Thank you for the question.
I am mindful that this is a law-making body at the federal level, so my recommendation might draw upon my written submission, which was targeted towards the federal Parliament. Let me give you an example. It was my fourth example, which I didn't get to.
I am currently studying the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the public-private partnerships involved under section 5 of that act to combat money laundering and terror financing.
We know from the Cullen commission in B.C. that anti-money laundering measures aren't really effective through the FINTRAC regime. I am actually interested in the anti-terror financing regime, and my preliminary findings lead me to conclude that the government's regimes for combatting terror financing are little more than crumbling sediments from the moral panic over 9/11. We are over two decades from that tragic day, yet Canada continues to embrace the blunt tools of that era, which had a disproportionate effect on Muslims and whose effectiveness in combatting terrorism is regularly questioned.
One such blunt instrument is the terrorist entities list, but as this body illustrated last year with Bill C-41, tools like the terrorist entities list don't actually account for nuance in policymaking. However, they remain in place as a fearful reminder of the presumed Muslim threat. That would be one example.
I think it was in budget 2022 that you allocated funding to rethink your financial crimes division and how you want to think that through. I would argue that—