Finance Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2022

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for the Department of Justice official. This will give Ms. Jacques a break.

I want to know whether you agree with the following statement. On February 10, five days before the emergency measures order came into effect, Ontario obtained a court order to freeze the two main convoy crowdfunding accounts on the GiveSendGo platform. The order was granted under the usual legislation and was enforced under the normal co‑operation agreements between Canada and the United States with respect to financial crime.

Do you agree with this?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

Yes. The procedure was conducted under a provision of the Criminal Code of Canada.

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

That's fine. Thank you.

I gather that the order and the Emergency Measures Act didn't fill a legal void. Something was already there.

I also want to remind you that provincial securities regulators—in Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers—already consider crowdfunding platforms financial intermediaries subject to provincial legislation. In my opinion, there isn't a legal void, but perhaps an administrative void, while the regulators get used to these new methods.

Again, I'd like to hear from Maislin Dickson.

Does the Department of Justice agree with this?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I'd like to quickly address your first question.

In terms of the void to fill, not all the funds donated to support demonstrations or unlawful assemblies were frozen.

As for the question about what you call an administrative rather than a legal void, I'd like to turn to Ms. Jacques.

[Isabelle Jacques]

At the federal level, we looked at whether there was a void on the FINTRAC side. We looked to fill that void to ensure that the various entities were required to report certain transactions that weren't previously covered.

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

Yes, clearly. Thank you.

This was legally covered by the provinces and the securities regulators, but not by the federal government, because it doesn't fall under federal jurisdiction.

[Isabelle Jacques]

I'm not aware of the provincial side of this issue, but I'll take your word for it.

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

This does fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

We are moving to MP Blaikie for two and a half minutes, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I think there are Canadians who are concerned about their support for other political causes and demonstrations being captured under these emergency measures, notwithstanding that these are meant to be applied in a prescribed, limited time frame and with respect to one particular event, which is the illegal occupation of Ottawa and sympathetic blockades at border crossings.

One safeguard that might provide some reassurance to those folks is the February 15 date, where any contributions prior to February 15 are not covered.

What other reassurances do Canadians have who are concerned that their support of other political causes might implicate them in measures coming under these emergency orders?

What other reassurances do they have that this doesn't provide law enforcement an opportunity to implicate them in these measures?

[Isabelle Jacques]

As you mentioned, the situation here was prescribed and you have to fall under the definition of a designated person and activities that are prohibited by sections 2 to 5.

Of course, if people want to donate for various purposes, they wouldn't be captured by this extraordinary measure.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

If it were the case that government required financial institutions to send a letter in the event that an account is frozen, highlighting that the freezing of that account is related to these emergency measures, then the absence of such a letter would be something that might provide additional comfort to Canadians who are concerned that freezing an account might be connected to these measures. Is it fair to say that if there were a notification protocol, that might help put people's mind at ease?

[Isabelle Jacques]

It's possible that it would, but it's certainly not what is prescribed by the current order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you for that. That was my line of questioning.

Partly what I'm driving at is that I'm thinking about what recommendations we as a committee can make to try to address some of the very legitimate concerns Canadians have, not just about the overreach inherent in the use of the act itself but also the overreach beyond what is prescribed within these orders. I think an important component of our oversight work as a parliamentary committee is to try to provide recommendations as to how those legitimate concerns can be addressed, which is why I keep coming back to the idea of some kind of notification so that Canadians can know that if they did have an account frozen, they would know whether or not it had been frozen under the authority of this order. If not, then they would know it was not a result of this order. If so, they would have a document they could use to try to seek remedies in the case that remedies were warranted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

We are moving now to the Conservatives. On my list I have MP Lawrence.

I'm not sure if, MP Lawrence, you're up again, but I have five minutes for the Conservatives.

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

Does MP Chambers what to go? I see him on screen.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes, thank you, Phil.

I'd like to pick up on the line of my NPD colleague, who I think makes some excellent points about providing some comfort to Canadians but also some recommendations. We are establishing precedents with what's happening right now. I worry when we reference political motives as a basis for some of the actions that are being taken. I think future governments may not be as benevolent, and we should think about that as future governments might have different political leanings. I'm very interested in considering the actions we take now and applying them to the future.

As a Conservative, I'm all for outsourcing or considering outsourcing parts of government actions, but we are looking at outsourcing parts of the judicial system with zero recourse for individuals before actions are taken. I fully recognize and appreciate that these issues were contemplated in terms of violations of the charter, but if there was a clear violation of section 8 of the charter, will there be an undertaking to provide this committee with the judicial opinion that supported the decision to enact this process?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I can take that question.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] this isn't a statute under which normal charter statements are made. These are indeed regulations made pursuant to the Emergencies Act. No legal opinion would be forthcoming in normal circumstances. The measures put in place have been tailored to limit any impact. We all understand that the rights are protected, but although a right is protected, there is a possibility to reasonably limit that right. That limit has to be proportional to the objective we are trying to achieve.

With the drafting of the legislation, what was put in place was to deal with the really unprecedented events that we were living with here in Canada. That was the assessment that was done.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

No judicial opinion will be forthcoming, but I hope you will have an opinion, because this is going to be before the courts. I hope that we've thought this through. When we say that the charter is applicable, it seems as though there's a bit of a circular argument happening here, that it is applicable but it's not really because there are some limits, but that's in the charter.

I can respect that there are gaps in the current system and that emergency powers fill those gaps. I am concerned about emergency powers continuing to be invoked for an indefinite period of time until those gaps are settled. Can we expect regulations to be forthcoming to fill these gaps, and can we expect emergency powers to be invoked until that time?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

Perhaps I'll start.

I attended a briefing yesterday where Ministers Mendicino and Lametti were briefing the Senate. The communication at that point in time was that the assessment of whether the Emergencies Act and the regulations and order made under it continue to be necessary. What I heard was that assessment is being done on an hourly basis, so—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That's good. Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair, with my remaining time, based on the testimony we've heard, I have a motion I'll put to the floor. I have circulated it to some individuals.

It reads as follows: “That, for as long as the Emergencies Act financial requirements are in place, all federal departments and agencies provide a weekly report to this committee for the total number of persons and accounts, indicating the type of account and ownership of the account, they have flagged or requested be frozen by regulated financial institutions, broken down by department and agency; that all federally regulated financial agencies provide a similar weekly report of the total number of persons and accounts that have been frozen using the Emergencies Act powers.”

I will forward this to the clerk for consideration. I would further note that we're looking at the gross and net accounts affected. Every week it could be 200, but it could be 200 people every week. I would hope this is something this committee could consider.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

Now we're moving to the Liberals and Parliamentary Secretary Fragiskatos for five minutes. After Mr. Fragiskatos concludes, we are going to suspend for five minutes. As we are in a three-hour session, this will give everybody an opportunity for a bio break or to stretch their legs.

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

I believe a motion was moved. I believe we have to debate that.