Responding to NDP's Daniel Blaikie, Jacques said there is no requirement under the EA for financial institutions to notify their clients that their bank accounts were frozen.
CPC's Adam Chambers: Can you provide updated nubers?
Jacques: It would be ~206 accounts. An individual could have more than one account (savings, chequing, etc.) so can't say how many individuals, exactly.
Jacques: It would be ~206 accounts. An individual could have more than one account (savings, chequing, etc.) so can't say how many individuals, exactly.
Chambers: Do you know if the RCMP turned over info on an account and the financial institution did *not* freeze the account?
Jacques: We would not have that information.
Jacques: We would not have that information.
Chambers: We've been told this is compliant with the Charter, but that doesn't make it so. For a financial institution to act as judge and jury, without any chance for a representation from the impacted individual, doesn't sound Charter compliant.
Jacques: That was considered when drafting the EA, and it was specifically addressed in the order. People have the opportunity to go to the institution and explain that they did not engage in illegal activity and have their accounts unfrozen.
Jacques: These are extraordinary measures, they are time-limited. And if the behaviour (targeted under the EA) stops, there can be a review.
Also, re: donors having their accounts frozen. The RCMP said yesterday that "at no time, did we provide a list of donors to financial institutions."
Jacques adds: The measures were in force on Feb. 15, and they do not apply retroactively.
So for someone to have their account frozen under the EA, they would have to have:
1.) Donated between last Tuesday and now.
2.) Would have to have one of the ~206 accounts.
3.) Would have to have been flagged by the RCMP for some other reason than donating.
1.) Donated between last Tuesday and now.
2.) Would have to have one of the ~206 accounts.
3.) Would have to have been flagged by the RCMP for some other reason than donating.
CPC MP Jake Stewart says what is "clear" is that "all civil liberties" have been suspended.
That is both not clear and not true.
That is both not clear and not true.
Stewart: I thought I heard that it was not retroactive. Are these bank seizures retroactive?
(They're not retroactive and the banks are freezing accounts, not seizing money.)
(They're not retroactive and the banks are freezing accounts, not seizing money.)
Stewart: When was the first donations made?
Officials don't have this information.
Officials don't have this information.
Stewart: If somebody donated money before Feb. 15, where is it?
Jacques: It would be wherever they donated it to?
Jacques: It would be wherever they donated it to?
Stewart calls a point of order about the translation a "stall tactic" because they don't like the questions.
Jake Stewart now uses his final 22 seconds to bring up the Canadian government's settlement with Omar Khadr.
I'm new to Finance committee, is this how it usually goes?
Has the government regulated crowdfunding?
Jacques: Temporarily through the EA, but we're looking at doing it through legislation and/or regulation in the future.
Jacques: Temporarily through the EA, but we're looking at doing it through legislation and/or regulation in the future.
Jacques: I have no information that more accounts are being frozen. Accounts are being unfrozen as the illegal activity ceases. If the RCMP has information about more illegal activity, that could change.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
