Finance Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2022

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chair, to confirm, it is in French. I have sent it to the clerk. I've also sent it to my colleagues, Mr. Fragiskatos as well as Ms. Chatel, and I believe Ms. Dzerowicz would have it in her P9 account as well.

As I said, I don't know the rules here, so I'm looking for clarification. This motion is on the floor. I would definitely agree to putting it at the end of the meeting, subject to confirmation that a vote would be held on the motion during this meeting.

If my colleagues can agree to that, I would be more than happy to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Is there any discussion?

I cannot see you.

Are there are any hands up, Clerk?

[The Clerk]

Ms. Dzerowicz.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Dzerowicz, I apologize.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It's okay. I've given you double peace, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of comments.

I think we're agreeing that because we're at half time, we're having a five-minute break. Then we're coming back, and hopefully we'll continue the discussion, because we're getting excellent information. Then we'll stop at 15 minutes prior to the end. I think we were going to take a five-minute break at that point to make sure we're all on track with the motion and have reviewed it. Then, I think we're going to come back and debate it until there is a vote.

I'm in agreement with that, and I hope that is good for everyone else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you for encapsulating everything, MP Dzerowicz.

MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

In the interest of compromise, I would agree to the five-minute break now, but I wouldn't recommend that we have an additional five-minute break at the end of the meeting. I think we could do the five-minute break now. I'd like to save some time in case there is some discussion that we need about this motion. I am open to amendments, but I would like to make sure that we get this dealt with expeditiously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Is there any other discussion? Any hands?

[The Clerk]

Ms. Chatel has her hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am welcoming the spirit of compromise in amendments, and thank you again for the wonderful translation. I received it in both French and English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Chatel.

Clerk, again I have to look to you.

[The Clerk]

There are no more hands up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, so we will suspend at this time and we'll see the members back in about five minutes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting back to order.

Members, we'll deal with the motion at about 5:15 [Technical difficulty—Editor] witnesses today.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have five minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Before I ask my questions, Mr. Chair, I think it's important to put where we're at in a general context. My colleague Mr. Chambers just spoke. I don't know him very well. Actually, I don't know him at all, but he has a very good reputation on our side of the bench. He is seen as someone who is reasonable and thoughtful. In the few finance committee meetings that I have participated in, he has been just that.

But I'm going to have to disagree with one of the things he said. It's a pretty serious thing to disagree on—that is, on the motives of the government. When he just spoke, he talked about the government acting here based on “political motives” rather than substantive concerns about the security of the country and the residents of Ottawa.

What we've seen in the past few weeks should be horrific to all of us. I hope it is. But for some reason I think, when I look across the aisle sometimes, it's maybe not. That's a deep concern. When you have an entire city, the capital city of this country, no less, laid under siege—neighbourhoods blocked off, people unable to get to work, seniors unable to get groceries, families unable to take their kids to school and unable to get to work themselves—that is an enormous concern. When our borders are blockaded, that is a serious concern also about the sovereignty and security of the country at large, not to mention the fact that the organizers of this convoy were calling for no less than the overthrow of a democratically elected government.

Each of those points relates directly to the act, because their existence indicates that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was indeed just and was indeed the right thing to do. This is a public order emergency. If we're going to disagree on things, as we naturally will, I would hope that we would agree on the security of the country and the need to do anything and everything we can to ensure that convoy organizers like Pat King, for example, are not allowed to set the narrative on this.

I still think there are colleagues across the aisle in the Conservative Party who.... Maybe we can find a way to agree on this. Maybe we can find a way to realize moderation and work with them, even if there are clear disagreements on this.

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

A point of order, Chair.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

That was the last point, Phil. If you want to raise a point of order, you can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead.

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

On a point of order, this member has several times pointed out relevance. I really do wonder whether his soliloquy had anything to do with the financial matters respecting the Emergencies Act. But he's completed it, so....

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's not a soliloquy to raise these concerns about the security of the country.

In any case, I do have questions for the officials from Finance and Justice.

As we know, the Emergencies Act takes very seriously the Charter of Rights. In fact, the charter still reigns supreme. It is still the supreme law of the land. I want to know from the officials from Finance and Justice what that means in terms of their interpretation of the act and their work in their departments. Where does the charter fit and how does it all work? How does it come together in the end to work as just that, the supreme law, even when we have the Emergencies Act invoked?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I can start, and perhaps my colleague Isabelle can follow up.

The War Measures Act, which was in place and was replaced by the Emergencies Act, didn't contain the express provision indicating that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies notwithstanding the invocation of an emergency. But as I think we all know, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all governmental action, from the creation of statutes and regulations all the way through to its implementation. The assessment of whether a governmental action complies with the Charter of Rights is, I would offer, an ongoing, daily occurrence for all government officials.

The Emergencies Act makes it explicit because of its predecessor, but it doesn't actually change how we do business. All of the measures throughout both the emergency measures regulations and the emergency economic measures order were drafted with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in mind. To the extent that any right has been limited in any way, it was done with respect to either the section 7 analysis or with respect to section 1 and the proportionality to achieve the objective that was sought to deal with the unprecedented events.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, and thank you, MP Fragiskatos.

We are moving to our fourth round. I've got the Conservatives up. I do have MP Chambers. I'm not sure if that is still the same list, but MP Chambers is up for five minutes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll pass my time to Mr. Stewart, if he has questions. If not, why don't I ask one question and I can split my time with Mr. Stewart, if he's ready.

This is a question for Justice officials. Are there other laws and statutes that allow for the bank accounts of individuals to be frozen?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I believe the statute administered by FINTRAC would allow some freezing, but I will offer the floor to my colleague Isabelle in the financial sector.