Bill C-25 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 5, 2006
- Debated in principleOct. 24, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 10, 2006
- Passed the second chamberDec. 13, 2006
- Became lawDec. 14, 2006
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- W. David AngusSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Thierry St-Cyrexplicitly states the party plans to support the bill while noting privacy measures in committee
- John McCallumstates the Liberal Party supports the principle and the bill as amended
- Diane Ablonczydescribes the legislation as containing needed measures to toughen the regime
- John McKaystates the side of the House will be supporting the bill as it improves prior work
- Mario Laframboisestates the Bloc Québécois will support the legislation due to the fight against terrorist financing
- Chris Warkentinexplicitly endorses the bill as an update to fight money laundering and terrorist financing
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
72% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (14,139 words introduced, 14,016 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core anti-money laundering and terrorist financing measures but added references to insurance companies and refined several definitions and reporting rules. Wording on correspondent banking, foreign subsidiaries, and terrorism regulations was adjusted between introduction and assent.
- Expanded the foreign subsidiaries rule to cover insurance companies.
After: “and for authorized foreign companies within the meaning of section 2 of the Insurance Companies Act”
- Updated the name of the terrorism regulations in the disclosure section.
Before: “United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations”
After: “Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on the Suppression of Terrorism”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill relies heavily on subjective tests such as reasonable grounds to suspect and ministerial satisfaction, plus broad references to regulations and prescribed matters. This leaves many boundaries open to argument rather than settled by clear numbers or objective criteria.
Open to argument
“if the Minister is satisfied that there was no contravention”
Personal opinion test rather than an objective checklist.“indicators of a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence”
Undefined term that officials must interpret case by case.“the Minister considers that there was an error with respect to the penalty assessed”
Discretionary judgment without fixed criteria.
Clear-cut
“within 30 days after a seizure made under subsection 18(1)”
Fixed time limit that can be applied mechanically.“20 per cent or more of the shares”
Numerical threshold that removes interpretive room.“"Minister" means, in relation to sections 24.1 to 39, the Minister of Public Safety and Emer”
Defined term that assigns responsibility without ambiguity.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Minister, delegated officers, and regulations to designate violations, set forms, prescribe family members, and decide when information may be shared or penalties reduced.
Challenging the law itself. Frequent use of 'reasonable grounds to suspect' and broad disclosure powers could be challenged under Charter sections 7 and 8 for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing a penalty or reporting obligation can readily argue that the subjective suspicion or risk-assessment standards were not met on the facts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.