Poilievre’s senior protection plan is all shine and no substance
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre announced a slew of measures aimed at “protecting seniors from scams” while on the election campaign trail in Montreal this morning.
At first listen, Poilievre’s plan sounds exactly like what he promised Canadians - “common sense solutions” for a very real problem.
However, there is a lot of missing context.
**As this is an election promise, let’s keep a large grain of salt nearby to remind us that all this can’t happen unless they’re elected**
Let’s dive in.
Looking closer at the Conservative press release, we can see the seven points to this new venture:
Require mandatory scam detection systems for banks and cell phone companies, especially for high-risk accounts such as seniors over 65.
Require real-time flagging and blocking of suspicious activity, including unusual or suspicious money transfers, repeated phishing text patterns, and robocall patterns—backed by heavy penalties for non-compliance.
Create a Senior Transaction Shielding Protocol (STSP): a mandatory 24-hour transaction delay for high-risk transactions on seniors’ accounts–or on the accounts of anyone else who requests such protection–during which time a verification call and fraud check must occur.
Mandate public reporting by banks and telcos on fraud prevention statistics, volume of scam data blocked, and customer reimbursements made.
Impose a mandatory minimum one-year jail sentence for fraud over $5,000, three years for fraud over $100,000, five years for fraud over $1 million and minimum fines of ten times the amount defrauded.
Impose penalties of up to $5 million per violation for willful neglect for failure to implement adequate scam prevention tools.
Create a new Criminal Code offence of “willful blind profiteering from fraud,” targeting executives who ignore red flags and knowingly allow scam traffic or activity to continue.
FIRST REACTION:
When I first watched the clip of his announcement on CPAC, I had so many questions come to mind I had to pause the video and write them down as he spoke.
Fear not, I have done the work for you to provide the context that’s missing from Poilievre’s announcement
Canadian flags
Let’s start with point one: requiring banks and telcos to have scam detection systems, especially for those over the age of 65.
How is this different from the measures they have in place already?
Banks and telcos in Canada have anti-money laundering departments, risk analysts and fraud detection centres - so what ‘detection system’ is he referring to?
We get a slight answer in this CBC piece, where the journalist mentions “under the plan, corporations would be required to employ the same AI tools they currently use to optimize their marketing and sales initiatives to track possible instances of fraud,” as per a backgrounder released to media by the party (I have not seen this document myself).
So, nothing new in there…later in the CBC piece we get this; “banks and telecom companies would be required to implement mandatory scam detection systems that are specially crafted to protect seniors over 65.”
But with no answer on what tech or systems or oversight or tools the Conservatives would mandate to be used in this instance…sounds quite hollow.
Also, how are you going to enforce that a business uses specific AI tools for specific things?
A person types on a laptop.
Let’s move on to point two: requiring real-time flagging and blocking of suspicious activity.
Again, sounds great in theory and standing at the podium, but in reality how would that work?
Major corporations like the banks and telco companies that operate in Canada have been cutting and slashing costs for ages, including outsourcing labour to overseas call centres.
So where is the “manpower” going to come from for such a major undertaking? Who is going to enforce that banks and telcos implement this measure, which is already something they try to do?
Based on costs alone I would guess the “easiest” solution for these companies will be to use even more AI for any monitoring project borne out of this Conservative announcement.
We know there are a lot of privacy, ethical and environmental concerns surrounding the use of AI, so this is not much of a solution.
A man uses a laptop and phone.
Which brings us to point three: creating a Senior Transaction Shielding Protocol (STSP).
Everyone loves a good acronym, and STSP delivers - requiring a 24-hour delay for “high-risk transactions” on seniors’ accounts - or on anyone else who requests to be under STSP - during which time a verification call and fraud check must occur.
Sounds like common sense, right?
But who determines what counts as a “high-risk transaction” and how will the companies using this protocol ensure that it doesn’t infringe on ethical and autonomy rights of seniors or anyone else under the umbrella of STSP?
Will social services, caretakers or family members be able to place seniors under an STSP protocol if they think it’s necessary?
Hmmm…definitely an eyebrow raise there.
Now on to point four: A mandatory public reporting requirement from banks and telcos regarding how many scams are going on in Canada in the moment.
How will that be enforced?
Currently Canadians are directed to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, which is run jointly between the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police (or your local law enforcement) and Competition Bureau Canada.
CAFC already regularly reports on scams, fraud and other public safety and awareness issues - so what will the extra reporting from the banks and telcos do?
I doubt they will be keen to release that information (which is actually why it's not a bad idea in theory!) but why mandate individual reporting from each company - which I can already foresee will come at 5 p.m. on a friday in that quarter - versus mandating they must regularly release reports to the CAFC so they can disperse the entire picture the data presents.
“Each company would be required to issue public quarterly reports detailing their fraud-prevention statistics including how many scams they blocked and customers they reimbursed” as per CBC.
Seems a tad shortsighted to me - who would validate the data from the individual companies?
A maple leaf formed out of architecture.
Point five definitely grabs your attention: mandatory minimum jail sentences of one, three and five years for those guilty of fraud over $5000, $100,000 and $1 million, plus the addition of fines that will at minimum charge 10 times the amount that was defrauded.
Currently in Canada people convicted of fraud over $5,000 do not face a minimum sentence but can be sentenced to prison for up to 14 years.
Those convicted of fraud over $1 million face a minimum prison term of two years and a maximum of 14 years, per the Criminal Code website.
Poilievre has been parroting the usual Conservative “tough on crime” schtick they have used since the 80s, but this time with a distinctive American flair.
Mandatory minimums, three strike laws and other incarceration initiatives may appeal to his base and our friends south of the border, but it’s not such a simple task in the North - and campaign promises do not criminal code amendments make.
Which is what the Conservatives would have to do, put forward an amendment to our Criminal Code, where it would then pass through three readings in the House and Commons - these amendments must be passed by all branches of Parliament.
But first they have to be elected, of course.
You can keep track of proposed Criminal Code amendments being considered by Parliament by visiting the site ‘Proposed Legislation - Canada’s System of Judgement.’
A generic jail cell.
Some follow up questions come to mind.
We can see here from a 2022 RCMP press release that an international scam taking advantage of the elderly was busted - and the alleged suspect was charged in connection under the current provisions we have in the criminal code.
“Smith (31), a non-resident currently residing in Toronto, has been charged with the following:
Fraud over $5,000, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;
Possession of Proceeds of Crime, contrary to Section 354 of the Criminal Code;
Laundering of the Proceeds of Crime, contrary to Section 462.31 of the Criminal Code.”
If there is already language, precedent and charges that our police and justice system use - why add more?
Heavier sentences are not necessarily the deterrence many politicians fervently wish it was, so is this another case of our police forces not having the willpower, manpower or resources to enforce what laws we already have?
Perhaps a question for the Ottawa pool to put to Poilievre, if he lets them.
What will be the protocol for scammers who operate overseas?
Many Canadians remember the uproar over the CRA scam that had the RCMP making arrests domestically and in tandem with international authorities.
These were massive investigations that took months to years, teams of officers and diplomatic wrangling - so with the Cons keen on cutting spending, who is going to cover the costs of these new measures coming into play?
An RCMP sergeant quoted in this 2018 CTV article about CRA scam arrests summed up the solution years ago: “the most effective tool to curb the spread of the scam is through education.”
“We know that other call centres will spring up … but if we can really focus on prevention to educate people what is a fraud, then that will be better,” he said (translated from French).
Well, we already have fraud prevention resources set up - so wouldn’t the Conservatives show they understand the issue best by announcing more funding for what we currently have, including translation into more languages than just English and French?
Two people and a tablet.
Points six and seven in Poilievre’s announcement have merit in my opinion, but only in theory.
Imposing penalties up to $5 million per violation for failing to implement adequate scam prevention tools sounds weighty, but between corporate lawyers and this country’s long history of barely holding companies accountable - Id’ guess they’d be able to wriggle and loophole their way through most fines associated with this.
Who is going to determine what is “adequate”?
What if a bank chooses a scam prevention tool that the government disagrees with or hails from a country with ‘security concerns?’
While five million dollars sounds sky-high for those of us with our feet firmly planted in a lower tax bracket, for major multi-billion corporations, it’s pocket change.
As the saying goes; “A fine is just the price the rich pay to break the law and avoid jail.”
On that note, the promise to make a new Criminal Code offence (or add an amendment as we know from earlier), that tackles the “willful blind profiteering from fraud” by company executives who “ignore red flags and knowingly allow scam traffic or activity to continue” again sounds like a sensible idea.
It also sounds like a massive can of worms to attempt to try in court.
Most executives are very insulated and protected (legally or otherwise) - and to prove their involvement in or knowledge of a scam would rely on whistleblower testimony, massive amounts of evidence and a long legal process - not insurmountable challenges, but definitely no walk in the park the way it’s presented in this promise.
So what’s the verdict on Poilievre’s plan to protect seniors?
A lot of flash, a lot of fluff and all shine - but no substance.
P.S.: The State of Things reached out to the Conservatives regarding this announcement and will report if and when they reply.