Declaration of Emergency Committee on May 3rd, 2022

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Would you like to move a motion to that effect, Mr. Virani?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes. I would move that we continue with five-minute rounds in rounds two and three.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

We now have a five-minute round for Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses.

I want to start with Mr. MacKillop. Am I correct that this appearance today would represent your third appearance at various committees over the last several months?

[Barry MacKillop]

I believe that is correct, Mr. Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

That would be finance you testified at on February 24. I don't know if public safety was pre-finance or post-finance, but it was probably in the month of February as well.

[Barry MacKillop]

Mr. Chair, I do not recall the days, but you are correct it was both the finance and security committees.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Following your testimony at both of those committees, was there a debriefing session with you and any member of the government? I'll be very specific in what I mean by that. Did you have any conversations with the Prime Minister? Did you have any conversations with cabinet ministers, specifically the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness or quite frankly, any member of the Liberal caucus? Did you speak to anyone post your attendances?

[Barry MacKillop]

I did not, Mr. Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Now I'm going to ask you for the third time questions that were put to you by my colleague Mr. Motz and my colleague Mr. Green that you seemed to have some difficulty responding to with clarity. If there is any confusion in the way that I phrase this question, please ask for clarification. I'm more than happy to try to simplify the question because I'm hoping I'm going to get a straight answer.

To Mr. Motz's question, with respect to the 280 financial products that were frozen.... I appreciate that the legislation you are governed by prohibits you from giving us specifics, but the question I'm asking you is not on specifics. The question I'm asking you is: Upon your review or that of anyone working under your command at FINTRAC, did you uncover any evidence of terrorist activities or money laundering?

[Barry MacKillop]

I will try to answer this as completely as I can, bearing in mind that it's without providing specifics.

With reference to the 280 financial products, I do not know. I do not have a list of those individuals. If a reporting entity, a financial institution in this case, knew of one of these individuals or had one of these designated, and, in their review of the person's transactions and historical transactions, they suspected that some of their historical transactions were related to money laundering or support for anything else in terms of terrorism, then they would have reported an STR to me. I would not necessarily know, and I would not know that it came because of the designation per se.

The financial institutions do adverse media reviews on all their clients on a regular basis, not necessarily linked to the convoy, but on a regular basis adverse media reviews are done as one of the tools they use to identify people who they may want—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. MacKillop, you're not answering the question.

With due respect, you are not, so I'll be more specific now. From February 15 to February 23, did your department receive any information from any financial institution in this country of any evidence of money laundering or terrorist activities, yes or no?

[Barry MacKillop]

Yes, we receive about 9,000 STRs a week, sir.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'm asking about February 15 to the February 23 in relation to this particular act, the Emergencies Act, and the order by which the financial institutions were required to report. Did they report terrorist activities or money laundering, yes or no?

[Barry MacKillop]

Mr. Chair, they would have reported money laundering or terrorist financing on individuals not necessarily involved in this. They may have been individuals involved in this convoy. The money laundering per se or the terrorist financing per se would not have been directly linked to the convoy.

However, there may have been individuals in the convoy who were identified in the newspapers who historically, through transaction monitoring, may have been identified as having committed potential money laundering activities or money laundering-type activities that the institution would have reported.

During the week of February 15 to February 23, during that period of time, we would have received somewhere around 9,000 STRs, some of which may have involved individuals who were in Ottawa, but there was no convoy-related money laundering per se.

The convoy itself was not an event that was used to launder funds. It was an event where funding was provided to support the convoy in advance of it being declared illegal, at which time any transactions to support would have been frozen and disallowed by the financial institutions.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

Just for the note of the committee, I did allow that final question to be answered. It was an important question.

We will now go on to Mr Virani, who also has a five-minute round.

Mr. Virani, the floor is yours.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

I'll direct my questions to Ms. Jacques, and I have many questions, so I'd appreciate somewhat brief responses, if possible.

The economic measures order that we've been discussing at length for the last hour applied nationally, correct, not just to Parliament Hill?

[Isabelle Jacques]

Correct.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We've been talking a great deal about accounts being frozen. When accounts were frozen for a 90-day period during the invocation, in whose custody did those assets reside? Did they remain with the financial institution that may have had them?

[Isabelle Jacques]

Yes. They remained where they were. They were simply not accessible by the owners.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay.

You had indicated there were 280 products frozen, but those could have been for fewer than 280 individuals because I, for example, could have had four accounts that were frozen.

[Isabelle Jacques]

That is correct.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

You said the accounts would have been unfrozen either because the designated person was no longer designated—so the person had packed up and left the blockade in Windsor or in Ottawa—or because the invocation of the declaration had expired. Is that correct?

[Isabelle Jacques]

That is accurate.