Finance Committee on March 19th, 2024

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Am I hearing you right? Are you suggesting that there's a constitutional objection to the idea of including activities or brands within the scope of the prohibition in the Competition Act? If so, I guess my question is, what is the basis for that constitutional objective and, secondly, let's say, point granted about the Competition Act for the sake of argument, are there other legislative vehicles or other places where such a prohibition could be put into federal legislation that would cover that expanded anti-greenwashing concept?

[Mark Schaan]

I would make two general points, Mr. Chair.

One, the capacity for us to regulate anti-competitive conduct is premised on a particular division of powers in a sense that product regulation specifically and a number of other specific regulations are often shared jurisdiction with provinces and territories. We rest within the capacity to be able to limit the significant lessening of competition and potential deception.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Can you point us to the section so that if we want to go back...?

[Mark Schaan]

I would have to get back to you on the section.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay. That would be helpful if you could.

[Mark Schaan]

Then, in terms of broader legislative efforts, I think this is where climate disclosure reporting and other aspects of regulating the information about environment claims is actually a part and parcel of the broader effort to potentially.... It's not just, you know, about a specific product saying that it's 35% more green than its competitor. It's also actually on broader claims like “We're really good for the environment” or “Our company is doing great things for the environment”. Those types of broad claims are best understood within the environmental understanding in terms of the actual technical understanding, which is not within the remit of the Competition Bureau.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay. Thank you for that conversation.

Do I have time to ask a question on something else?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Well.... Then we will have a transition, so I will take—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay.

My next question, Mr. Chair, in the next spot will be on the Canada water agency. When Mr. Ste-Marie is asking his questions very shortly, I will need those officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, officials be ready.

Now we're actually transitioning into our second round.

As we go into our second round—just for the officials—the times are a little bit different.

We're going to start with MP Chambers.

MP Chambers, you have five minutes to ask your questions.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our officials.

While Ms. Hunt is getting ready and prepared, I want to apologize on behalf of the government for delaying the budget. I know it takes a lot of time and effort to do it, and work expands to the fill the time available. An extra few weeks is very difficult, I know. I'm sorry. Hopefully, in the future, we will have fixed budget dates, and we can all know when they will be.

Ms. Hunt, thank you very much. It's nice to see you again.

Do you remember Bill C-289? It was a private member's bill that proposed to amend the Criminal Code, and it was related to money laundering.

You're nodding yes.

One of the arguments that the government used to defeat that bill was that it did not enjoy or did not recommend making changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Criminal Code outside of the five-year review of that legislation.

My first question is this: Does Bill C-59 amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act?

[Erin Hunt]

The answer to your question is that, yes, it does amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much.

Does it also amend the Criminal Code as it relates to money laundering?

[Erin Hunt]

The answer to the question is that, yes, it does.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'm just puzzled because the government said it couldn't support a private member's bill previously because it amended an act that it said we should do the five-year review on.

Have we started, to your knowledge...? Has any committee undertaken the required statutory review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act?

[Erin Hunt]

My understanding is that we have had an introductory meeting on that with this committee. We await further guidance from this committee on the parliamentary review of the act.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

However, there is no committee that has actually undertaken and passed a study to do that review. Is that correct?

We've had an introductory meeting, but currently there's no committee that's been assigned that duty. Would you say that's fair?

[Erin Hunt]

I am not a parliamentary affairs expert, to be honest with you. You probably know the answer to this question better than I do. To my knowledge, I do not believe that has been formally passed.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much.

Do you know when we were suppose to start that review?

[Erin Hunt]

The last review took place in 2018. The act proposes a review every five years.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay. That would be 2023. We're now in 2024. We've actually missed the deadline.

Is Canada not up for review under the Financial Action Task Force? Are they not coming to do a bit of a review of the country to see how we're doing on money laundering?

[Erin Hunt]

Yes. Canada will undertake its mutual evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force. It will begin in 2025.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Right, but we've missed the statutory review by which we're supposed to review. We're actually going to start that with a bit of a black mark, because we haven't kept up to the statutory requirement, is that correct?

That's one of the things that would be looked at. Is Parliament actually fulfilling its obligations under the current money laundering regime?

[Erin Hunt]

The review looks at how Canada is faring against 40 different technical requirements and 11 broad kinds of efficiency regulations. The government has made many changes and improvements over the last several years. Obviously, those changes and the effectiveness of our regime will be looked at from a broad-based perspective.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much.

Before I continue on this line, I would like to point out that I do not believe there are any officials from CRA here today, and I don't believe there were any at the last review. My understanding, after having consulted the Senate pre-study hearings on the same bill, is that CRA is actually tasked with auditing. I would request that we put the CRA as a future witness as part of the pre-study.

Since I'm in a very giving mood, I've put a motion on notice. I won't move it, but I'll quickly read it into the record to help the government in its review of Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

It reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and with regards to section 72 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the committee undertake a study to review the Act and the current situation regarding money laundering and terrorist financing in Canada. That as part of the study the committee calls the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for no fewer than two (2) hours, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada no fewer than two (2) hours, the Minister of Public Safety no fewer than two (2) hours, the Minister of National Revenue no fewer than two (2) hours, department officials for the departments of Justice and Public Safety, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canadian Border Security Agency, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, the Cullen Commission Lead Counsel, Royal Bank of Canada, TD Bank, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, CIBC, National Bank, the Ontario Securities Commission and other witnesses as submitted by the members of the committee. That the committee take no fewer than ten (10) meetings for this study and that it report its findings to the House.

I'm deciding not to move the motion. I'm just putting it on notice. I provided it in advance to the committee clerk, and I believe the translators have it. It will be available either in your inboxes now or very shortly.

Thank you very much for your time. We have additional questions, and we'll speak to some of your colleagues later.

Thank you.