Public Safety Committee on Feb. 25th, 2022

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I appreciate that, and you are correct. The Emergencies Act explicitly makes reference to compliance with the charter. While we benefit in Canada from very important charter protections, none of them are absolute and they are subject to reasonable limitations.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Before the invocation of the Emergencies Act, you're saying you couldn't have seized people's bank accounts without a court order, but the Emergencies Act allowed the government to suspend that provision of the charter and suspend charter rights in order to seize people's bank accounts.

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

The measures that were put in place were targeted measures to address the situation that had been evolving and led to the declaration. While there are charter protections, reasonable limits can be put on those rights in order to effectively deal with a situation.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Would that also carry over to section 2(c), which is the right to peaceful assembly? Whether this was an illegal protest or not—you haven't said clearly either way—was the Emergencies Act necessary to suspend section 2(c) of the charter to allow law enforcement to break up a protest?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

The matters are before the court. There's litigation that has been launched.

The assessment was that what had been taking place was no longer a peaceful assembly. There were specific, very targeted criteria set out to identify what activities would be captured by the emergency measures regulations that were put in place, specifically, the serious disruption of the movement of persons or goods, or the serious interruption of trade.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move to Mr. Zuberi.

Sir, you have five minutes in this slot. Please proceed when you're ready.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for being here.

We've heard a lot about the Emergencies Act being used. We've heard a lot about confounding it with the War Measures Act, which is not accurate. I'd also like to acknowledge that after September 11, 2001, there was a whole piece of legislation brought in, which received royal assent on December 18, 2001, called the Anti-terrorism Act. Fast-forwarding to today, I recognize that we were dealing with an exceptional situation, a situation that, as we heard from many of the witnesses, we weren't able to deal with at that moment in time as a country. Thankfully, we have now.

That being said, I'd like to also get it on the record that several police associations, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Police Association, wrote to Minister Blair, pleading for and supporting the Emergencies Act, which I think is important for all of us to recognize.

All of that being said, I would like to go to the representative from Finance, please.

Can you please share with us how many bank accounts were frozen when the Emergencies Act was in use?

[Richard Bilodeau]

Based on the information we have, to the best of our knowledge approximately 260 accounts were frozen during the period of February 15 to February 23, when the Emergencies Act was revoked. That represents a total of about $7.8 million.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Are those accounts that were frozen not frozen anymore?

[Richard Bilodeau]

To the best of our understanding, all of the accounts that were frozen as a result of the Emergencies Act order have been unfrozen. It's likely that some accounts are still frozen because of other activity, whether a provincial court order or other reasons, but under the Emergencies Act, all those accounts have been unfrozen.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Great.

Was there a minimum threshold, such as $100 or $500, for an account to be frozen? Was there a threshold?

[Richard Bilodeau]

There was no threshold in the economic measures order. Maybe we can refer to the RCMP here. I can tell you that the RCMP communicated that the information that was shared with financial institutions limited itself to people who were influencers of illegal assemblies as well as owner-operators of trucks that were physically present in Ottawa.

That's the information that was provided on whose accounts were frozen. There was no targeting of donors to freeze their accounts.

[D/Commr Michael Duheme]

I can confirm what Monsieur Bilodeau just said.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

Today we heard that accounts were unfrozen. Was there a mechanism for those who had their accounts frozen to attempt to unfreeze their accounts during that period of time?

[Richard Bilodeau]

People who may have found themselves with a frozen account could have reached out, or maybe did reach out, to financial institutions to engage in a conversation with them. If people had their accounts frozen and, for example, decided to leave the illegal assembly, they could have had a conversation with their financial institution, and then the financial institution could also have had a conversation with the RCMP in that situation.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Great. From a civil liberties perspective, I'm happy to hear that this is essentially a moot point today.

I'll shift to the Department of Justice now. With respect to the Emergencies Act, when it came into force, was it possible to retroactively freeze accounts at that point in time for those who donated or attended the convoy?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

No, there was no retroactive impact of either the emergency measures regulations or the emergency economic measures order. They came into effect on the 15th. The declaration itself was issued on the 14th, but the effective date for the two subordinate pieces of legislation was the 15th.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Excellent. I'm happy to hear that there was no retroactive impact.

I'm wondering when the protest was declared illegal. Do you know offhand?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

There were specific criteria set out in section 2 of the emergency measures regulations that added detail around what would be considered an offence under the regulation. If you give me just a moment, I will go back—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I'm sorry. I wish I could, but I can't.

Thanks, Ms. Dickson.

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Now we'll go to Ms. Michaud.

Ms. Michaud, you have two and a half minutes. The floor is yours.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to take a moment—I should have done this earlier—to thank the police officers for their work in dismantling the Ottawa siege. I am very grateful to them. I've spoken to several of them over the last few days, and I know they worked very hard.

I will address you, Mr. Duheme. In a CBC/Radio-Canada article published on February 22, you stated that the RCMP had been consulted about the various temporary powers that had been granted to police forces under the Emergencies Act. You said that if the government decided to repeal the act tomorrow, you would go back to the traditional tools. You also said that it was difficult to quantify their use, especially in a context where police were also using existing laws and powers granted by municipal and provincial governments.

In light of all of that, would you say that with the coordination of the seven police forces that we saw in Ottawa, you would have been able to resolve the crisis with the traditional tools, existing laws and powers granted by municipal and provincial governments, without necessarily resorting to the Emergencies Act?

[D/Commr Michael Duheme]

So you read the article written by Daniel Leblanc.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

That's right. I've done my homework.