Finance Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2022

[Isabelle Jacques]

That is a good point, because they also have internal processes and they rely on those to also obtain information that was helpful for this order.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes, please. The algorithms are a bit of a black box. I'm sure we'll learn more about those, as well, that we don't have any line of sight into.

The Minister of Finance today stated, “As of today, a bank or other financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend an account without a court order.” This implies, I think, that this could have happened in previous times with a court order, which allows for individuals to make representations on their behalf.

The executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation has written that this sounds like an invitation for banks to arbitrarily seize property of suspected involvement without any built-in recourse or ability to apply for reconsideration. The testimony we've heard today from these witnesses—and thank you very much for being forthcoming—is that there is the possibility for reconsideration after the fact.

I would like to confirm whether that's your understanding.

[Isabelle Jacques]

It is my understanding. If an account is frozen and the person finds out the account is frozen, then they can get in touch with the financial institution. As we explained, there is a duty to determine...on an ongoing basis. The financial institutions have to review the situation on an ongoing basis and address it. The nature of the suspension or of the freezing of the account is that it's temporary. This is an extreme measure and, as we found out, it can be unfrozen fairly rapidly once there's a proper determination.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you.

Does this end up like a no-fly list where somebody is now asterisked for the rest of their life?

For those accounts that have been frozen, are these accounts that are limited to the individuals under investigation? I'm thinking of circumstances where there are a number of joint accounts, or perhaps someone has power of attorney for their parents' accounts and, all of a sudden, because of one individual who has been [Technical difficulty—Editor] is it now possible for these other individuals to have their accounts and financial services impacted?

[Isabelle Jacques]

I would say that it's quite different from the passenger protect program that was in place, which has different processes. This is temporary and extraordinary under the Emergencies Act, and can be revoked and changed fairly quickly.

With respect to accounts, a number of accounts can be affected, including joint accounts. With respect to those for which—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers. That is time.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we are moving to the Liberals and MP Diab.

Welcome to committee, MP Diab. You have five minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much.

This has been a fascinating afternoon.

Witnesses, thank you very much for the opportunity to hear from all of you. What we've gone through the last few weeks for me personally has been a shock to my system, and I can say it's a shock to many people who witnessed it.

I have a couple questions, but I want to finish off where you started, Ms. Jacques. I think we talked about 200-plus bank accounts that were frozen, out of—I forget how many—thousands of donors. How many donors was it? I believe it was in The Globe and Mail or something like that.

If there's overreach, one would assume—well, I don't know; I don't want to put words in your mouth. Did you say it was 200 and some over all of Canada, over the thousands and thousands of people we saw illegally protesting, blockading, whatever, who were frozen out of however many dollars amount [Technical difficulty—Editor]?

My heart goes out to anybody who really thinks that if they put $20 or $50 in good faith to a good cause, they could somehow be help liable. Hearing you in the last couple of hours has really reassured me that this is not the case. If erroneously it happens, it should and could and would definitely be overturned by simply contacting the bank and taking care of that.

I practised law. It's now been about 10 years since I practised law, but before that I practised for over 20 years. I know that in matrimonial law all kinds of frozen bank accounts happen. There are all kinds of situations where they get frozen and so on, and there is a mechanism if there's an error.

Can you go back to that point again and reassure us one more time, please, so that these people who in good faith did something good across the country to really help something that they thought was the right thing to do are not caught in it? Specifically, from what time would that have taken effect?

[Isabelle Jacques]

If people, in good faith, were making donations prior to knowing that the order was in effect and prior to the situation degenerating to the point that it did, certainly they were not captured. There's no retroactivity, as you point out, to the order. It was only from February 15 forward. All I can say is that, from the discussions we've had in the past week with financial entities, certainly that was not the target of the activities, certainly not the target of the list provided by the RCMP. Is it possible that somebody was captured? It's always possible, because the order provides for it, but I doubt we'd have many of those cases.

To go back to the numbers you were asking about, the numbers change all the time. I'm sure they're lower today than the last ones I had, as accounts have been unfrozen on an ongoing basis since yesterday. The last number I had was over 206 accounts, but the number of people is smaller because some of these people have more than one account. The last number I had for the total value was $7.8 million.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you for your response.

I want to go to Justice for a moment, for whatever time I have left.

I heard a lot, and I heard all the debates—most of them. I was virtual. Thank God for that. I heard a lot of them. A lot of the debates also concentrated on this predecessor or the so-called predecessor to the act. Can Justice officials please explain, in plain language—I would say in plain English and the translation will be in plain French—the differences between the predecessor War Measures Act, which dealt with war and military, and I come from a place in the world where I've seen military, unfortunately—the current act, please, and the relation of that to our charter and what rights we have as individuals?. Differentiate between those or draw similarities, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Could we have that in a short answer, please?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

In short, the Emergencies Act was passed in 1988. The charter came into force in 1982. It applies. Any governmental action, be it the statute, the regulation or the implementation, must be compliant with the charter.

The War Measures Act was a different statute. To be very explicit about it, the Emergencies Act included a specific reference to the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, we are moving to our fifth round. This round will be our final round, with which we will conclude with the witnesses for today. As I normally do when we come to this time and I look at how much time we have left, I will divide up this round equally amongst the different parties. There will be three and a half minutes for each party. We'll start with the Conservatives. I don't have here who's speaking first for the Conservatives or who's on the list. Could you help me out?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thanks very much.

Mr. McLean, do you want to take the round? I'm sorry. I know you've just arrived.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

No worries. Yes, I would like to take the round. I hope I'm not asking questions that were previously answered. I apologize for not being here for the previous session.

I'm glad you brought up the charter on this, but the whole nature of actually expropriating or freezing somebody's bank account is effectively shutting them out of their ability to transact in society, [Technical difficulty—Editor] friends and families, and effectively getting held that way. Do you not think that's an overstep with what the charter provisions are, as far as freedom to transact, one of our fundamental freedoms, goes?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

If I may answer, Isabelle, I would say the measures have been tailored to limit the impact on the charter rights to being no more than reasonably necessary for the unlawful assembly. The obligation to freeze accounts applies only to people who are participating in the illegal activities that are described in sections 2 to 5 of the emergency measures regulations. A person can regain access to their assets by stopping their participation in those unlawful activities.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, but it doesn't say how. The description about being involved is rather broad, if you look at it. It could be anybody who, as we say, gave $50 to their son to go and protest his [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Is that not so?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I might pass the floor back to my colleague Isabelle. It was effective as of the date the regulation was made, so as of February 15. Anything that occurred prior to that date is not captured. There is no retroactivity to this regulation at all.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I'll go back to Isabelle. Are the 206 accounts that we're talking about here all funders, Canadians, who gave funds through GiveSendGo after February 15?

[Isabelle Jacques]

I don't know through which means they gave money, but certainly, there was money that was in the possession of financial institutions covered by the order after February 15. That is correct.

In previous discussions that we've had throughout this meeting, we're saying that in view of the information that has been shared by the RCMP, and in view of the fact that the goal was to stop unlawful funding of illegal blockades, the unlawful assemblies, it would seem rather rare if somebody had given $20, and would have an account seized in view of the information that's been shared.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yet, that is the way it is written.

[Isabelle Jacques]

That is the way it's written, and it's very possible, but the main purpose and goal was to ensure that we stopped the funding for the illegal blockades. It is certainly possible.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I appreciate that.