Finance committee  No.

Finance committee  Sure. When we report to FINTRAC, there are two types of reporting. One involves suspicious transactions, those that suggest money laundering might be occurring. The other kind is threshold reporting, for which we're required to file all types of transactions, regardless of whether they're suspicious or not.

Finance committee  That's correct, in the sense that if we were concerned that someone was using an account for illegal activity, we might raise that with the RCMP. In this case we were actually required to validate against the list provided by the RCMP and also to take specific measures, such as applying a risk-based approach, to look for this specific activity.

Finance committee  The Department of Finance was considering that, and it became a moot point, but my guess is that they would probably include that themselves.

Finance committee  Yes. That would be helpful.

Finance committee  I said that.... I was trying to establish the application of.... Outside of the names that were provided by the RCMP, a small donation wouldn't have been caught by our normal risk-based approach. What I was trying to emphasize is that it's highly unlikely. I also want to clarify that we did not rely on external information, including leaked donor lists.

Finance committee  If it was conducted during the time that the order was invoked, it would raise that legal obligation.

Finance committee  There's not a specific dollar threshold. You'd be asking if there was some sort of unusual activity going on.

Finance committee  I couldn't speak for the specific circumstance of that monitoring and what would trigger it. It may not, depending on what the normal account activity is like.

Finance committee  There are anecdotal stories. There isn't anything of significance, but due in part to misinformation, people thought that if their account was with a bank, as opposed to a credit union, it would somehow make a difference. There was some information and education needed that the Emergencies Act applied regardless of which type of financial institution was engaged, but there has not been anything of concern.

Finance committee  That's correct.

Finance committee  I don't recall making.... We typically don't respond to misinformation about those types of things, but I would turn to my colleague Darren. Do you know if there were any proactive comments made?

Finance committee  I am not aware of that occurring but can check and come back.

Finance committee  Members did not apply them retroactively. The order came into force February 15 and expired February 23. There's been a fair bit of misinformation out there, and I would just ask that when stories like that come up they actually be validated, because, as I said, they would be inconsistent with how our practices are applied.

Finance committee  Thank you.