Finance Committee on March 29th, 2007

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

It's just to go over what I'm asking for in the main estimates. That book is fine. Our job is to study just one or two aspects. In this case, we're studying the estimates that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and FINTRAC are requesting. That's fine, but they have to come before us and give us the details that they gave Treasury Board.

It's not up to Treasury Board to reprint them. They have to provide us with that. I know FINTRAC provides us with a detailed analysis in their annual report. The Canadian tribunal is not as detailed, if I'm not mistaken.

The other thing, too, is that there's a weakness on our part, because we haven't seen your annual report. But we saw FINTRAC's, because when we were studying Bill C-25, we went over the whole system. That's why I didn't pick on you guys, but the next time around, if we haven't seen you in a year, I'm going to.

So that's part of the weakness, but the idea is that when you come before these committees, you should be prepared. At least with FINTRAC we got speaking notes. With the Canadian tribunal, we didn't get any speaking notes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I will respond, though, Mr. Pacetti, that we did review the FINTRAC annual report last year, so we certainly did have the opportunity to review that information.

Mr. Gosselin, I'll invite you to respond.

[Pierre Gosselin]

Well, a little bit like Mr. Potter, we have prepared the plans and priorities. It's not yet published. It will be published in the next few weeks, but it's a timing issue, and then you would have had all the information that we could make available.

Also, we do provide copies of our annual report to the House and to all members, so that is also available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

That's correct. I think this process more closely follows your Treasury Board process. Essentially, this is duplicating the Treasury Board process for final affirmation. So what these two committee members are asking for is somewhat more detail than is contained in your submissions today.

You provide that detail in your Treasury Board submissions, of course, and so these questions or these lines of inquiry are what you're prepared to deal with when you come to the finance committee.

What you've already agreed to do is provide us with somewhat more detail, a little more illustrative of your request, and I think that addresses the concerns that have been raised by both members.

I'll go to Madam Wasylycia-Leis now.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Following up this line of discussion, I'd like to get a little more information from FINTRAC around the cost-benefit analysis of different aspects of your organization.

You didn't really give much detail to Madam Ablonczy's question about the Egmont centre, $5 million over five years, $1 million a year. Can you give us some specific examples of where the benefits are for this country to have this here?

[Mark Potter]

I'll answer your question—briefly generally, first. We were subject to reviews by the Auditor General a couple of years ago, as well as by the Treasury Board, with respect to value for money.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I just want to hear some specific benefits for Canada to have this secretariat here. Could you name a few?

[Mark Potter]

Exactly. I'll do that.

The Egmont Group itself contributes through its facilitating operational cooperation to greater information sharing. So that's a benefit in everyone's global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I was asking, what was the benefit to Canada? Wherever it is that it's going to do that, what's the benefit for Canada to have spent $5 million so that the secretariat is located here?

[Mark Potter]

The benefit to Canada is that we are playing a leading role in making this organization more effective and more sustainable, by helping it establish itself with a more robust secretariat in Canada.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

So we're able to do in Canada what other countries couldn't do; we have better expertise; we're more equipped to provide leadership in this area. Is that what you're saying?

[Mark Potter]

I think we do have those things, but I wouldn't directly link them to the Egmont Group secretariat. The Egmont Group secretariat will be supporting the entire international organization.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm still not quite sure why. I guess it's nice for prestige, but I'm not sure what the benefits really are for Canada. I'd like to see that a bit more.

But let me go on to two more questions. One is cost-benefit generally. I don't know if you've given us very much to show what we're getting for all the money that's going in.

Back in 2004, of course, the Auditor General commented on the fact that there have been 10 million transaction reports, 197 disclosures and no prosecutions. What's the latest? The Auditor General is going in, in 2007, is it? What's the latest in terms of your data on benefits of all this expenditure?

[Mark Potter]

I think, as you note, we have been subject to review by the Auditor General in terms of value for money.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Do you have any reports in terms of prosecutions?

[Mark Potter]

As an agency, we don't collect that information, because that's not our role. We provide intelligence at the front end.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Are there any prosecutions as a result of the work you have done?

[Mark Potter]

You'd be best posing that question to law enforcement agencies or to the Department of Justice.

We understand from things we see in the media, for example, that certainly some of our cases have led to prosecutions and convictions, but we don't comment on specific cases, and that question is really best directed further downstream in the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

We'll have Mr. McKay now for a brief question.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'll just follow up on the question on paralegals.

Recently the Law Society of Upper Canada brought paralegals under their own jurisdiction through legislation, so I would encourage you to follow up with that to see whether paralegals are in fact covered. Particularly in my community, which is an immigrant community, there are enormous numbers of people holding themselves out as paralegals who know little or nothing about the law; and particularly among immigrant communities, there is the exchange of enormous amounts of cash. I think that's an area to pursue.

I have a quick question for Mr. Gosselin. I notice that you have some jurisdiction with respect to federal government procurement practices. It strikes me as passingly curious that a federal tribunal has jurisdiction over the federal government's procurement practices. Can you tell me how that works?

[Pierre Gosselin]

Yes. Under a number of trade agreements that Canada entered into, we allowed other countries to bid for federal government contracts, for instance, and under NAFTA and under the internal trade agreement, we established a regime to make sure that companies in one province would not be disadvantaged in bidding for federal government contracts. It's under those auspices that we adjudicate whether or not there has been a problem in the process for deciding on contracts.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

On the face of it, isn't that a conflict of interest? On the one hand you have the federal government, and on the other hand you have a federal government agency adjudicating whether this particular transaction offends competition.

[Pierre Gosselin]

The tribunal is an independent quasi-judicial body. It reports to the House through the Minister of Finance. There's an adversarial process. On one side you'll have Public Works or some other department, and on the other hand you'll have the agency or the company that's complaining about the process.

I've not heard any complaints about our impartiality. Indeed, most of the time the complaint comes the other way, that we're too hard on Public Works or individual departments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Thank you to our guests. We appreciate your being here. We look forward to the additional information that committee members have requested.

To my committee, I wish you a happy Easter and a restful time away from Parliament.

Also, I just want to review very quickly that in the week of the 17th, the main estimates and also ATM and electronic banking will be on the agenda. On the 19th, it will be ATM and electronic banking. On the 24th, it will very likely be budget implementation or Bill C-33; it remains to be seen.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You answered one of my questions. The other thing I wanted to point out is that I wasn't just specifically talking about the estimates that we see. I'd like to see it throughout the whole book, on every department.