Evidence of meeting #6 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Ms. Jacques, who monitored the financial institutions to determine whether the seizures were warranted?
7:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
No verification was done. The financial institutions obviously acted in good faith.
7:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
What I mean is that we didn't follow up to ensure that…
7:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
No. I didn't say it wasn't important.
7:40 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
I would now pass the chair on to Senator Boniface for my five-minute round.
7:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, through you back to Mr. MacKillop, I think all witnesses, in fact everybody tuning in tonight, can see where there's some confusion around the roles of the various actors within the invocation of this act.
We heard about “designated persons”, and we're trying to figure out who is responsible ultimately for designating these people. We're talking about the compilation of lists.
This is a very serious committee.
Through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. MacKillop, would you have been briefed on the charter breach analysis and the seriousness of the Emergencies Act under section 4 in the orders that were granted through that act onto FINTRAC?
7:40 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
No, Madam Chair, we were not involved in any of those discussions.
7:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. MacKillop, is it your testimony here tonight that for the first time in the country's history the government enacts the Emergencies Act, FINTRAC is named in it under section 4, and you had no legal parameters or briefings from the government as to the seriousness of this act, and to what the roles would be as outlined in section 4? Is that your testimony here tonight?
7:45 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
That is correct, Madam Chair. I was made aware of it perhaps a day before it went public. We were briefed on this, but not in the development of this.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sure.
Madam Chair, I will state for the purpose of this committee that it has been my opinion and observation through the testimony of the witness that he has equated this to much of the regular transactions that go through FINTRAC.
I started to talk with specificity around section 4 of the order, which implements a reporting obligation for those entities with suspicious financial transactions. The order states that:
Those entities must also report to the Centre every financial transaction that occurs or that is attempted in the course of their activities in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to suspect that (a) the transaction is related to the commission or the attempted commission of a money laundering offence by a designated person; or (b) the transaction is related to the commission or the attempted commission of a terrorist activity financing offence by a designated person.
For clarity, under section 4, Mr. MacKillop, the “Centre” refers to FINTRAC. Is that correct?
7:45 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
That is correct, Madam Chair. The reporting is with respect to money laundering and/or terrorist financing suspicions. That is the same level of suspicion on which reporting currently happens, and has happened historically. What it did was indicate that there are individuals at the RCMP...could have identified as “designated” with respect to this, in which case—
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Madam Chair, thank you. I'm going to reclaim my time.
Just for clarity, this is section 4 of the Emergency Economic Measures Order. This is not just pertaining to your mandate, which also talks about “to facilitate the detection, prevention and deterrence of money laundering”. This is the Emergency Economic Measures Order...which reporting would have had every transaction.
Where I'm stuck is in some of the contradictory testimony that we've heard today, and in previous testimony from the RCMP around who is reporting to whom. As I read this piece of legislation, Madam Chair, through you to the witness, I'm to understand that all the entities that have registered with FINTRAC would have reporting mechanisms on every financial transaction.
I have to state how unsettled I am, given the nature of this—because I believe there was a threat—that there doesn't appear to be any action taken by either departments on briefings or debriefings or reflections on the seriousness of these orders. There doesn't appear to be any testimony here tonight that FINTRAC actually knew, or was a part of, or understands that the reporting that came back to them for every financial transaction would have occurred there.
Mr. MacKillop, I'll give you the opportunity this last time. Did your centre provide any heightened level of care and consideration for the powers granted to you under the Emergencies Act order of this country respecting the transactions that were reported to you?
7:45 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Madam Chair, to be clear, our mandate with respect to the reporting—it's not every transaction that gets reported to FINTRAC. FINTRAC does not monitor every transaction in Canada. We don't monitor transactions.... Regardless, under the emergency measures, it did not increase our mandate. It increased people who would report to us, or entities such as crowdfunding platforms who could now report to us. They could still only report to us under—
7:45 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Mr. MacKillop, I'm going to have cut you off there. I've been generous with the time for Mr. Green.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mathew Green) NDP Matthew Green
Senator Boniface, I appreciate your generosity.
We will now move on.
We're going to repeat the first round, so Senator Boniface, the floor is yours for five minutes.
7:45 p.m.
Gwen Boniface
Thank you very much, Chair.
Mr. MacKillop, this may give you an opportunity to expand on what you were going to say. In response to Mr. Brock's final question, and I want to make sure I got the response correct, you indicated that the convoy wasn't used for money-laundering purposes, but you didn't mention the terrorism financing side of the equation.
Based on what you're able to tell the committee, and I understand that there are limitations, was there any indication of terrorism financing noticed in the roughly 9,000 reports sent to you from financial institutions during the invocation of the order?
7:45 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Out of the 9,000 STRs that we get in a week, there are often and always reports that would lead to suspicions of IMVE. However, I think there's a distinction between somebody who may be supportive of ideologically motivated violent extremism and the event itself. It wasn't that the event was funded in view of supporting IMVE activities. There may have been individuals who may have been involved who have those types of leanings and we would have received STRs on them regardless of whether or not the emergency measure orders were in place.
We don't, as I mentioned earlier, see all transactions. The reporting that we receive in STRs are reports that the institutions suspect would be relevant to money-laundering or terrorist-financing investigation. Once we get those reports, we do not simply disclose all of those STRs. We have to still meet our own threshold, which is different, because we have a different threshold as professional intelligence analysts. Once we meet our threshold to suspect that it would be relevant to a money-laundering or terrorist-financing investigation, that is when we would put together the financial intelligence to disclose it.
We do not see all individual transactions.
7:50 p.m.
Gwen Boniface
For the purpose of the record, could you give me the term STR in its full form?
7:50 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
I'm very sorry. It's a suspicious transaction report.
7:50 p.m.
Gwen Boniface
Thank you. It's important for the record.
Could you take a moment to explain your threshold from an intelligence perspective, because it's different from an investigative threshold.
7:50 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Mr. Chair, our threshold is a level of suspicion, so it's reasonable grounds to suspect. It is much lower than investigation, much lower than court. What we provide to law enforcement or national security or CBSA or internationally is intelligence only; it is not evidence. It is intelligence, and it's based on our reasonable grounds to suspect that it would be relevant to a money-laundering or terrorist-financing investigation or threats to the security of Canada.