be costly to implement but would provide very little flexibility, if any, to accommodate individual company circumstances.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest, on behalf of the industry, two minor changes of a technical nature to minimize the compliance burden and to provide a global perspective.

First, foreign subsidiaries of Canadian financial institutions should not be obliged to comply with the specific Canadian compliance requirements in a country that has adopted the standards of the Financial Action Task Force.

Second, similarly, authorized foreign insurance companies should be exempted from the extraterritorial effect of Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing legislation. As is the case for the authorized foreign banks doing business here, I am referring specifically to the new proposed sections 9.7 and 9.8 of the act contained in clause 8 of the bill. I am providing to the committee possible wording for amendments to these two areas.

The industry stands ready to provide any further input that the committee would find useful in the context of this review. Thank you.

November 2nd, 2006 / 11:25 a.m.
See context

Brian Fox Regional Vice-President Canada, Western Union

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear at this committee.

Before I discuss our position on this important legislation, I would like to give you a brief overview of our business, our clients, and the typical way in which Canadians use Western Union's services. Western Union is a global leader in the money transfer business. We operate a network of over 270,000 agent locations in more than 200 countries and territories. We have been operating in Canada for more than 15 years and today have approximately 3,500 agent locations across the country.

We operate a high-volume business with typically very low sums of money. In fact, the average transaction from one person to another in Canada is approximately $320 Canadian. As you might expect, this is not the first time that Western Union has been a partner with government to ensure safeguards for consumers and the financial system as a whole.

Our industry is not familiar to many Canadians, but we do important work by serving as an indispensable lifeline for the financial viability of tens of millions of people and dozens of developing economies worldwide. We have worked with countries and territories all over the globe to educate and guide the efforts of anti-money-laundering regulators and policy-makers worldwide. We take our role and our responsibilities to this end very seriously.

While our average transaction is only $320, there are people who need to transfer larger sums. We require government-issued photo identification for any sum over $1,000. We further require personal interviews with anyone wishing to transfer sums over $7,500. We also have a strong monitoring system that identifies, analyzes, and reports attempts to split large sums of money into smaller amounts to avoid detection.

I want committee members to know that Western Union supports regulations and efforts to prevent abuse of the global financial system. Much of this bill will succeed in that objective. However, there are a couple of elements of the bill, depending on the outcome of the future regulations, that may impede the well-meaning and normal day-to-day money transfers that take place in Canada. In several key areas, this bill may be unworkable, depending upon the future regulations.

As a responsible company with a history of leadership in this area, we currently have tiers of transfers that require more identification and advanced due diligence based on additional potential risks. Clearly, though, more due diligence will increase cost and may ultimately make it difficult for average Canadians to afford the use of this service.

While we agree that thresholds and compliance measures must be in place, we need to balance those requirements with the reality of the potential risks to Canada's financial system. Let's look closely and realistically at the required thresholds. Let's look at the systems in place to avoid splitting larger transfers into smaller ones. But let's not overburden the large number of Canadians, many of whom are new Canadians, who use these services to transfer small sums of money home to family and friends.

We absolutely support the need to track and report transactions between known public and political figures when it involves significant sums of money. But a requirement to do this for each and every transaction would put an unnecessary financial burden on all players, who would have to track small-sum transactions, which are not the ones we should be concerned about.

Western Union recognizes the value of Bill C-25, but urges the committee to recognize the clear difference between the transmission of small sums and the larger sums typically sent through the banking systems, which require greater scrutiny. We completely support the provisions of the bill aimed at creating a registration regime for money transmitters and foreign exchange dealers. Other provisions of the bill, as well as the pending regulations, must reflect the realities of our industry.

l welcome questions from the committee and the opportunity to work with the government to find the right balance and ensure that money sent home to support families abroad will not be unnecessarily burdened. We will be providing the committee members a more detailed submission regarding our concerns, the bill, and the pending regulations.

We would recommend that this committee review the regulations, given that so much of the bill is dependent on them. We welcome the opportunity to work with the committee on making the regulations in such a way as to balance the importance of a strong anti-money-laundering regime with the need for a safe, reliable vehicle for new Canadians to support their families back home.

Thank you.

November 2nd, 2006 / 11:20 a.m.
See context

Douglas Timmins Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to be here today to discuss our audit of Canada's regime to combat money laundering and terrorist financing and how it relates to Bill C-25. We completed that audit two years ago.

During our audit we concluded that Canada's anti-money-laundering regime is comprehensive and generally consistent with international standards; however, we also identified a number of factors that impeded the regime's performance. Some factors could be addressed with the existing legal framework; for example, better coordination among the federal agencies responsible for implementing Canada's anti-money-laundering and terrorist policy, and better feedback to reporting agencies on the use of information they supply to FINTRAC.

Other factors involve issues that will likely require changes to legislation.

Foremost among these are restrictions on information sharing. To safeguard privacy rights, the existing legislation limits the information that FINTRAC may disclose to so-called “tombstone” data: when and where the transactions took place, the value of the transactions, the account numbers, and the names of the parties involved.

We found that these restrictions limit the value of FINTRAC disclosures to law enforcement and security agencies.

Law enforcement agencies told us that the “tombstone” information they receive is too limited to justify launching investigations. The exception is when a disclosure is related to an on-going investigation in those cases, the information disclosed can help corroborate findings or provide new leads.

An additional limitation on the effectiveness of the National Initiative is the exemption from reporting requirements that lawyers obtained as a result of successful legal challenges to the legislation.

Finally, we found that unregulated reporting entities, including money service businesses and foreign exchange dealers that are not licensed and do not have a formal body overseeing their activities, posed a significant compliance challenge. Indeed, there are no reliable figures on how many such firms are out there, so ensuring compliance with reporting requirements is obviously a difficult task.

Bill C-25 affirms the lawyer's exemption from reporting requirements. Our understanding is that the government is currently discussing with law societies compliance requirements by lawyers. The bill provides for information sharing and enforcing compliance by unregulated reporting entities. It will increase the type of information that FINTRAC can disclose to law enforcement if it suspects money laundering or terrorist financing.

Specifically, the legislation will now allow FINTRAC to disclose the grounds that led it to suspect money laundering or terrorist financing. The bill will also require registration for money service businesses, a recommendation of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, which is the international standard-setting body for efforts against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, already require these businesses to register.

In short, while we have not studied Bill C-25 in detail, it appears to deal with the key findings reported in our audit of November 2004. We cannot say whether the proposed changes will be sufficient or whether they will effectively resolve all issues.

Further, it is not our role to comment on policy decisions contained in this bill.

This, Mr. Chairman, completes my opening statement. I'd be pleased to answer questions when the time comes.

November 2nd, 2006 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

Warren Law Senior Vice-President, Corporate Operations, and General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members of the committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear today to provide the views of the banking industry on Bill C-25. My name is Warren Law. I am the senior vice-president and general counsel of the Canadian Bankers Association. With me today is Ron King, who is the chief anti-money-laundering officer at the Bank of Nova Scotia.

I would like to make some introductory comments, and then of course we'd be pleased to answer your questions.

The Canadian banking industry recognizes its key role in combating money laundering and terrorist financing. It has consistently supported the efforts of the Government of Canada in developing an effective regime for these purposes. Indeed, we believe that the enactment of the proposed Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act provides a solid platform for constructing an effective AML/ATF system.

The banks have invested tens of millions of dollars in the development and implementation of automated systems to meet the regulatory standards placed upon them. The banking industry has been proactive in meeting its obligations. We will continue to take these obligations very seriously, but there is always room for improvement. We recognize that with Bill C-25, the government is planning to implement measures that will address flaws in the current system.

Clearly, one of the most fundamental and vital objectives of AML/ATF measures must be to protect the financial system from criminal activity. We believe this must be done in a balanced way. An AML/ATF regime is unique in that in order to function well, it must interact with a wide range of stakeholders, such as law enforcement agencies, government departments, and financial institutions. We feel that no useful purpose is served, and in fact the effectiveness of the regime itself is diminished, by overburdening any of these entities with too many restrictions, rules, or requirements.

We strongly believe that an AML/ATF measure should be implemented with a risk-based approach. Once amendments are enacted, reporting entities and FINTRAC should be given enough lead time to implement the necessary changes to their systems and to employee training programs. In our view, the efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing will be significantly assisted if it is easier for reporting entities to receive more feedback from FINTRAC about their reports and FINTRAC is provided with more latitude to release information. We therefore welcome the enhanced disclosure provisions in Bill C-25.

For several of the measures set out in Bill C-25, we will need to consider the related regulations before we can make a comprehensive response. I would like to make some initial observations about a couple of provisions in the bill. In a short letter to the committee, which we believe has been provided to you, we provide more details about our views on these matters.

We have made recommendations for changes to the bill that will address those matters. For example, there is the issue of the impact on foreign subsidiaries and foreign branches of Canadian banks. Bill C-25 will add a number of new measures to the act, including new requirements on the foreign subsidiaries and foreign branches of Canadian banks. These proposals, particularly the requirement to impose Canadian client identification requirements, could impose extraterritorial legal requirements on Canadian banks. We believe this could cause significant problems for the banking industry.

To the extent permitted by local laws, Canadian banks already apply their internal AML/ATF policies and procedures on their operations in foreign countries. However, imposing specific Canadian regulatory requirements in foreign jurisdictions has the potential to have adverse consequences on the banks. It may place the banks in a disadvantageous competitive position, from a global standpoint. Rather than imposing extraterritorial legal requirements, we believe that a more effective approach would be to make it clear that the requirement to have compliance and risk assessment programs must cover all subsidiaries and branches, regardless of location, to the extent permitted by the local jurisdiction.

We recommend that these measures be enacted.

It's important to note that we are not asking to apply a lower standard to the operations of a foreign branch or subsidiary, only to have it recognized that there are other equally effective ways of achieving what I think we all want to do, and that is to create a balanced, effective deterrence regime.

There is also the issue of correspondent banking. We understand and support the need to enhance requirements relating to the provision of services to foreign correspondent banks. Bill C-25 includes an amendment to the act that sets out a number of specific measures to be followed by Canadian banks before entering into a correspondent banking relationship.

While the banking industry in Canada has already implemented most of these requirements, we do have a concern that the proposed definition of “correspondent banking relationship” in the bill is too broad and could lead to almost all interaction between Canadian banks and a foreign bank being captured by the definition.

November 2nd, 2006 / 11:15 a.m.
See context


The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

We are in session.

Welcome, first of all, to our witnesses and committee members.

Pursuant to our order of reference of Tuesday, October 24, 2006, this is Bill C-25, 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.

Thank you for your patience in waiting for us to get here, witnesses. We have just come from another discussion that was pertinent to this topic.

We will begin with a presentation from the Canadian Bankers Association, Warren Law, senior vice-president.

Welcome, and proceed. Five minutes to you.

November 2nd, 2006 / 10:20 a.m.
See context


Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess we're popular this morning.

I'm trying to focus on the job at hand that FINTRAC has. I'm going to try to stay away from the privacy issues. I think some of my other colleagues will probably be interested in that aspect. I want to make sure that FINTRAC has the tools to do the job they need to do.

Are you happy with the amendments in this legislation, Bill C-25? Shouldn't we be looking to put in more amendments so that there's more interaction between departments?

I refer to the audit of the Auditor General, in chapter 2, where we found that the administration would “limit the value” of FINTRAC's disclosure to law enforcement and security agencies, and it goes on and on: law enforcement agents told us the tombstone data they receive is “too limited to justify launching investigations”.

I have a problem with that. I had a problem with it when FINTRAC appeared before the finance committee. I think FINTRAC should be given more ability to exchange information.

What's your feeling on that?

November 2nd, 2006 / 10 a.m.
See context

Horst Intscher Director, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Allow me to briefly introduce my colleagues: Glynnis French, Deputy Director, Strategies and Partnerships; Peter Bulatovic, Assistant Director, Tactical Financial Intelligence; and Yvon Carrière, our Counsel.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to make some opening remarks about FINTRAC and what we do. I will also say a few words about why the provisions set out in Bill C-25 are important to FINTRAC and to Canada's overall anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing efforts.

Following my brief remarks, I will ask Mr. Bulatovic to speak even more briefly to an example of a sanitized FINTRAC case disclosure. I think an illustrative case is perhaps the best way of showing how our intelligence product can capture the complexity of money laundering.

FINTRAC was created by the Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering, and Terrorist Financing Act as an independent agency, and we are required to operate at arm's length from entities to which we can disclose information. I will touch upon the reasons for those arrangements a little later on.

FINTRAC is Canada's financial intelligence unit, or FIU. Our mandate is to analyze financial transaction information that a wide range of financial reporting entities are obliged to report to us. Upon analysis, and if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that information we have received would be relevant to an investigation of money laundering or terrorist financing, FINTRAC must disclose certain portions of that information to the police or to CSIS for investigation. In short, we provide financial intelligence leads to law enforcement and national security investigative agencies.

It's also worth noting what FINTRAC is not. We are not an investigative body and we do not have powers to gather evidence or lay charges. FINTRAC does not investigate or prosecute suspected offences. Instead, we are an analytical body that produces financial intelligence to be disclosed, if appropriate, to help further investigations conducted by law enforcement and security agencies.

On a day-to-day basis, FINTRAC receives reports on several kinds of financial transactions from financial reporting entities. We analyze these data in combination with information from other sources, such as law enforcement databases, commercially or publicly available databases, and sometimes, information from foreign financial intelligence units.

What we specifically look for are financial transactions or patterns that don't quite pass the sniff test and that give rise to suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing. As you can imagine, the movement of illicit funds is often a well-hidden and complex affair involving hundreds of transactions as well as dozens of individuals and companies. Using state-of-the-art technology and excellent analytical skills, our analysts piece together the information and create a comprehensive picture of money flows. We draw a map that police or CSIS can use to examine the money flows and the suspected criminal activity.

Although we are required to operate independently and at arm's length from the police and CSIS, our objective is to support and facilitate their work by providing intelligence leads to them. We are one element in a larger constellation of organizations whose collective purpose is to combat money laundering and terrorist activity financing. Other elements include police at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels; security agencies; prosecutors; and the courts.

FINTRAC is situated near the front end of the process, and the information we provide is intended to assist other agencies to achieve the broader objectives of the act.

I'm pleased to say that the regime that has been put in place here in Canada is working. It's robust and successful and is widely recognized as such internationally.

I'm also pleased that FINTRAC makes an important contribution to that success. As we indicated in our annual report tabled a month ago, in 2005-06 we produced 168 case disclosures of suspect financial activity involving more than $5 billion in transactions. In fact, since FINTRAC began its operations five years ago, we have made a total of 610 case disclosures involving transactions valued at $8.2 billion.

The scope and complexity of our disclosures have also grown dramatically over the past few years, from an average of $3 million per case in 2003-04 to $30 million per case last year, and about 10% of our cases last year each involved transactions well in excess of $50 million.

Some 32 domestic law enforcement agencies and 10 foreign counterpart organizations have received disclosures from FINTRAC. I'm gratified that more and more financial intelligence contributed by FINTRAC is being reflected in investigations, charges, and prosecutions.

I'd also like to say a few words about the protection of privacy.

Our act was carefully crafted to provide the highest possible protection for personal information, while also making it possible for some information to be disclosed to law enforcement to facilitate the detection and deterrence of serious criminal activity.

The protections begin with the very nature of the institutional arrangements that establish FINTRAC as an independent and arm's-length entity that receives and analyzes reported financial transaction information and can only pass on such information if particular tests are met.

The information we hold cannot be accessed by any other outside body, except by a court-granted production order, and the act provides for serious criminal penalties to be applied to the unauthorized disclosure of information.

Our mandate entrusts us with a considerable amount of personal information from individuals and businesses across this country. Protecting it is a responsibility we take very seriously.

Members of this committee have expressed some concerns about the potential impact of the legislative changes on upholding privacy rights. I want to assure you that I share your preoccupation with privacy protection and firmly believe that safeguarding personal information is and must be the cornerstone of any effective regime.

Canada has a strong anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime in place, and we can be very proud of it, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Methods used to launder money are constantly changing. International standards that all countries are expected to meet are also rising. Adjustments are necessary to the legislative framework to keep pace with these changes.

In this regard, I want to note that there are three key thrusts to the proposed legislative package that are of importance to FINTRAC. They are: expanding the coverage of the act to new entities and professions; strengthening the deterrence provisions of the act; and expanding the range of information that FINTRAC may disclose.

Bill C-25 will expand the coverage of Canada's anti-money-laundering/anti-terrorist-financing regime by bringing additional business sectors within the ambit of legislation and regulations; for example, dealers in precious metals and stones, and lawyers. These sectors have an identified vulnerability to money laundering, and their inclusion will strengthen Canada's efforts to combat both money laundering and terrorist activity financing.

Second, the bill will strengthen the deterrence component of the regime by creating a registry for money service businesses and establishing a system of administrative monetary penalties. These proposed measures will improve compliance with the reporting, record-keeping, and client identification provisions of the law. This will not only contribute to FINTRAC's analysis, but will greatly strengthen the general deterrence of money laundering and terrorist activity financing.

Third, Bill C-25 will make it possible to enrich the intelligence product that FINTRAC can disclose to law enforcement and national security agencies by including some additional information in our disclosures while at the same time continuing to scrupulously protect the privacy rights of Canadians. This would respond to the needs of law enforcement and make FINTRAC's core product even more useful to them.

In conclusion, FINTRAC is very supportive of the amendments proposed in Bill C-25, which will ensure Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime remains strong and effective well into the future.

Thank you. I'd now like to ask my colleague, Peter Bulatovic, to give you a very quick presentation of a sanitized case that shows the work we do, how we do it, and what the results are from it.

November 2nd, 2006 / 10 a.m.
See context


The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 24, 2006, we are here today on Bill C-25, 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.

Welcome to our witnesses this morning. We'll begin with a brief presentation.

Horst Intscher, director, is here. Welcome, sir, and over to you.

October 31st, 2006 / 10:45 a.m.
See context


Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

I believe we should have witnesses before we table any amendments to Bill C-25, and the witnesses appearing before the finance committee could be in blocks of an hour and a half. One session of three hours would probably suffice, but if you need a limit, we can limit it to 16, with eight witnesses per panel.