Finance Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2022

[Isabelle Jacques]

That is correct. Yes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Are you aware of any circumstances where a financial institution has provided evidence from the RCMP or other sources and the bank has not frozen the account?

[Isabelle Jacques]

I do not know. We would not receive that information.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay.

I'd like to pick up on my colleague, Mr. Blaikie's, line.

Are you aware of an opportunity for an individual to either be notified or make any representations to the financial institution or law enforcement prior to an account being frozen?

[Isabelle Jacques]

No, not to my knowledge. Not under this order.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay.

I hope you can help me understand something.

One thing we've been told about this act is that it complies with the charter.

[Isabelle Jacques]

Yes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Saying that something complies with the charter doesn't necessarily make it true. It's in the preamble of the Emergencies Act.

I'm having a hard time understanding how a financial institution—which, by the way, is a third party—acting as the judge and the jury without the opportunity for an individual to make any representation is complying with the charter.

[Isabelle Jacques]

I understand your question.

I will give a partial answer and then turn to my Justice colleague.

This was considered when the order was drafted. Section 3, “Duty to determine”, inserts into the order an obligation on the financial entities to “determine on a continuing basis whether they are in possession or control of property that is owned, held or controlled by or on behalf of a designated person”. That section was inserted specifically for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the charter and ensuring that financial institutions review this on an ongoing basis.

Let's suppose that your bank account was frozen, but you were the wrong person and you were not involved. You have the opportunity to go to your institution and say that you're not involved in illegal activities, that you did not finance any activities and that your account was frozen by mistake.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay. I respect that answer. It's just that we're short on time.

With respect to due process, I mean, that is not.... Prior to a determination being made, I mean, there's no opportunity for an individual to provide any representation. To me, that's a violation of the charter and due process.

Second, was there any information or direction given to financial institutions about what information...and how long they can keep information on file on these individuals?

[Isabelle Jacques]

On the information piece, there wasn't to my knowledge, but the information was shared for the financial institution to make a determination.

On the charter issue—again, I may want to turn to my Justice colleague—one needs to remember that these are extraordinary measures. They are temporary. In time—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Correct, but I think—

[Isabelle Jacques]

—if the behaviour stops, then there is an obligation, upon review, to unfreeze the account.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's your time, Mr. Chambers. Thank you.

We will now move to the Liberals.

MP Baker, you have five minutes, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm having some technical difficulties here. If I cut out, I apologize in advance.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] from some members that there have been freezes on individual bank accounts for someone merely donating, or purchasing merchandise for the blockades. The RCMP actually put out a statement, I think in part to kind of clarify this issue. I'll just read it. It's very brief. This was from yesterday:

Under the Emergency Economic Measures Order (Emergencies Act), the list that was provided to Financial Institutions included identities of individuals who were influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa, and owners and/or drivers of vehicles who did not want to leave the area impacted by the protest. At no time, did we provide a list of donors to Financial Institutions.

We are now working with the banks to build a process to address the accounts that were frozen.

I thought that was important to clarify. The RCMP is trying to clarify who the individuals are on that list they've provided to financial institutions. Again, they're saying they're “influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa, and owners and/or drivers of vehicles who did not want to leave the area”. It's important, because it speaks to the scope of who's on the RCMP's list and therefore who's being targeted by the financial institutions.

Could you clarify when the measures were implemented and whether or not they apply retroactively?

[Isabelle Jacques]

The measures were implemented on February 15. They do not apply retroactively.

Going to your example and understanding the information that was shared by the RCMP with the financial institutions, I must admit that based on the knowledge I have, I think it would be unlikely—I can't imagine—that someone who gave $20 three weeks ago, or even $20 post February 15, would have been captured by a freeze. It's not impossible in view of the order, but in view of the exchange of information and the focused approach that was taken to stop the illegal funding of these activities, it would appear to be unlikely that this occurred, but not impossible.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Could you speak to your earlier answer to a question from another member about the number of accounts that have been frozen? Could you repeat for us how many accounts we're talking about, and, if you have that information, because there have been public reports on this, the amount of money that's involved?

[Isabelle Jacques]

Yes. As you may know, that information has flown over time, and now that banks are unfreezing accounts, it may not be accurate. I do not have additional information.

So the numbers must be lower today, as we speak, but to my knowledge, I would say it's over 206 accounts. For the total value, the latest number I have is approximately $7.8 million.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

If I took that $7.8 million and divided it by the 200 accounts, just roughly, doing this off the top of my head, it sounds like an average of about $35,000. Am I in the ballpark?

[Isabelle Jacques]

Well, if you do that math, yes, but I'm unable to tell you what it was individually. We only received total amounts. The Department of Finance did not get.... We know that those accounts are personal and commercial accounts; it's a mixture of the two. Also, one person may have more than one account. It could be close to 60 entities, let's say, with a certain number of accounts in different products they have, so I'm not even able to tell you the value.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I understand.

I think I have about 30 seconds left, Ms. Jacques, so I'll just ask you this. Did banks and financial institutions have the ability to freeze accounts before the Emergencies Act was invoked? If so, under what circumstances?

[Isabelle Jacques]

Yes, on an ongoing basis banks certainly can freeze accounts if they are concerned there's fraud or illegal activity. As you know, on an ongoing basis, police officers and the RCMP may be in contact with banks and they take measures. Sometimes to protect consumers, they freeze bank accounts when they see some abnormal activities in them. Also, as we mentioned, there are court orders issued by the provincial courts, so it's possible that freezes also occurred independently of the actions under the order.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Baker.

We are moving to the Bloc, with Monsieur Ste-Marie, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Jacques, I realize the government did not provide financial institutions with any written guidelines as to what should be frozen or authorized. Only verbal direction was provided.

Did the government provide verbal direction in relation to joint accounts or payments such as child support, rent or heating?