Evidence of meeting #18 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was list.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:25 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Was Desjardins part of the same discussions you were or the same discussions as the banks, or was the issue discussed with Desjardins after it was discussed with you and the banks?
8:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association
I don't know.
8:25 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
All right. Thank you.
Six banks were consulted before you were.
Do you know why your members weren't consulted when the members of the Canadian Bankers Association were consulted?
8:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association
It's because there's a perception that exists at the federal level that the financial sector in Canada consists of six banks. That's an exaggeration, but not really. These are six federally regulated financial institutions that do represent the lion's share of financial services in Canada. If you're the federal government, it's a lot easier to deal with six institutions instead of 250. But if you're only dealing with six, you're missing 20% of the market; 50% of the market, in some provinces.
8:25 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Did you ask the government to inform you when it informs the banks?
8:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association
Yes.
8:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association
The answer is always similar, but the challenge persists. It's a cultural reality within the federal government to treat the financial sector as six institutions. Now, that has gotten better over the years, but this is just the most recent example of a federal issue—
8:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
That's what federal officials told you.
I gather that they didn't apologize. They told you that that's how it was, period.
Is that right?
8:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Monsieur Fortin, je m'excuse, sir. Thank you.
I will pass the chair to you. I'm sure you have your clock ready.
8:30 p.m.
Bloc
8:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
8:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you very much.
I'm keenly interested in trying to get an understanding of what the threshold was. What was material in terms of the participation for people to potentially have their accounts frozen? I know that we heard fantastic stories from some sides of the House that poor Mrs. Jones had her account frozen for a $20 donation.
Ms. Mason, I want you to have the opportunity to respond to that and then maybe talk about what the financial thresholds were for having your account frozen.
8:30 p.m.
General Counsel and Vice-President, Canadian Bankers Association
Sure.
I'll begin with the fact that the vast majority of accounts frozen were based solely on the list provided by the RCMP. For those ones that we were required to freeze because we had an independent duty to determine under the order, it wasn't like a blanket threshold or a dollar amount. The way we did it was to apply our normal processes for looking at unusual or suspicious activity. That by its nature would be something material to even catch our eye in the first place. It's not as simple as saying it was a specific dollar amount.
I can give one example of a case that obviously was reported, and that predated the Emergencies Act but was part of the public hearing, where all of a sudden a million dollars landed in a personal deposit account. That would have caught someone's attention because of the amount. When you look through the lens and realize it's related to the fundraising, that's when you notice something significant.
So it would be a significant event that would cause that to be noticed.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
How many accounts did you freeze outside of the list that was provided? You mentioned that there was a discretionary opportunity. I'm wondering how many you pursued, Ms. Mason—or the banking sector; my apologies.
8:30 p.m.
General Counsel and Vice-President, Canadian Bankers Association
My understanding is that there were about four or five.
Again, this was not a discretion. We had a duty to freeze if our systems noted something unusual and it matched the activities in Ottawa.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Sorry. The distinction there is that you were directed to do that, but these were people who were above and beyond the list provided to you. Is that correct?
8:30 p.m.
General Counsel and Vice-President, Canadian Bankers Association
That is correct.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
8:30 p.m.
General Counsel and Vice-President, Canadian Bankers Association
The only accounts still frozen would be those that are subject to ongoing orders. There was freezing that took place because of court orders that were put in place.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
When the RCMP provided the lists of protesters directly involved in the convoy protests, what additional information, if any, did they provide other than their personal information?
8:30 p.m.
General Counsel and Vice-President, Canadian Bankers Association
In their original list, they would describe at a high level some of the activities that the individuals were conducting that got them on the list, basically.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Were you instructed with any information in terms of how to go about freezing it?
8:30 p.m.
General Counsel and Vice-President, Canadian Bankers Association
No. We actually saw clarity on the freezing. That was one of our very initial questions—the scope of the freezing. We asked questions: Could ongoing payments continue to go through? Was there an opportunity to have, for example, humanitarian measures to allow for minimum withdrawals for child support? The initial response we had was that there were no exceptions. When we asked again, we were told “we'll need to get back to you”, but then it became a moot point, because by then the order had been revoked.