Industry and Technology Committee on June 16th, 2026

[Mark Hines]

Absolutely. If it's helpful, I can give you as an example a scenario with the data element.

A scam appears on a digital platform. The user clicks on it. They're taken to a chat, where they're encouraged to invest in an investment scam. If the digital platform or the telecommunications company identifies this as suspicious activity, they could share on a network the link and the telephone number associated with the chat. When it hits a payment system, we would be able to identify it as an element that goes into our magic sauce. What that would do is allow me to correlate whether the destination for this scam payment is associated with a scam that happened off my network. It would mean I don't let the payment go. We would advise our FI, “Please don't send this payment because we think there's a high risk the destination is a scam.”

It's those types of pieces of information that can have a large impact if we have them before we process the payment.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

My very last question is, do you believe public awareness and education will help?

[Mark Hines]

It's a great question.

What I will say is that scammers focus on the most vulnerable, so education, while very important, has limitations in terms of how it can protect those particular populations. This is why Interac's position is that responsibility is broader than that. It's on all of us who play a role in the example I just gave.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

I'll pass it on.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hines, I think it's fascinating that you said, “The key metric is the time between detection and intervention.” We heard in Wealthsimple's testimony that they found 1,500 fraudulent uses of their logo and deepfakes of their CEO in one day, yet it took the platform, Meta, four days to take these down.

Do you think the platforms are doing enough?

[Mark Hines]

I think that the platforms have to be part of the solution. Whether or not they could take them all down is not the point. The point is that, by giving us those signals as they take them down, each of those data elements significantly increases our chances of stopping the money moving, which is the point at which Canadians are harmed.

Our approach from a responsibility in the ecosystem is that every player should have clearly articulated obligations, and that responsibility for it flows from meeting or not meeting those obligations, and we would include ourselves in that.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I think it's helpful that you told us that investment scams are far and away the most prevalent, because sometimes we frame them as an issue about seniors who may not be tech-savvy. We hear that the sophistication of the scams is increasing. We hear that only 5% to 10% of scams are being reported. Clearly investment scams are high as are romance scams in addition to all kinds of scams that target seniors.

You said that the most effective measure is cross-sector data sharing. Can you outline for me what some of the privacy considerations are? Ontario still has never really realized e-health. Can we get to that cross-sector data sharing fast enough? What do you need in terms of legislation, or what's your recommendation?

[Mark Hines]

When I talk about data sharing, what I mean very specifically are very specific data elements that are shared between very specific parties. I think there are two elements from a legal perspective to focus on. One of them was mentioned earlier about having a clear basis to process data for fraud. That exists in PIPEDA today.

My experience with negotiating data-sharing agreements as an FI at a fintech and now at Interac has been that we focus very much on consent as the core of our focus, and that re-emphasizes that grounds to process data is important.

The other one is around safe harbour provisions for that intelligence sharing. They exist in other jurisdictions for financial crimes sharing. Why I think it's so important is, in my experience that I just mentioned, our participants really take very seriously their responsibility for data, and they will only share it if they feel the risk is low or acceptable. That safe harbour provision encourages the type of intelligence sharing that we think is key if we're going to stop the problem at the outset.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm out of time. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. O'Rourke.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, it's your turn. You have the floor for six minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to extend my greetings to all the witnesses. Thank you for being here.

My questions are for the representatives of the Desjardins Group. I would like to hear more about restrictive or contradictory legislative frameworks.

[Frédéric Lapalme]

Thank you for the question.

My colleague, Bernard Brun, talked about this. We operate in Quebec, but also across Canada. When it comes to privacy, the difference between federal and provincial legislation poses a challenge. As a financial institution, we want to participate in anti‑fraud initiatives. Our colleagues work for organizations under federal jurisdiction—and thus subject to federal legislation—while we operate at the provincial level. We need to analyze and identify discrepancies to ensure that we participate in this type of information‑sharing initiative according to the rules. We must carry out a great deal of internal paperwork and many assessments to ensure that we're taking the correct approach. Of course, in cases of rapid fraud, this process doesn't fit within the specific time frame required for an anti‑fraud initiative.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

When it comes to combatting fraud, you would like the stakeholders involved to share more information. Can you elaborate on this?

[Frédéric Lapalme]

It's a good point. Mr. Brun touched on this. It's the key point. The Desjardins Group handles billions of dollars for its client members and processes millions—even billions—of transactions each year. We must be able to share this information with Interac and our colleagues at the banks to ensure that we use this data wisely to combat fraud. Since transactions now take place in milliseconds—given the advent of real‑time transactions—we'll face limitations. We must be able to use this data both internally and with our colleagues so that we can implement the right guidelines and safeguards to protect our client members.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

I'll move on to my next question, which is a two‑part question.

I would like to hear about your experience with interactions among the various government agencies involved in fraud cases. These include the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC; the Canadian Anti‑Fraud Centre; and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP.

In addition, what role do you see for the future Financial Crimes Agency, given that there are already institutions in place?

[Frédéric Lapalme]

These institutions, both FINTRAC and the Canadian Anti‑Fraud Centre, have a role to play. These are law enforcement agencies. Desjardins interacts with both on a daily basis. Law enforcement agencies can send us requests to carry out investigations. Depending on the reporting thresholds, we provide FINTRAC with information on hundreds of thousands of transactions each year. Unfortunately, we often send information—reports—to FINTRAC, only to receive a direct request from a law enforcement agency investigating the same case. This means that organizations on both sides of the information‑sharing process stand to benefit.

Regarding the agency, we would like to see the investigations lead to arrests. This aligns with the Financial Action Task Force's recommendations, published five years ago, and likely with the next report scheduled for release. We want to ensure that the system effectively combats both fraud and financial crime—these areas may overlap—in order to achieve the concrete result of an arrest and a conviction. Prevention is useful. However, certain situations reach a point of no return that requires investigations and, unfortunately, formal charges.

This is where we would potentially like to see the agency or another organization step in. Investigations into financial crimes require a level of expertise that not every law enforcement agency in Canada possesses.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

I would like to talk about Canada's anti‑money laundering and anti‑terrorist financing regime. If one improvement could be made to the regime to better combat fraud, what would it be?

[Frédéric Lapalme]

I already discussed the sharing of information and the arrests.

I would move in this direction, towards a risk‑based approach. We already do this with fraud. Financial institutions don't like to lose money, of course. They certainly don't want their client members to fall victim to fraud. So we need this flexibility to manage risks, manage fraud and achieve the desired results.

We're part of the dynamics. We welcome today's initiative and the national consultation. We wholeheartedly support the government's commitment to combatting fraud. We must avoid subjecting fraud to an overly rigid regulatory framework. That would be our recommendation, with regard to both fraud and financial crime.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

I have one minute left. I'll ask you one last question.

A witness told us that other countries have legislation that requires digital platforms to verify the identities of people who purchase advertisements and who claim to sell financial products—including cryptocurrencies—before publishing them. The witness told us that the platforms in these countries have complied with these requirements and that scams have reportedly declined.

Do you think that Canada should take this approach?

[Frédéric Lapalme]

It's a good solution. It's another tool in the tool box for Canada and its institutions. It won't solve everything, but the principle stands that the greater the anonymity, the higher the incidence of fraud. Clearly, a transparency requirement to help us understand the players involved, the payers and the funders behind the advertisements or other activities on different platforms remains a valid option.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Madam Dancho, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

My first question is for Mr. Harroun.

I've noticed there's been progress in recent years, and I think it may be from the CRTC, your work on spoofing and the caller display issues. Last time you had representation here—I believe it was in September—I mentioned that my constituency office received an RBC banking telephone call that was not, in fact, RBC online banking. Thankfully, I had a very intelligent staff member who caught on and stopped it there.

I've noticed recently that I'm getting similar texts now from a bank that I bank with. It reminds me, for example, to pay my credit card bill—that's a legitimate one.

I received a similar one—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Madam Dancho, I'm very sorry to interrupt.

I see that the bells are ringing. I'm going to get you to pause for one moment. I'll pause the clock, but I'll let you start from the top so that everyone is following the trend.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Sure. I think I was ranting anyway. I have so much to say.