Justice Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

With respect to the registration of charities, Mr. Baber, I invite you to pose those questions to the Canada Revenue Agency, which does the registration.

Let me for a second and talk about ports—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

The enforcement would be.... I apologize, Minister, but the enforcement would come—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Since you brought up ports, if you will permit me, you will know that Bill C-12 brought in additional authorities for the Canada Border Services Agency to undertake outbound searches, which are now being implemented across Canada, including at marine ports. It is an important aspect of the work we've been doing on money laundering, because there is obviously a connection. These tools have given law enforcement additional authorities to be able to stop—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I have about 15 seconds left.

Minister, the question was this: Why do entities that are openly called out in the media for raising money for terrorist organizations abroad continue to operate in Canada and continue to collect and raise funds in Canada? That was the question, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Baber.

That concludes our time for this round. Now we are moving on to Mr. Maloney for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank both ministers for taking the time to be here today to share with us their insights into this important piece of legislation.

I'm going to follow up on something Mr. Khanna said and that Mr. Baber was getting at in a roundabout way, I suppose.

We've been at this committee dealing with legislation on bail reform in the form of Bill C-14. We then dealt with Bill C-16. One of the constant themes that emerged throughout all of those discussions was that the system is under-resourced, whether it be in terms of police, prosecutors or the courts themselves, yet here we are talking about a new agency that's going to create.... It's not going to pull from those provincial resources; it's going to give them extra resources.

I find it puzzling that the Conservatives take this position of being tough on crime and then criticize you when you do it. My question to you is this: Why is this organization so important, and can you clarify further how it's going to be a distinct, independent and separate one that's going to enhance what's already going on and not pull from it?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Either of us is happy to take the question.

Let's take a look at what is being proposed. We know today that there are federal and provincial entities that are involved in both the investigation and prosecution of financial crimes. On the federal side, they don't sit under one roof. The expertise is spread out across different organizations. By bringing them together, we have an opportunity to benefit from their collective expertise, which will be enhanced by virtue of their ability to more easily collaborate.

In addition, as Minister Anandasangaree pointed out, there is going to be an injection of resources to provide a greater opportunity, with more people working in this system, to help combat these crimes.

When you take it a step further and you look at the international landscape, you realize that Canada's lack of a financial crimes agency disadvantages us in our opportunities to work with allies in an area of law and crime that is increasingly transborder, digital and fast-moving. When you look at a variety of different factors that will see more resources deployed more efficiently and on a wider scale, the case becomes obvious.

The best part of this is that at the end of the day, when you successfully prosecute crimes, not only are you tearing apart a business model that's doing great harm to Canadians through criminal organizations, but you're also benefiting from the proceeds of crime, which helps offset the cost of moving forward with some of these activities.

From my point of view, it is a cost-effective way to gather expertise to allow it to operate more efficiently and on a global scale.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I'll just add to what Mr. Fraser said.

Transnational organized crime's primary motivation is money, finances. Whether they're on the extortion line, auto thefts or a range of other lines, they will pivot as the threat environment changes. What the financial crimes agency would be able to do is choke them on the financial side so that any type of money transfer, whether it's money flowing through shell companies or through very sophisticated means to overseas or within Canada, is choked right at source and would not enable them to move into another line of business. I believe my conversation with the Five Eyes partners in Australia in August strengthened my belief that this is long overdue for Canada.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I'll just pick up on the point about this taking officers away from the RCMP.

My understanding is that there are 1,000 new officers being added to the RCMP complement. Minister, you touched on contract policing versus federal policing. This isn't going to impact that in a negative way. In fact, a certain amount of this new complement is going to be dedicated to this purpose. Isn't that correct?

I also have just one more thing. These aren't just officers. These are specialized investigators, accountants and lawyers—the people who know how to address these issues. Is that right?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Let me just clarify because sometimes I've used the words “officers” and “personnel” synonymously. I'll clarify that 750 will be officers who will be part of the federal policing system. The other 250 are experts. They can, according to this legislation and existing legislation, be sworn in as officers. That authority rests within this legislation. One hundred and fifty will be focusing primarily on financial crimes, and the rest will have expertise in AI and other evolving technology, which we know we need to keep pace with. As law enforcement, we need to keep pace with the fast-evolving landscape.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney. That concludes your time.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister Anandasangaree, I'm not ignoring you, but, if I may, I'll ask Mr. Fraser a few questions.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

He's very nice.

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

Minister, let me explain why I find it difficult that the bill doesn't have a definition of what is a serious and complex financial crime or that the definition is incomplete. You said you would proceed sparingly, that you would discuss things. That's all well and good, but you know as well as I do that if we end up before a judge, the minister's opinion or the good intentions of the minister and his team won't stand up to the British North America Act. I think we need to be clearer.

Even assuming things will be done in good faith and discussed, I would like to know what the criteria are. What will be used to determine whether a financial crime is serious and complex? What specific criteria will you and the people from the Office of the Attorney General and the agency use?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

When you're undertaking an exercise like this, I think you want to be specific enough and put protections in place that will not be abused. In my view, the independence of the director of public prosecutions provides one such protection. However, you also want to be broad enough to allow discretion to address challenges that have not yet emerged. Organized crime is particularly challenging in this regard. The activities follow the opportunities to make money. We're looking at a business model that is fluid, so as you close one door, another window may open. That's where the criminals seek to operate. I would hesitate to—

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

I have about 30 seconds of speaking time left, Minister.

Do you have the criteria that will be used to determine whether an offence constitutes a serious and complex crime, or is there somewhere I can find them?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

The nature of the impact on Canadians would certainly be a factor to consider. The value of the crime being committed would be another factor to consider. However, it's not as though there is a specific and finite nature of factors that are determinate.

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

Thank you.

I will use the last 10 seconds I have to simply say this. You say we have to let situations evolve and take the future into account. I would say that when you change the rules of the game, you have to be specific. We can't let interpretation be too broad.

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Fortin.

I'm moving to Mr. Lawton for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ministers, for being here.

Just very briefly, Minister Fraser, you earlier alluded to a member of this committee who you said was supportive of the freedom convoy. Just for clarity, are you referring to your colleague Ms. Gladu, or to someone else?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It was based on Mr. Khanna's intervention.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about a Liberal member there—my apologies.

Let's talk about the jurisdictional issue here. All of us on this side understand and agree with the necessity of taking financial crimes seriously. I have significant concerns, however, with what seems to be the impulse of this government, which is to create a new agency and a new bureaucracy to deal with any challenge that is facing Canada.

The discretion, in terms of deciding whether to prosecute, seems to rest very heavily with the Attorney General of Canada—and at this point that's you, Minister Fraser. There are things that the Attorney General should look into, maybe, but nothing prescriptive. Even when it comes to investigations, it says the commissioner may consult with local police or other police, but they don't have to.

What guardrails are there to prevent this new agency, or you or your successor, from just swooping in and taking charge of investigations and prosecutions that don't need to fall under this?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

First, on your comment regarding your opposition to creating a new agency, I'll repeat the point that Mr. Maloney articulated, which is that it seems, on the one side, we hear you and your colleagues crying for more resources for law enforcement, and then, when they receive more resources—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Then you and your colleagues cry for more government, but that's not what we're talking about.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Let me finish. I didn't interrupt you when you spoke. I think you should have the common respect to offer me the same grace.

In any event, when we do move forward with more resources for law enforcement, you raise objections at the same time.

As a key point in addressing the question about discretion, the discretion involved in the fiat power is not something that falls to me or my successor in this position, but to the director of public prosecutions, who will make a decision as to whether they should move forward with an investigation, given the circumstances.