Evidence of meeting #9 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 laws.
A video is available from Parliament.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Thank you.
I'm going to go back to my series of questions about seizure. What you are saying is that because there was no dispossession of property or money, and the money stayed in the bank accounts, there was no seizure. Is that correct?
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
Yes, that's what I said.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
You know that if your lawyers say that in the Supreme Court, they're going to give you a hard time, right?
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
If the case gets to the Supreme Court...
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
It's going to get there, and you're going to have a hard time.
The other thing you mentioned, to say that it wasn't a seizure, is that it wasn't you who seized the money, it was the bank that froze it. Is that right?
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
Yes, that's right. It was the banks that did the... It was the banks that froze the accounts.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
No.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
When a bank freezes or seizes an account, don't you think it is acting as an agent of the state?
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
The order creates an obligation for the bank and the bank makes its decision. It's in its discretion to act or not act, based on the information it has.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Once again, that's going to be very difficult in the Supreme Court, I'm telling you.
When I look at the order on financial products, I'm trying to find a financial product that would not be covered. You said it was measured, it was not excessive, and it was reasonable. What are the financial products that could not have been frozen? I'm trying to find one that couldn't be seized, and I haven't found anything.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I'm going to ask my colleague Ms. Aitken to answer your question.
Jenifer Aitken Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Central Agencies Portfolio, Department of Justice
I think I could give you an example in the order with respect to insurance policies. The order says they are not to be frozen except for insurance policies that apply to motor vehicles, participating or being used in illegal protests or blockades.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Central Agencies Portfolio, Department of Justice
Otherwise, there is a list of financial services. I don't have any other exceptions, but that was one I wanted to provide.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Right. So all other products were covered by a seizure.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Central Agencies Portfolio, Department of Justice
They are services provided by the list of entities that are in section 3 of the order.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Right.
How was it reasonable to seize virtually everything that moves in an individual's financial products?
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Central Agencies Portfolio, Department of Justice
It's not seizing. It's freezing, and it is only applicable to designated persons as they're defined in the order, which are persons participating in illegal activities.
The financial institutions had an ongoing obligation to review the situation, and if they found somebody was no longer participating, they were to stop the freezing.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Are you familiar with the decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Laroche?
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Did you say you're familiar with it?
I have now asked the question twice, and I can't get an answer.
