Finance Committee on Dec. 8th, 2021

[Barry MacKillop]

Not to my knowledge, sir.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Is it customary for FINTRAC to be consulted by the Canada Revenue Agency or the Government of Canada's finance department? Are you the type of group that the government would consult before making this type of bill?

[Barry MacKillop]

Typically, as an independent agency, we would be consulted on a number of different bills going forward, but typically those are the ones that are related to money laundering, terrorist financing or threats to the security of Canada. That is really our remit. That is where we specialize in the intelligence world. Those are usually the topics on which we would be consulted if there were a bill going forward that related to those topics.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Another question I have is, can you define...? I mean, obviously there were 395 suspicious transactions early on. You spoke of money laundering, which is done by criminals or criminal organizations and the like. I wondered if you can define how much you think poured into criminal enterprises and if any of that money laundering or financing was actually undertaken by terrorist organizations, either in the country or outside of it.

[Barry MacKillop]

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to quantify the amount. The intelligence we provide, in many cases, is based on suspicions that are identified by the reporting entities. They, in fact, are the ones that identify a level of suspicion. They submit a suspicious transaction to us. If it meets our threshold and we suspect it may be relevant to a money laundering or terrorist financing investigation, then we will disclose the STR—the suspicious transaction report—and/or other related transactions to law enforcement or our national security agencies for investigation.

What we provide is intelligence; it's not actually evidence. Our intelligence becomes one part of an investigative puzzle. It's really only at the end of that investigation or throughout that investigation by law enforcement that they would actually be able to identify whether, in fact, it was fraud that was committed, or if it was perhaps a misinterpretation of the way the money was coming in, or who was assisting family members or whatever the case may be. The fact that we do disclosures—and we've done many disclosures—may or may not result in fraud charges. It's not because I disclose that it's definitely fraud. We're disclosing simply because we suspect that the intelligence we have would be relevant to a money laundering or terrorist financing investigation if one were undertaken.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you.

Was FINTRAC consulted by CRA or the Government of Canada for the drafting of Bill C-2?

[Barry MacKillop]

It was not, to my knowledge. If we were consulted, it was not in my area. The intelligence sector of FINTRAC was not consulted. I do not believe that we were consulted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you very much.

Now we're moving to the Liberals. Ms. Dzerowicz, you have six minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all the presenters for their excellent presentations.

Thank you so much for your patience while we were voting upstairs.

My first question is going to be for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I think it's important for me to just outline a little bit the state of our economy. We have the lowest GDP-to-debt ratio in the G7. Over 106% of our jobs have been recouped. Our business confidence is up. StatsCan has reported that in Q3 our GDP growth was 5.4%. Canadians are saving more. A number of our international credit agencies have reaffirmed our AAA rating.

In spite of all this—and I think it was Mr. Agnew who mentioned this—we know we're not out of the woods yet. We know that the recovery, as we're trying to get out of COVID, is uneven. We're still battling COVID. We know that public health measures continue to restrict our economic activity. We know that the trajectory of COVID and its variants remains uncertain and unpredictable.

As you know, a key part of Bill C-2 is moving away from the broad-based supports to more targeted supports. Do you agree with this approach of being more targeted in our supports as we move forward?

[Mark Agnew]

Yes. In terms of the business sentiment, I think the challenges we're seeing are mostly in the hardest-hit sectors, as we call them. They are the ones that haven't seen the job increases that have come back. Certainly we recognize there are limits to what the public purse can ultimately bear. We do need to make sure that public spending is being managed appropriately.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay.

I'm not sure if it was you or if it was Ms. Drigola Birk who mentioned this, but I know that you've stressed the importance of passing this legislation before Christmas. Would you mind elaborating a little bit more about how your stakeholders would be impacted if these programs were not in place until, maybe, as late as February?

[Alla Drigola Birk]

Absolutely I can take that question.

One important thing we saw, which came out of the most recent Canadian survey on business conditions, was that businesses in the accommodation and food services, arts, entertainment and recreation sectors were the ones most likely to say that if these programs were not to continue it would have medium to high impact on their ability to survive. That's countered by businesses from across sectors in which a majority have said there would be little to no impact. For us, the most important thing is to see these supports continue uninterrupted. They are targeted for the most severely impacted businesses across sectors. For us, the most important thing is to see these continue uninterrupted immediately.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate that.

As you know, if we look at a breakdown of Bill C-2, we see a section for the tourism and hospitality recovery program. We also have the hardest-hit business recovery program, and under that specific program, we list very specifically a number of key sectors. There are specifics in terms of supports for key businesses, for key sectors within the hardest-hit sectors.

My question to you is this: Do you agree with the list? Was the Chamber of Commerce consulted?

[Mark Agnew]

Yes, I would say that I think the list broadly reflects the discussions we have had with officials in Minister Freeland's office in advance in expressing some of the views we had about how it should be done. Yes, I think it's fair to say we're broadly content with the list.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Since we're on the section around the hardest-hit business recovery program, how can this program address the uneven recovery that we're seeing? I think it's something you've mentioned, which is that there are a lot of businesses that are doing quite well, but there are a lot that are not. How is it that the supports we have here can address the uneven recovery we're seeing?

[Alla Drigola Birk]

I think it's an important question.

One of the things I would say, as I think Ms. Potter mentioned in her comments, is that the tourism sector, for example, was the first hit, and it will be the last to recover. It's important that businesses in these sectors have the same ability for support until they're able to get to the point of recovery that businesses in other sectors have reached.

I think that's where other programs, such as the recovery hiring program, can come in for businesses that are doing better and are increasing their workers' hours or wages. They can still see some of that support, but we need to make sure that we're taking a balanced approach with our fiscal management to make sure that we're continuing supports for those that really need it and are able to help those businesses that are recovering to transition away into a better place.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

My final question is for Ms. Potter from the tourism industry.

I think you spoke about the importance of passing this legislation very quickly. Could you elaborate a bit about how your stakeholders would be affected if these programs were not put in place until perhaps as far away as February?

[Beth Potter]

Thank you very much for the question.

I'll just say that so many of these businesses now have missed two full seasons of revenue generation, so they have burned through any kind of reserve they had and any kinds of savings they had. They've taken on as much debt as they can afford to. It's this kind of program that will afford them the opportunity to continue to keep their staff and keep the doors open during these very lean months over the winter, until they can start to see revenue generation begin to climb again. They just don't have the cash flow. That's why it is so important that this program continue uninterrupted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz. That's your time.

We're moving now to the Bloc and Monsieur Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their presence and for their patience. Indeed, today's meeting requires it.

In recent months, and especially during the useless election campaign we went through this fall, the Bloc Québécois insisted on the importance of maintaining certain programs for the sectors of the economy that would have the most difficulty recovering from the pandemic. One of these sectors is culture. Yet, this does not appear at all in Bill C‑2, which we are talking about today and which we were all waiting for. There is nothing in Bill C‑2 for self‑employed cultural workers. Several weeks ago, we told the government that this category of workers had to be included in the bill, or we would oppose it. We are told that the government is not able to include them. This is an answer that we find difficult to accept.

I would have a few questions for Mr. Laperrière from the Fondation des artistes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Laperrière. I'm pleased to have you with us today.

How did the cultural industry react when it realized that there was no support for the cultural sector in Bill C‑2.

[Michel Laperrière]

From the beginning of the election campaign, we were told, through the voice of the Prime Minister, that the Liberal government was indeed thinking of establishing measures to help the cultural sector. Obviously, if there is nothing in this bill, people will be disappointed, if not desperate. The entire cultural industry, not just the arts and entertainment sector, has been devastated by COVID‑19. The situation continues, especially in the case of live performances. Theatres have been reopened, but because people have been told for almost two years that it is dangerous to be in a group, they are reluctant to buy tickets and to start going to theatres again, whether it is for a concert, a play, a dance performance—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt. In fact, we understand that it is essentially self‑employed workers in the cultural sector who are affected. Of course, some businesses are still receiving assistance, including through the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy.

Was it explained to you why there was no support for self‑employed cultural workers in this program? Did you have any contact with officials who explained the logic behind the lack of support?

[Michel Laperrière]

Earlier, I introduced myself as president of the Fondation des artistes, but I am also vice‑president of the Union des artistes du Québec. We have not yet received an explanation for this oversight, but I trust that we will soon.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

At a press briefing this morning, the Bloc Québécois made a proposal to the government to follow the lead of Quebec's Ministry of Culture and Communications and make a financial contribution to the Fondation des artistes. In your opening remarks, you mentioned the provincial assistance received. In fact, in Quebec, the foundation is known for its rigour, and it has experience in this type of assistance for the cultural sector.

So that's what we proposed to the government. If the government agreed to this proposal, would you be able to administer or manage the support measures for self‑employed cultural workers during this difficult period of the pandemic?

[Michel Laperrière]

Our experience, our expertise and our way of doing things could certainly help—and I do mean help—the government in this respect. That's what we did with the Quebec government. Obviously, we would have to specify the guidelines, establish a way of proceeding and work with public servants, but we could certainly serve as a conduit, so to speak. In other words, it wouldn't necessarily be a donation from the government to the foundation, which would then redistribute the money. If we were to adopt the same principle as when we worked with the provincial government, it would be a matter of us taking over the management of the government's money and being accountable to them in a regular and transparent way. If the government wants to work with us, we are available.