Finance Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP McLean, your time is up.

We are now moving to the Liberals, for three and a half minutes, and MP Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this has been a very helpful discussion, because like many MPs around the country, we were flooded by fear. Hopefully, we can return to our constituency offices, and respond to those calls, and say, “If you have donated before February 15, your account won't be frozen. Moreover, for financial institutions to freeze your account, they need the information that you participated in a blockade, or that you used that money for such a reason.”

Again, we all have the statement, and I can link it to my Conservative colleague, where the RCMP said that the list that was provided to financial institutions included identities of individuals who were influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa, owners or drivers of vehicles, who did not want to leave the area impacted by the protest. At no time did the RCMP provide a list of donors to financial institutions. I think we have a responsibility to reassure the population in this area.

One of my main concerns is about the source of the funds, and those crowdfunding platforms. I'm extremely worried, when I hear, because of the leak, that the money, millions of dollars, and half of the donations came from the United States, other countries, and anonymous sources.

I know that right now we have a gap in finding the ultimate sources, the beneficial owners of accounts here in Canada. We don't have a registry, and it won't be ready before 2025. I welcomed the amendment in last year's budget, but I'm extremely concerned.

Ms. Jacques, this is a question for you. If we do have the information, can we trace back the money to the owner of these accounts in the U.S.?

[Isabelle Jacques]

To my knowledge, not currently, and I do not know if I have a colleague on the phone who would be able to give you a better answer. I don't know if Manuel and Julien are on the line.

[Julien Brazeau, Director General, Financial Crimes and Security Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Yes, I am here.

Unfortunately, no. We don't have...I think FINTRAC would likely be in a better position to know the origin of funds. Again, it gets information or transaction reports where there's a suspicion of potential money laundering, or when individuals are making large-value transactions. It may have the information, but we at the department wouldn't have that line of sight in terms of the origin of those funds.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

We have identified in this Emergencies Act several gaps in our legislation. What are the concrete steps that we would have to take as a government and you as a department to fill those gaps?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

A short answer, please.

[Isabelle Jacques]

Julien, if you may.

[Julien Brazeau]

Sure. Briefly, Isabelle spoke to this before. I think the major gaps are information-gathering gaps, and that's what we're trying to address by working on regulations that will capture crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers with a view to having a better line of sight in terms of where the flow of funds is coming from and to what ends those funds are being used. Those are measures that I think the government has announced it wishes to make permanent. As Isabelle said, we're working on those at the moment.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are now moving to the Bloc and MP Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for the Department of Finance officials, so for Ms. Jacques or her colleagues.

Under regular legislation, financial institutions are somewhat accustomed to freezing accounts in cases of financial fraud, laundering of ill‑gotten gains or funding of criminal activity. In these cases, the normal procedure is to inform FINTRAC and wait for its response before unfreezing the accounts if necessary. As I said, this is all done under the regular legislation.

In my opinion, the order is written in a fairly vague way. I'd like to know whether the department has given clearer guidance to FINTRAC on how to deal with the freezing of accounts.

[Isabelle Jacques]

No, FINTRAC isn't allowed to tell banks to freeze or unfreeze accounts. That isn't part of its role. I'm sure that you'll have the chance to discuss this matter in more detail on Thursday when the FINTRAC officials appear before the committee. Not only is this not its role under normal circumstances, it isn't its role under the current order.

Mr. Brazeau, would you like to expand on my response?

[Julien Brazeau]

I just want to make it clear that the FINTRAC officials haven't received any form of communication from the department regarding the freezing of accounts. This type of practice isn't part of its mandate.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you for your response.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the officials from the various departments. They're doing an incredible job. We received a great deal of information today. I sincerely appreciate it.

I'll use the rest of my time to address my colleagues on the committee.

Over the past few days in the House, we've been dealing with the order and the Emergency Measures Act. In light of our work today and all the information provided in the House, my initial concern has been confirmed. After failing to act in the first few weeks of the siege in Ottawa, the government wanted to make a splash by passing the Emergency Measures Act. It wanted to send a message to the public that it was taking action and being proactive. However, so far, I haven't seen anything that shows that we absolutely must pull out the nuclear weapon of legislative options: the Emergency Measures Act. Everything could have been covered by the regular legislation. From my point of view and from the Bloc Québécois's perspective, this is really a communication exercise. Moreover, it has set a dangerous precedent. I imagine that the committee's ongoing work will continue to provide more in‑depth information for our analysis.

I'll end on that note, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Our last questioner is going to be NDP MP Blaikie for three and a half minutes, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

I would repeat the comments that were made earlier to the effect that we really are in uncharted territory with the use of the act, so it's an important test case. I think there are a lot of lessons that we need to learn and it's incumbent upon the committee to be able to make good recommendations on what we have learned from this and how to ensure that, when powers like this are used, they're used appropriately and they're not used any more than they must be in order to deal with a national emergency.

I think there's a civil liberties association already that's challenging the use of the act. I welcome that test. I think it's appropriate that these things be tested in court.

For Canadians who have had a bank account frozen and who feel that it was inappropriate because they had nothing to do with the convoy, for instance, one of the things they need—and this is why I've been talking about the importance of a notice, letting people know that their account was in fact frozen under the authority of the Emergencies Act—is to know that that's why their account was frozen, and then they need resources obviously in order to be able to challenge that.

I'm wondering what thought the government has given, and what the plan is, for Canadians to be able to pursue this after the fact if they felt that the government got it wrong in flagging them to financial authorities, and that they weren't dealt with appropriately under the emergency orders. What recourse will there be for them? Who would be held responsible if there was a successful court case that found they were inappropriately flagged?

[Isabelle Jacques]

As we discussed before, certainly the issue of notice is something that we will take a look at. Certainly, in view of the extraordinary nature of the Emergencies Act and the steps that had to be taken rapidly to stop the funding of illegal blockades, it was felt that the act as drafted meets the charter requirements, that there's an ongoing requirement to review the information the financial institutions have in their possession, and that there's a quick possible resolution to an account being frozen: the person ceases the illegal activity, returns home, advises the bank, and the account can be unfrozen fairly rapidly. If it's a case of mistaken identity, it's the same thing: a quick discussion with the financial institution and verification of wrongful identity and the account can be unfrozen quickly.

I think in view of the way it's been set up and the positive obligation to review on an ongoing basis, we felt that the persons were well protected.

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

If I may just add, I would draw your attention to subsection 47(2) of the act, which states that while persons can be subject to immunity, the Crown does remain responsible pursuant to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. Therefore, should there ever be a case where damages were to be awarded, the act provides that the Crown is ultimately liable.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay, so there is an avenue for Canadians to pursue remedies if they feel they've been treated wrongly under the law.

I know we have the court challenges program. Would that be a suitable place for Canadians to go for resources in order to be able to challenge these things in court, or are there any other kinds of supports for challenges to the use of these powers being contemplated by government at the moment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Give a very short answer, please.

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I don't feel, myself, comfortable to suggest how folks should seek legal advice, but there are various mechanisms out there that people can access.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie. That is the time.

This is also the time—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have a point of information, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know we were saving 15 minutes for discussion of the motion, but there have been some discussions behind the scenes with the parties, and I believe there will be a unanimous consent provided for an amended motion.

Since I took some time from my colleagues earlier discussing the motion, if it's okay with the rest of my colleagues, we wanted to offer both the Bloc and the NDP an additional couple of minutes if they had any additional time. That's an offer we'd be willing to make if it's okay with the rest of the committee, as we have our witnesses here.