2. Questions and Answers

Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

Qs & As on Criminal Law Reforms

Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and Related Statutes

Q 28 What are the Charter and privacy impacts of the information sharing/disclosure amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act?
Q 29 A – Do these amendments to the PCMLTFA respond to the June 2022 Report of the Cullen Commission?
Q 29 B – Has the federal government responded to all the relevant recommendations in the Cullen Report?
Q 30 How do the amendments address the issues identified in the last Financial Action Task Force (FATF) evaluation of Canada’s anti-money laundering regime?
Q 31 Do these amendments address issues with investigating and prosecuting use of virtual currencies or crowdfunding?
Q 32 Do these amendments address the inability to prosecute money services business, which was an issue in BC earlier this year? (E-nationalize case)?
Q 33 What is FINTRAC’s role in the investigation and prosecution of money-laundering?
Q 34 How has FINTRAC’s role been enhanced by these amendments?
Q 35 What are the whistle-blower amendments?
Q 36 Will the amendments have an impact on the issues raised by the Viau matter?
Q 37 How do the sanctions related amendments address ongoing efforts to assist Ukraine?
Q 38 How do changes to federally regulated financial institution statutes strengthen efforts to combat money laundering and foreign interference?
Q 39 What do financial institutions need to do to comply with these new requirements?

Supplementary Qs & As – Criminal Code Anti-Money Laundering

Q 40 Is the special warrant for digital assets similar to measures enacted during the convoy protest in Winter 2022?
Q 41 Why isn’t more being done by way of Criminal Code reform to respond to the Cullen Commission recommendations?

Supplementary Q&A - Criminal Interest Rate

Q 42 What rates are charged by provinces that currently have a maximum rate cap for payday loans?

Supplementary Qs & As – Canada Post / Gorman v. the King

Q 43 What are Canada Post inspectors doing at the present time in light of the decision in Gorman?
Q 44 How many Canada Post Corporation (CPC) inspectors are there across Canada?
Q 45 How many parcels are shipped in Canada annually through Canada Post?

General Questions

Q 1 Do these amendments interfere with Charter rights?

As with all proposed legislation, I have carefully examined the changes for inconsistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in light of my responsibilities under the Department of Justice Act.
I am confident that the changes included in Bill C-47 respect Charter rights. More information on the Charter impacts due to these changes can be found in the Charter Statement.

Q 2 What impact will these measures have on victims of crime?

The criminal interest rate changes will protect economically vulnerable persons in Canada from abusive, predatory lending.
The money laundering changes will also assist investigators in solving economically motivated crimes and bringing offenders to justice.

History – Criminal Interest Rate

Q 3 When was the criminal interest rate established?

Section 347 of the Criminal Code was enacted in 1981 to address loan-sharking where lenders offer credit at high interest rates and employ intimidation, violence, or threats of violence to enforce repayment.
A fixed interest rate of 60% was included in the offence to provide a level of certainty; an objective standard was expected to be easier to prove, rather than the prosecution having to prove that there was violence or intimidation associated with the loan.
The payday loan provisions (section 347.1) were enacted in 2007 and make clear that the criminal interest rate provisions do not apply to payday loans if: they are for $1500 or less; are for a term of 62 days or less, are offered by a person licenced to provide them; and, if the province where the loan is offered has been designated by the Governor in Council.

Q 4 What amendments are being proposed to the criminal interest rate provisions?

There are three principal changes proposed in this bill to the criminal interest rate provisions:
1. To lower the criminal interest rate from an effective annual rate of 60% to an annual percentage rate of 35%;
2. To provide the Governor in Council with the ability to exempt, through regulation, agreements or arrangements from the criminal interest rate provision; and,
3. To provide the Governor in Council with the ability to set a limit, through regulation, on the total cost of borrowing under a payday loan agreement.

Q 5 What are the differences between these amendments and Bill S-239?

Both have the objective of lowering the criminal rate.
Bill S-239 would provide that the criminal rate is the Bank of Canada’s overnight rate, plus twenty per cent.
This bill would set the rate at 35%.
A fixed rate provides greater clarity than a floating rate, which can vary from one day to the next. As such, a fixed rate ensures the criminal law is easier to understand and easier to enforce.

Q 6 Why did it take so long for the government to propose these amendments to address predatory lending?

These amendments are informed by the views of stakeholders flowing from a nation-wide consultation on the issue of cracking down on predatory lending, and consultations take time.
The important thing is that the Government is acting today to advance these changes.

Q 7 Why is the government proposing a regulation making power to exempt agreements or arrangements from section 347?

Section 347 captures virtually all lending agreements and arrangements in Canada, despite the provision being enacted to address loansharking.
A regulation making authority would provide the Government with a way to address this unintended impact and to exempt agreements or arrangements from the operation of the criminal interest rate provisions, such as complex commercial transactions.

Q 8 How did the Government determine a new rate of 35% Annual Percentage Rate?

Last year, the Department of Finance undertook a public consultation on the matter, during which it received high-quality feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, including industry, consumer advocates, and provincial governments. Their views helped inform the determination of the new proposed rate, which is equivalent to the maximum interest rate in Quebec. Quebec is the only province that sets a maximum rate for consumer loans.
The Department of Finance will continue to engage with stakeholders on any further reductions in the rate, or further revisions to the payday lending exemption within the Criminal Code.

Statistics on Criminal Charges

Q 9 Is there a high number of criminal prosecutions for an offence under section 347?

There are not a significant number of prosecutions for this offence.
Available data indicates that there have been 283 charges for offences under section 347 of the Criminal Code between 2015/16 and 2020/21.
This represents an average of 47 charges per year over a six-year period. Of these charges, only about 7%, or 21 charges, had a guilty finding.

Definitions

Q 10 What is the difference between “annual percentage rate” and “effective annual rate”?

The key difference between effective annual rate (EAR) and annual percentage rate (APR) is that the EAR accounts for the effect of compounding. If interest is only compounded annually (i.e., once per year), then the EAR and APR are equivalent.

Q 11 Does the definition of interest in the Criminal Code include all fees and charges?

Not necessarily. The current definition of interest found in subsection 347(2) of the Criminal Code includes “all charges and expenses, whether in the form of a fee, fine, penalty, commission or other similar charge or expense […] irrespective of the person to whom any such charges and expenses are or are to be paid or payable for the advancing of credit under an agreement or arrangement”. This definition is not changing as part of these amendments.
Certain narrowly defined charges are excluded, including any repayment of credit advanced, any insurance charge, official fees – defined as fees to government authority, overdraft charges, required deposit balance, or in the case of a mortgage transaction, any amount required to be paid on account of property taxes.

Amendments to Address Money Laundering

Q 12 What amendments are proposed to the Criminal Code in Bill C-47 to address money laundering?

Bill C-47 proposes two amendments to support the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and serious offences that generate significant proceeds of crime. Such amendments include:
- Creating a new special warrant specifically for the seizure of digital assets that may be confiscated as proceeds of crime; and,
- Adding new offences to the provision authorizing the disclosure of tax information to support an investigation.

Q 13 How do these amendments respond to concerns raised by the Cullen Commission?

The Cullen Commission recommended measures that aim to increase the number of investigations into money laundering, and to increase efforts to pursue the recovery of proceeds of crime.
The proposed Criminal Code amendments would assist law enforcement in implementing these measures.
Access to tax information for a greater number of crimes would facilitate efforts by law enforcement to “follow the money” and identify proceeds of crime.
A seizure warrant for digital assets that are considered proceeds of crime provides a dedicated measure to support the preservation of proceeds for possible forfeiture.

If pressed – Special warrant for digital assets

The Cullen Commission considered that our criminal forfeiture measures provide a powerful set of tools to achieve these goals.
This amendment will help keep these tools up to date by providing a dedicated measure for the seizure of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies that may be confiscated as being determined to be proceeds of crime.

If pressed – Tax information disclosure

The Cullen Commission emphasized how law enforcement needs to “follow the money” to successfully investigate these crimes.
Enabling the disclosure of tax information for offences that are at high risk of being connected to money laundering will provide law enforcement with another tool to follow the money, carry out financial investigations into the accumulation of wealth, and trace how subjects are laundering money, including through corporate structures.

Q 14 Why are these measures being proposed in a Budget bill, with insufficient time for consideration and amendments?

These amendments provide law enforcement and prosecutors with timely and important tools to better respond to the serious crime of money laundering and other profit-motivated offences.
These amendments build on long-standing provisions in the Criminal Code and will facilitate the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and other profit-motivated offences.

Q 15 Why is the digital assets special warrant being proposed?

The inclusion of a warrant tailored to seizure of digital assets in the Criminal Code will provide greater clarity and certainty to the legal community for dealing with digital assets such as cryptocurrencies.
The ability to seize property that is believed to be proceeds of crime is an important tool to preserve such property for forfeiture.
Criminals have been relying on digital assets, particularly cryptocurrencies, to fund, commit or launder the proceeds of their crimes. For example, victims of fraud and ransomware are asked to make payments in cryptocurrencies.
Criminals are also using cryptocurrencies to disguise or convert money earned through human trafficking or drug trafficking with the aim of moving these criminal proceeds into the legitimate financial system.

Q 16 What are the advantages of this special warrant for digital assets?

The proposed warrant explicitly authorizes searches for digital assets, notably through the use of a computer program, such as a digital wallet application.
It also explicitly authorizes the seizure of digital assets from the suspect’s digital wallet, to a secure wallet held by law enforcement for safe storage.
This warrant will facilitate the ability for law enforcement to obtain a management order for safekeeping of the property seized.
This warrant would require an undertaking by the Attorney General to cover costs or damages relating to the execution of the warrant. This approach protects the suspect or other persons with an interest in the property.

Q 17 Why is there no restraining order power for digital assets in these amendments? Budget 2023 announced that legislative amendments would include the ability to freeze, as well as to seize virtual assets.

My officials continue to examine the need for a dedicated restraining order for digital assets.
In the meantime, the proposed amendments would provide important and useful new specialized tools to address the evolving use of digital assets in crime.

Q 18 Why does the proposed warrant focus on digital assets rather than cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies?

The term digital assets captures the concept of an electronic record in which an individual has a right or interest and which does not exist in physical form. As such, it is inclusive of terms such as virtual currencies, including cryptocurrencies.
The proposed amendments avoid an attempt at an exhaustive definition that may need to be amended over time as types or classes of digital assets evolve.
This approach enables the courts to consider the concept in the context of particular cases and as the terminology develops.

Q 19 Why does the proposed special warrant for digital assets require that the Attorney General make the application?

The requirement that the application be made by an Attorney General ensures that the prosecutor considers the likelihood that a prosecution and forfeiture order may follow.

Q 20 Why is the special warrant for digital assets only available for proceeds of crime?

Digital assets, like cryptocurrencies, that are identified for seizure in a criminal investigation are most frequently proceeds of crime.
For example, a fraudster receives cryptocurrency payments from a victim as part of an online fraud; or a ransomware hacker receives payments of cryptocurrency by a victim of a ransomware attack so that the hacker will unlock their computer system. These are proceeds of crime.
To respond to the immediate priority, the initial focus of our legislative reform is a seizure power for proceeds of crime.
That said, my officials are continuing to work on the question of digital assets and Criminal Code reform and I am committed to advancing further changes to strengthen our laws in this area.

Q 21 What will this do for cryptocurrency held outside Canada?

Canadian law enforcement only exercises jurisdiction within Canada.
Where the digital assets are stored in a digital wallet controlled by the person who is the target of the seizure, the digital assets are generally located in the wallet app that they downloaded onto their device (e.g., mobile device, computer). Thus, the assets are in Canada and would be eligible for seizure under the proposed warrant.
Where the digital assets, like cryptocurrencies, are stored in a wallet on a centralized exchange located in Canada, the assets may be eligible for a restraining order. The exchange may restrain the contents of the digital wallet or some portions of its contents.
Where the digital assets are stored in a wallet on a foreign centralized exchange that carries out business in Canada and complies with Canadian regulations, the assets may be restrained under existing restraining order powers rather than seized.
Law enforcement may also seek a restraining order where it can be shown that a foreign centralized exchange has a significant virtual presence in Canada and is willing to cooperate with Canadian law enforcement.
In other circumstances, law enforcement would generally be required to seek assistance from another state to enforce a Canadian order or warrant.

Amendments to the Provision for Disclosure of Tax Information

Q 22 Why are new offences being added to the provision authorizing disclosure of tax information for the purposes of an investigation?

The provision authorizing disclosure of tax information is currently only available for four types of offences: designated substance offences; possession or laundering of proceeds obtained from the commission of designated substance offences; organized crime offences; and terrorism offences.
A number of other offences can generate significant proceeds of crime. These are: fraud over $5,000, extortion, human trafficking, corruption and foreign bribery, possession or laundering of proceeds of any of these offences, and conspiracy, attempt or being an accessory after the fact to these offences.
Access to tax information can assist in identifying proceeds of crime and facilitate the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and the underlying offences.

Q 23 How did the government decide on these specific offences?

The proposed offences have been associated with a very high risk of money laundering in Canada’s National Inherent Risk Assessment (NIRA) of money laundering risks.
We are all aware of the anecdotal reports of losses faced by Canadians due to fraud and extortion scams. We are also sensitive to the negative impact of corruption on our society, and the enormous harms to victims generated by human trafficking.

Q 24 Why weren’t more offences included in this provision?

As you know, Canada’s income tax system relies on self-assessment and self-reporting, and the Minister of National Revenue has broad powers to audit, inspect, and obtain records from a taxpayer to ensure compliance with the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Act protects the taxpayer’s privacy interest by prohibiting the disclosure of taxpayer information except as authorized by that Act.
This provision of the Criminal Code is an additional disclosure measure. It is important to limit this disclosure of tax information in order to maintain the integrity of the tax system and to respect the privacy interests of taxpayers.
For these reasons, the number of offences to be added was limited to those that generate significant proceeds of crime and are of serious concern to Canadians.

Canada Post and Bill S-256

Q 25 What is Bill S-256 and how is it related to this proposal (C-47 amendments to Canada Post Corporation Act to address the R. v. Gorman decision)?

Bill S-256 was introduced by Senator Pierre Dalphond on November 22, 2022, and would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to allow law enforcement to search and seize the mail. It is currently at second reading stage.
Bill S-256 does not propose amendments to address the R. v. Gorman decision, which found that the provision of the Canada Post Corporation Act that authorized Canada Post to inspect mail was unconstitutional because it violated the Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure (section 8).
Bill C-47 proposes changes to ensure that Canada Post inspections of the mail comply with the Charter.
For further questions on this issue, I will refer you to my colleague responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, the Honourable Helena Jaczek, Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

Q 26 What is Bill S-256 proposing to do?

Bill S-256 would allow police to use the same powers that they currently have in relation to items shipped by private courier services such as FedEx, UPS or DHL for Canada Post mail.
This would be done by lifting the application of the current Canada Post Corporation Act offence on opening mail (section 48) for acts authorized under an “Enforcement Statute” – a new defined term that would include Federal and Provincial laws, as well as by-laws made by municipal governments or Indigenous communities – making it possible for law enforcement to seize and search items of mail that are in the course of being sent by post for the purpose of pursuing specific investigations.

Q 27 Would Bill S-256 grant new powers to police?

No. The Bill would not grant any new powers to the police.
The Bill is only lifting the current offence for opening mail in the course of post for acts authorized under an “Enforcement Statute”.
Police authority to open mail would be found in these “enforcement statutes” – which would include the Criminal Code. The Bill would not provide police with the same authority as Canada Post inspectors to open mail without a warrant.

Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and Related Statutes

Q 28 What are the Charter and privacy impacts of the information sharing/disclosure amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act?

The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act provides a framework for the Financial Transactions Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to conduct its operations in a Charter-compliant way, and the amendments will not change this.
The relevant safeguards include strict relevance thresholds for the disclosure of information to law enforcement; immunities from compulsory processes to prevent the use of FINTRAC information for purposes other than those set out in the PCMLTFA; and statutory prohibitions on the unauthorized disclosure of information.

Q 29 A - Do these amendments to the PCMLTFA respond to the June 2022 Report of the Cullen Commission?

The report of the Cullen Commission highlighted major gaps in the AML/ATF regime as well as areas for deepened federal-provincial collaboration.
The federal government is taking action to address gaps in Canada’s AML/ATF Regime including by proposing the amendments to the Criminal Code and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) that are in the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 to strengthen the investigative, enforcement and information sharing tools of the regime.

Q 29 B - Has the federal government responded to all the relevant recommendations in the Cullen Report?

In Budget 2023, the government announced that between measures previously introduced and those proposed in Budget 2023, as well as through consultations that the government has committed to launching, the federal government will have responded to all of the recommendations within its jurisdiction in the Cullen Commission report.
In keeping with the requirements of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), the federal government will launch a parliamentary review of this act this year.
This review will include a public consultation that will examine a number of questions related to improving Canada’s Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (AML/ATF) Regime, as well as the remaining recommendations from the Cullen Commission.
Budget 2023 announced that the government will bring forward further legislative amendments, to be informed by these consultations, to give the government more tools to fight money laundering and terrorist financing.

Q 30 How do the amendments address the issues identified in the last Financial Action Task Force (FATF) evaluation of Canada’s anti-money laundering regime?

Canada was last assessed in a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) mutual evaluation process in 2016. Key issues identified at that time included relatively low metrics for the successful prosecution of money laundering offences and recovery of illicit funds, as well as a lack of transparency in beneficial ownership.
Significant work has been undertaken since that time to make sure the right tools are in place to support law enforcement and prosecutors in their work to tackle money laundering and other financial crimes, in the face of an evolving threat environment. In 2021, FATF upgraded its assessment of Canada’s compliance with internationally recognized standards.
There continues to be a need to further strengthen the regime. The amendments proposed in Bill C-47 are very much a component of this work as are the amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act proposed in Bill C-46 to provide a framework for a beneficial ownership registry.
The next FATF mutual evaluation review in 2025 will be an opportunity to take stock of the progress that has been made, and to plan for future challenges.

Q 31 Do these amendments address issues with investigating and prosecuting use of virtual currencies or crowdfunding?

Yes. The amendments would enhance FINTRAC’s ability to disclose financial intelligence related to cryptocurrency transactions.

Q 32 Do these amendments address the inability to prosecute money services business, which was an issue in BC earlier this year? (E-nationalize case)?

A new amendment in Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) would make it an offence to operate a non-registered money services business.
The PCMLTFA already contains an offence for failing to register with FINTRAC.
The new offence will facilitate the characterization of funds in possession of an unregistered money service business as proceeds of crime. This will address the problem identified by the B.C. prosecutor in the E-nationalize case, a large money laundering investigation in which the prosecutor declined to lay charges.

Q 33 What is FINTRAC’s role in the investigation and prosecution of money-laundering?

As an arm’s length administrative financial intelligence unit, FINTRAC receives reports and information which it analyses and assesses in determining whether it is required to disclose financial intelligence related to money laundering and terrorist activity financing.
FINTRAC does not have investigative powers and does not prosecute money laundering or terrorist activity financing offences. It provides tips and leads to assist police and investigators, when specific legislated thresholds set out in the PCMLTFA are met.

Q 34 How has FINTRAC’s role been enhanced by these amendments?

The amendments will enhance FINTRAC’s ability to disclose financial intelligence related to cryptocurrency transactions.
The amendments will allow FINTRAC to disclose financial intelligence to police and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs where there is a nexus between money laundering, terrorist activity financing and international sanctions.
FINTRAC will have broader information sharing authorities to share information with the Minister and Department of Finance and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Q 35 What are the whistle-blower amendments?

The amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act include a new offence relating to reprisals by employers against employees who fulfill obligations under that Act.
Certain provisions of the PCMLTFA already serve to protect employees. These include, for example, provisions that establish the vicarious liability of directors and officers for offences under the Act, and the availability of specific defences for employees who have advised their superiors of reportable transactions or property. The proposed new offence, however, would provide a new form of protection by exposing employers to criminal liability for reprisals against employees.

Q 36 Will the amendments have an impact on the issues raised by the Viau matter?

The amendments in Bill C-47 do not address the subject of the constitutional challenge in Viau v. Revenu Québec and the Quebec Department of Justice.
In the Viau matter, the defendant in a prosecution under the Québec Tax Administration Act filed a notice of constitutional question regarding section 59 of the PCMLTFA and an application for third party disclosure requesting documents from FINTRAC, which he alleges are paramount to his defense.
FINTRAC is prohibited from disclosing the information requested by Viau as he has not been charged with a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence.

Q 37 How do the sanctions related amendments address ongoing efforts to assist Ukraine?

All reporting entities under section 5 of the PCMLTFA will now be required to report to FINTRAC when they make a disclosure under the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).
The sanctions-related reports will be analysed and assessed by FINTRAC in detecting money laundering and terrorist activity financing, including money laundering involving individuals and entities in Ukraine and Russia.
When specific legislated thresholds are met, FINTRAC will be required to disclose financial intelligence to police and other specific disclosure recipients, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
FINTRAC will also be able to disclose relevant financial intelligence to foreign financial intelligence units, including those, which are assisting Ukraine.
The new provisions will assist FINTRAC is producing and disseminating financial intelligence related to Ukraine, both domestically and abroad.

Q 38 How do changes to federally regulated financial institution statutes strengthen efforts to combat money laundering and foreign interference?

Targeted enhancements to the federal financial framework will better address emerging security and integrity risks and challenges, particularly those stemming from foreign interference.
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ mandate will be enhanced by embedding management of integrity and security risks, including foreign interference, in ongoing financial sector supervision. This complements the Superintendent’s current mandate, which includes protecting depositors, policyholders, and financial institutions creditors while allowing financial institutions to take reasonable risks and compete effectively.
The proposed legislation broadens the scope of the Superintendent’s existing tools. This includes:
- Requiring federally regulated financial institutions to have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity and security, including protection against foreign interference;
- Setting out new circumstances for the Superintendent to take control that include non-prudential scenarios. The procedural steps in the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act, and the Trust and Loan Companies Act that are required when taking control remain unchanged;
- Enabling the Superintendent to issue a direction of compliance to a federally regulated financial institution when its integrity or security is threatened.
The Minister of Finance is responsible for Canada’s financial sector, which underpins a sound and stable Canadian economy. The Minister of Finance is responsible for approving the incorporation of federally regulated financial institutions and their significant owners (i.e., above 10%), and has authority to impose terms and conditions, require an undertaking, or amend or revoke approvals.
The proposed legislation adds to the Minister’s authorities by:
- Authorizing the Minister of Finance to direct a person to dispose of all shares of a federally regulated financial institution where their holding of shares poses a threat to the integrity and security of the federally regulated financial institution, to Canada’s financial system, or to Canada’s national security;
- Authorizing the Minister of Finance to direct the Superintendent to take control of a federally regulated financial institution for reasons related to national security; and
- Enabling temporary emergency exercise of the Minister of Finance’s approval powers under the statutes that govern federally regulated financial institutions for public interest reasons.

Q 39 What do financial institutions need to do to comply with these new requirements?

Federally regulated financial institutions will be required to have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity and security, including protection against foreign interference.
The proposed amendments provide financial institutions with the flexibility determine how to establish policies and procedures and their scope, subject to any regulatory expectations to be established by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Supplementary Qs & As – Criminal Code Anti-Money Laundering

Q 40 Is the special warrant for digital assets similar to measures enacted during the convoy protest in Winter 2022?

No, this warrant is not similar to the measures enacted in the Emergency Economic Measures Order in February 2022.That Order represented a strategic, targeted, and time sensitive response to an ongoing crisis.
The proposed special warrant for digital assets is similar to existing and long-standing Criminal Code search and seizure warrants. The proposed special warrant would have to be authorized by a judge prior to the execution of the search and seizure.
The warrant application would also have to establish reasonable grounds to believe that the property named in the warrant is proceeds of crime eligible for forfeiture under the Criminal Code, in relation to an offence committed in the province in which the warrant is being issued.

Q 41 Why isn’t more being done by way of Criminal Code reform to respond to the Cullen Commission recommendations?

Canada’s criminal law measures to address money laundering in the Criminal Code fulfill our international obligations and resulted in positive findings by the Cullen Commission.
That said, there is always room for improvement and we are considering additional reforms to the Criminal Code to better respond to the challenges associated with money laundering and financial crimes.
We also look forward to the upcoming Parliamentary review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Supplementary Q & A – Criminal Interest Rate

Q 42 What rates are charged by provinces that currently have a maximum rate cap for payday loans?

Currently, nine provinces have maximum rate caps on payday loans. Ontario, BC, Alberta, PEI and New Brunswick have a maximum cap of $15 per every $100 borrowed.
Newfoundland and Labrador recently changed their provincial maximum to $14 per every $100 borrowed, the lowest among all provinces.
Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan have the highest lending caps at $17 per $100 borrowed.

Supplementary Qs & As – Canada Post / Gorman v. the King

Q 43 What are Canada Post inspectors doing at the present time in light of the decision in Gorman?

The Newfoundland Court (Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, General Division) has extended the suspension of the declaration of invalidity until September 23, 2023.
In light of this, Canada Post continues to carry out searches in a manner that aims to balance Charter-protected privacy interests with the need to maintain the safety and security of people in Canada, the postal system, and Canada Post employees.
Canada Post compliance standards require reasonable grounds to believe and second level approvals before a mail item may be inspected by trained Postal Inspectors.

Background: The decision of the court issuing the extension of time is an unreported decision dated April 12, 2023.

Q 44 How many Canada Post Corporation (CPC) inspectors are there across Canada?

Canada Post has approximately 90 employees working in security and investigations services.
This includes 21 inspectors who deal with regulatory inspections and law enforcement engagements.
(According to Senator Dalphond’s press release and Senate speech there are currently 25 postal inspectors in Canada.)

Q 45 How many parcels are shipped in Canada annually through Canada Post?

Canada Post shipped 286 million parcels in 2022, and 361 million parcels in 2021.
In 2021, postal inspectors inspected and removed 3,457 parcels which were found to contain non-mailable matter, an increase of 11.5% compared to 2020 when 3,100 parcels were found to contain non-mailable matter.

Date modified:: 2023-09-15