Justice Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

What gaps did the government create that allow organized crime to exploit the system? Did you find any gaps in the system that criminals are exploiting?

[Rob Stewart]

There are enormous gaps in the system, absolutely.

As I think you well know, sir, fraud, extortion and crimes against individual Canadians and Canadian businesses are on the rise. This is because criminals can freely exploit the telecommunications system, social media and the financial system to contact individuals and lure them into schemes in which they are robbed of their money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much. Your time is up.

We're now moving on to Ms. Lattanzio.

Please go ahead for six minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to each one of you for being here today, offering insight and giving us an opportunity to learn more about Bill C-29.

Could officials—any one of you—walk the committee through the prosecution framework of Bill C-29 and explain how clauses 20 to 23, specifically, would operate once the financial crimes agency has investigated an alleged financial crime?

[Rob Stewart]

I'll go first and then I'll hand it to my colleague from the justice department.

I will just repeat Minister Fraser's suggestion that you bring the director of the Public Prosecution Service before you, because he and his organization will be responsible for operationalizing those sections of the bill, were they to become law.

The reason that these measures have been included in the bill is really the volume of financial crime that we're facing and the need to supplement existing resources and capabilities. In this context, it's envisioned that these measures would be taken when circumstances warrant them, and the particular prosecution—because it's a prosecution, not an investigation, and it's downstream—is beyond the capacity of a Crown at the provincial level. It could be transnational or international in nature. It could be of such a magnitude that we would need a bigger team of people to work on it.

It would be up to the director to interpret circumstances in which the fiat power would be exercised, but the concept that lies behind that fiat power is that it would be used only when it's absolutely necessary and the situation is beyond the capabilities of the existing system. It's not to usurp the existing system.

[Matthew Taylor]

Thanks for that. I'll just try to supplement it.

I'll just take a step back to maybe anchor it in the definition of “financial crime” and build on what Mr. Stewart has said.

The definition is certainly broad in scope in terms of the investigative authorities that would be provided to the agency. That investigative scope and investigative authority provide a bit of a foundation for the prosecutorial authority. As I think was said in the first hour, none of what is contemplated in the legislation is meant to replace existing jurisdiction in Canada, so provincial prosecutors are still able to prosecute offences, including financial offences. This is an additional tool that, as Mr. Stewart says, allows the Attorney General of Canada to step in and prosecute concurrently—they'll have concurrent jurisdiction—in appropriate cases.

The diversity of experience across Canada will also inform how jurisdiction would unfold in practice were this legislation to be enacted. Smaller jurisdictions with fewer resources may be less able to respond to complex financial investigations and prosecutions, whereas larger jurisdictions have greater resources and greater capacity to do it. It is another tool and another system that is meant to operate in parallel with existing investigation and prosecution frameworks.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I'd like to zero in on this fiat mechanism and more specifically on clause 22. What happens legally once a fiat is issued and served on the relevant provincial attorney general?

[Matthew Taylor]

Again, it operates alongside the jurisdiction that is conferred to the Attorney General of Canada in the legislation. The starting point is concurrent jurisdiction. In many cases, as a matter of practice, prosecution services may be in conversation with one another on which particular service is more appropriately positioned to assume carriage and prosecute a particular case. We understand and expect that this is how things will continue to operate.

The fiat power, as I think was talked about in the first hour, is a tool to enable the Attorney General of Canada and the director of public prosecutions to assume sole responsibility for the prosecution of a financial crime when it has been investigated by the financial crimes agency—an important link—and with regard to some of the factors articulated in terms of the complexity of the investigation, transnationality and whether it crosses multiple jurisdictions.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

The bill also identifies whether an “offence is transnational”, whether it occurs “in more than one province” and whether it involves “the national interest” as factors that may be considered when deciding when to issue this principle of the fiat.

Why were these factors included, and how were they intended to limit the circumstances in which this authority would be exercised?

[Rob Stewart]

Those criteria are in the bill, at the request of the director of public prosecutions, to provide some clarity as to the circumstances in which that fiat power might be used. This is so as to not leave open-ended the question of how or when it would be used.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

To carry this out, what consultation or coordination would you expect to occur between the federal and provincial prosecution services in a case where both would be potentially exercising that prosecutorial authority, particularly before the federal Attorney General considers issuing a fiat? How would you see the consultation coordination between the two?

[Rob Stewart]

I don't want to speak for the director.

Perhaps Matthew would have more on that subject.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Taylor, we are out of time for Ms. Lattanzio. If you could provide that answer in writing, we'd really appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I will gladly take the floor, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Stewart, clause 3 defines the purpose of the bill. It says:

The object of this Act is to establish a specialized federal law enforcement agency with the capability and expertise necessary to (a) investigate serious and complex financial crimes; …

I'll stop the quote there. Do you think that's clear enough for us to understand, so we know what the Financial Crimes Agency is going to do?

[Rob Stewart]

In my opinion, yes.

First, it should be noted that the agency will be quite small. Someone asked earlier how many people would work for the agency. According to the tax decision, between 200,000 and 250,000—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt.

I understand, but I'm not talking about the size of the agency; I'm talking about its purpose, which is to investigate serious and complex financial crimes. That seems clear enough to you. Is that correct?

[Rob Stewart]

Yes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Clause 17 reads as follows:

In order to focus the Agency's efforts on serious and complex financial crimes, the Commissioner may establish criteria respecting which matters should be investigated under this Act.

How do you explain that? We are talking about the same crimes we have just determined to be clear. If it's clear, the commissioner should not need to establish criteria, right?

[Rob Stewart]

I would say that it is necessary for the commissioner to set targets and objectives for the teams.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I'm talking about the issues that will have to be investigated and the criteria for determining those issues. That's where I have a problem. I think clause 17 acknowledges that this is not clear. I respectfully suggest that perhaps things should have been clarified in the bill.

The consequence is not insignificant, since this definition allows the Attorney General of Canada to issue a fiat, thus deciding he will have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute. This is something that seems, on the surface at least, to go against the provisions of the British North America Act, the Constitution of Canada, which determines jurisdiction.

Many financial crimes fall under provincial jurisdiction. I'm sure you won't tell me you think provincial attorneys general are not as competent as the Attorney General of Canada. I won't even ask you the question, because I think we'll agree. They are probably equally competent. In that case, what criteria determine if a serious and complex crime would require the Attorney General of Canada to have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute? That seems to me to be at the heart of the discussion we had in the first hour, Minister Fraser and I, and to which I can't get a clear answer.

Respectfully—I may be mistaken—I think we're aiming for supranational crimes or crimes committed in several provinces. It would explain why, in those cases, we wouldn't want the attorney general of two or three provinces initiating prosecutions, and we would prefer to proceed at the national level. It could also be crimes committed abroad or across multiple jurisdictions, including other states.

Is that what we're aiming for, or am I missing something?

[Rob Stewart]

Yes, that is exactly what we are aiming for. We must avoid the dispersion of resources in the system in general, especially when it comes to prosecutors, since not enough of them follow financial crime cases. This is just to strengthen efforts in that regard.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

What you just added is good to know, because there's something else that has been on my mind since I read Bill C‑29. We already have the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, and other bodies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, obviously, that investigate a lot of these issues. A whole range of organizations are working on this. I wonder if, at some point, that might create a kind of commotion. We can come back to that.

Let's go back to the definition issue. I am not acting in bad faith, and I am not against the bill. I think it's a good idea: It is essential to fight these crimes. However, there is a way to go about it. I wonder if the wording of the bill could be improved, because I think it is essential to define these criteria in the act. We can't tell a commissioner, whose position is created by the act, that they will have to define the criteria for the investigations the agency he heads, and that is also created by the act, will conduct. It's a vicious circle. I think there's a bit of a contradiction there.

Do you agree that these definitions should be clarified in the bill?

[Rob Stewart]

I hear what you are saying. It is up to the committee to decide if changes need to be made to the bill.

I will ask my colleague Mr. Brazeau if he has anything to add on the subject.

[Julien Brazeau, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Finance]

Thank you for the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Be very brief, sir, please.