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.
8:05 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, C
Do you know if all criminal investigations were completed by the time they were unfrozen?
8:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I'm not aware of any criminal investigations. That's not information I have received at finance.
8:05 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, C
So for about a week and a half this large amount of money in 180, give or take, accounts was frozen. You're not sure if any criminal investigations were conducted, and none of the accounts continued to be frozen past that period.
Is that correct?
8:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That is accurate. I think there were approximately 280 accounts.
8:05 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, C
Okay. Thank you for that.
Mr. MacKillop, were any of the—I will call them targets, only because I'm sure that's what the police would refer to them as—targets found on the list provided to FINTRAC to identify whether or not you had further information that could be provided to the banks or financial institutions?
8:05 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
No. In fact, we cannot go back to financial institutions and provide them information on specific target information.
8:05 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, C
I'm sorry, Mr. MacKillop. I understand you couldn't go to those banks, but did any law enforcement agencies go to FINTRAC and ask FINTRAC to provide information that they could then provide to financial institutions?
8:05 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
No, Mr. Chair.
If law enforcement and RCMP were to come to us, it would be in the context of their own investigations if there were investigations ongoing. It would only be for money laundering or terrorist financing, which means that we could not just give them information so they could go to the bank. That would be outside our mandate.
I believe there were media articles in Ottawa saying that there were ongoing investigations, and if those ongoing investigations had a money-laundering component, then I'm sure the RCMP or Ottawa Police or any other police force would come to FINTRAC to seek our financial intelligence at that point, but I don't know about specific ongoing investigations.
8:05 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, C
So you're saying that has not occurred. They have not come back and asked you for information specific to any of the entities.
8:05 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Are you referring to any of the individuals, sir?
8:05 p.m.
Deputy Director, Intelligence, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Some of them would have come back with voluntary information records whereby they would be seeking information or intelligence from FINTRAC on individuals they were investigating. The reasons for the investigation might vary, but there would have to be at least the suspicion that anything I disclosed would be relevant to a money-laundering investigation.
Again, I do not know of the 280 or the list that was given to any of the banks, so that link is not necessarily there.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm just looking at the clock. We're roughly averaging about 40 minutes per round, at five minutes. That takes us to nine o'clock for the final round. That means that some members will not have an opportunity to ask a question. I have no difficulty dropping it to a four-minute round per individual. That should enable everyone to be asked a question.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
8:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
8:15 p.m.
The Chair
Mr. Brock, could you repeat it?
May 3rd, 2022 / 8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I'm just trying to ensure fairness for the final round. The final round would start at nine o'clock. If we went for five minutes, some committee members would not be afforded an opportunity to ask a final question. My proposal is to drop the final round to four minutes per person.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
We have until 9:30. I would also note that the time allocations originally were by parties and Senate. We always have the opportunity to split time.
I think we're going to end up being okay. We've had some of the members concede some of their final seconds.
If we get to what I will call the 410 fire round of one-minute questions or two-minute questions, then we can do that at the end. Does that make sense?
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, to Mr. Brock's point, I would like an opportunity to ask a final question, so would there be two rounds left from now until 9:30?
8:15 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Well, the more we talk about it, the less likelihood there will be. We're going to push for it, and if there's some will at the end to have some leeway to ask some final questions in a round, then we're certainly open to that.
Does that make sense? I'm at your discretion.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I think we go back to the original time allocation at this point, which was slightly different.