Justice Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

No, I'm not.

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

I do believe you are, because if you're looking at the 1,000 RCMP—

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'm not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I'll remind members and witnesses to please address each other through the chair.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, I have a question for Minister Sean Fraser.

In the act, it says that the minister could intervene via fiat if it's a matter of national interest. Can you define “national interest”?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

There's a range of different circumstances in which a matter could engage the national interest. This is not an exhaustive list because, of course, facts, technology and the world change more quickly than we could potentially imagine today.

You can imagine a crime that may impact multiple provinces. You can imagine an opportunity to engage in international investigations that reach beyond Canada's borders. You can imagine circumstances where the severity of a given set of financial crimes could be funnelling into a criminal organization that would pose a public safety threat in many places in Canada.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

If somebody doesn't agree with you or your government politically, can you use that national interest to seize bank accounts and invoke the Emergencies Act?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

The targeting of someone for political reasons would be completely counter to the principles—

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Your government did that, and the courts found it to be unconstitutional.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That is your political point of view.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

No, it's the court's.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

You're stumbling on the point that I don't think you intended to make.

One of the things that I relish about Canada's system of democracy is that citizens have access to the courts. If we take a decision that exceeds the boundaries of the authorities included in the legislation, you have access to launch applications for judicial review to say the government acted in a manner that was unreasonable—

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Then they'll wait multiple years while you destroy their lives, as the government has—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have a fundamental point of disagreement with your characterization and support of the freedom convoy—

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

That's what has happened in the last few years.

Why not define such an important term in the act itself? Why not outline the parameters? We've seen your government fail when it comes to these things in the past. Why not let Parliament decide what those measures are instead of giving you this broad stroke of power?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

First, I find it interesting that you couch your political objection to this legislation in your support for the freedom convoy.

Second, when it comes to the approach I've taken across different bills now, I've sought to be collaborative with members of Parliament from different political parties. It's led to amendments and changes to the laws that are now in effect. I would hope that this committee has the opportunity to hear from the director of public prosecutions and ask questions about whether these authorities are sufficiently ring-fenced.

In my view, focusing on items that touch on the national interest and that cross provincial boundaries or perhaps international boundaries would be completely appropriate for the federal government to assume jurisdiction over an investigation. However, if you have a different view and have productive amendments that you wish to put forward, this is precisely the venue in which you're entitled to make those amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much. That concludes your time.

We'll now move on to Ms. Gladu for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the ministers for appearing today and for bringing forward this really important piece of legislation.

We clearly see that we have not, in the past, had the tools to handle the sheer volume of crime, be it money laundering, drug trafficking, human trafficking or extortion, that has continued to plague the country. I think we need to do something. This financial crimes agency will be a great coordinating agency, but I want to ask a question, first of all, about information sharing. I'll ask it of the Minister of Public Safety.

You're going to have police in different jurisdictions and in different provinces, potentially, along with the RCMP, FINTRAC and this new organization, all seeing some of these crimes. Are they going to be able to share information, and will that sharing include Bill C-22, the lawful access bill that the police have been asking for in order to help address and actually find the evidence to convict people? Will they be able to share this kind of information?

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

Information sharing is oftentimes through mutual assistance agreements with the different agencies. Bill C-22 enables law enforcement to access a specific type of information through judicial authorization, and oftentimes that is limited to the agency that is seeking that warrant.

In this case, if it is a matter that the investigation is led by the financial crimes agency, presumably they will be the ones that are seeking the judicial authorization for them to undertake lawful access to certain types of electronic data. In the case of multiple agencies involved, there may be some kind of agreement as to a lead agency that undertakes the investigation, but the sharing of that information will be quite limited.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Excellent. Thank you.

This leads into my next question. I would think that different organizations are going to be first into a case. They're going to notice that there's something amiss: money laundering, drug trafficking or whatever. How is it decided which organization is going to take the lead on the investigation?

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

Police of jurisdiction often have the lead. Let's say in the case of extortion, you may have extortion taking place at an increased level of numbers in specific jurisdictions. Oftentimes, they may be isolated and the police of jurisdiction are looking at that specific set of allegations they see in their jurisdiction.

When it's elevated to the national level, whether it's through the RCMP or the financial crimes agency, where essentially it's about following the money, they will ask, “Where is the money transfer taking place? Where is the illicit transfer of funds?” There may be some commonalities that they will identify.

There may be an international element. There may be a cross-provincial and a territorial element. That is when I think the financial crimes agency will work best, because it will be able to bring in the information at a high level and look at the national and sometimes international picture and continue the investigation. Oftentimes, most investigations will commence at the local police of jurisdiction and then work towards a more national picture.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you.

Minister Fraser, let's continue on the jurisdictional part of this. Can you talk a bit about how we're going to make sure that the federal government has its jurisdiction, the provinces have their jurisdiction and the police have their jurisdiction, and how all of these things are going to be respected as we work forward?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Keep in mind that there are federal investigations into financial crime today. The agreements that are reached between federal and provincial or municipal law enforcement, as the case may be, are something that they are accustomed to and have the ability to work through.

I don't think it's as clean as it could be, particularly when the federal authorities who are involved in these investigations are not necessarily working collectively in a single agency. The expertise isn't necessarily as strong when separated as it will be together. The same process that plays out today in terms of collaboration between different levels of government, or I should say, law enforcement that reports to different levels of government, will take place in a different and more streamlined way.

Just maybe, too, on this point, to clarify a response I gave to an earlier question, this is not going to be a political conversation that plays out between elected officials at different levels. These are going to be decisions that are taken by law enforcement on the ground, or in the instance where a fiat power may be used, for example, by the independent director of public prosecutions. These are people who have deep experience in collaborating with different levels of government to understand who is best positioned in a given set of circumstances to deliver a fulsome investigation that leads to a prosecution when a crime has been committed and to a conviction.

Like everything else, you work through relationships based on a set of rules that set the table for a productive conversation. That's what this bill seeks to do.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Excellent.

I have a last question for you. I was very interested to see that in this bill there's a part to help recover the proceeds of crime. Why is it so important to take the profit out of criminal activity by putting this measure in place?

Perhaps that's for the Minister of Public Safety.

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

I think it's quite important, and we've seen it in a number of different provinces. In British Columbia, for example, they have a fairly robust proceeds of crime bill that enables them to recover funds and to use them for the common good. This is something that I think is currently not easily accessible in the federal system. This will enable us to compensate, in some cases, those who may have lost money.

Oftentimes, we know that when a group of people lose money, we may not be able to recover the full extent of it, but even a percentage of that will satisfy, in some cases, those victims who have been exploited and traumatized and who oftentimes have lost their life savings. It is, I believe, a modest attempt to ensure that there's some compensation for their loss.