Declaration of Emergency Committee on May 3rd, 2022

[Isabelle Jacques]

Of course, if people had given funds and taken part in illegal activities, and these people decided to stop taking part in illegal activities, then the financial institutions would unfreeze the accounts.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Excuse me, Ms. Jacques. You're talking about the effect.

Here's what I want to say: the reason for the imposition of the conditions stated in the order was, according to what I've noted from your response to Senator Carignan, to encourage people to leave Parliament Hill. That's why their bank accounts were seized or frozen, let's say. I'm not looking for an argument here....

[Isabelle Jacques]

I think it was definitely a secondary effect.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

An effect? You said earlier it was the reason. Are you no longer sticking to your previous answer?

[Isabelle Jacques]

What I want to say is that we took these measures and that the goal was certainly to try to deter people…

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

… to deter them from coming and protesting…

[Isabelle Jacques]

...and from financing illegal activities.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you.

Having agreed on that Ms. Jacques, I'd like to ask you another question.

You heard Mr. MacKillop's answers to my questions in the previous round. He told me that there were approximately 9,000 suspicious transaction reports every week, among other things, from financial institutions, and that this applied year-round. I did the calculation, and that means 400,000 to 500,000 suspicious transaction reports per year.

Mr. MacKillop told us that of these transactions, approximately 2,000 per year were deemed to be serious and disclosed to the RCMP. He also confirmed that during the eight days the order was in effect, the rate was the same.

In light of that, am I to understand that there were not really any instances of suspected transactions used to finance illegal activities?

There really weren't any after the order came into force. That leaves the reason you gave, which was that it was to encourage people to leave the Hill. After hearing all the explanations, that seems to be the only possible reason.

Am I right?

[Isabelle Jacques]

I don't think we can draw those conclusions, first of all because just one of those 2,000 disclosures might contain several thousand suspicious activity reports, if I have properly understood what my colleague…

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

What I want to say is that it had the desired effect. The suspicious activities were all being reported.

[Isabelle Jacques]

They are reported, but there is not necessarily a link between the suspicious transaction that was reported and the freezing of a bank account.

So I don't see any link between the two.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Ms. Jacques.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I will now pass pass the chair over to Senator Boniface for my five-minute round.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Mr. Green, you can proceed. You have five minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

My first question is through you to Ms. Jacques.

Ms. Jacques, I believe I heard in your earlier testimony that your department was not conducting an internal review. Is that correct?

[Isabelle Jacques]

Of the activities? Not currently, no.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Of the actions in relation to the temporary special measures, there's been no reflection, given the gravity of—

[Isabelle Jacques]

No, no, there's been reflection. I mean, as you heard, with respect to adding crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers, that situation has now been implemented permanently, as we announced previously. I mean, we have regulations in place—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I heard in your testimony that you specifically did not provide economic impact...and I appreciate that. I want to make sure that my words are precise here. You may have alluded, based on Senator Boniface's questions, that other people in your department would have been providing this information.

Can you share with the committee today, based on your senior management position within the department, who that would have been to provide that information that would have led to the economic features within the emergency act order?

[Isabelle Jacques]

In all honesty, I will have to get back to you, because I have no knowledge of, at the time, the analysis that was ongoing, if any. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some analysis, but I'm not able to tell you who would have done any of this analysis at that time. Whether it was—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll go further to comment, through you, Madam Chair, that I'm going to raise my concerns again.

What I'm hearing in testimony is my interpretation of what you've said, and so I'm not attributing to what you meant. I'm just telling you how I interpreted it. You were caught, two days' notice, without much briefing in terms of the Department of Justice or others as it relates to the charter.

In your position, when you're contemplating legislation, are you ever legislatively required to provide a charter breach analysis on the policies that you enact?

[Isabelle Jacques]

The Department of Justice provides all the advice and the analysis on whether it's constitutional, the charter impact, or the legality of the legislation being passed.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is that something that you're privy to, given your senior position within the department?

[Isabelle Jacques]

When we legislate, certainly if I'm responsible for a certain piece of legislation and we receive legal advice—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Given this piece of legislation, through you, Madam Chair, would you have been provided with a charter breach analysis for contemplation?