The Department of Finance had no opinion “one way or another” whether Freedom Convoy protesters were terrorists, according to Deputy Minister Michael Sabia. “I’m not going to give you a yes or no,” Sabia said under questioning on why cabinet used a 9/11 anti-terror law to freeze millions in accounts held by protest sympathizers..“People have every right to protest,” Sabia testified at the Public Order Emergency Commission on Thursday. “That’s an important part of our democratic system. There were no easy answers here.”.According to Blacklock's Reporter, cabinet used the Proceeds Of Crime And Terrorist Financing Act to freeze some $7.8 million held in 437 bank and credit union accounts and bitcoin wallets. Evidence at the judicial inquiry showed banks were given wide latitude in enforcing police blacklists or applying their own..Brendan Miller, lawyer for the Freedom Convoy, questioned the account freeze. “You have no information to the effect that they were terrorists,” said Miller:.Deputy Sabia: “We had no information one way or the other on that issue.”Counsel Miller: “So the answer is no?”Deputy Sabia: “I said we had no information one way or the other on that.”Counsel Miller: “So you had no information one way or the other. Let’s make it clear. You were not informed, you were given no information, that these individuals in Ottawa protesting were terrorists, yes or no?”Deputy Sabia: “Well, I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer.”.Gordon Cameron, lawyer for the Public Order Emergency Commission, described the account freeze as far-reaching. “Who takes responsibility for the fact these accounts were frozen, that people couldn’t pay their rent, that people couldn’t buy their groceries? Who takes responsibility for that?”.“You’re starting to affect more than the protesters and you know that,” Cameron told witnesses from the finance department. “In the first scenario you’re saying to the protester, ‘We are going to cut off the money you are using to buy gas for your truck.’ And in the second mode you’re saying, ‘We are going to cut off your family’s money that they use to buy groceries and pay rent, so you’d better get out of this protest,’ right?”.“I understand what you’re saying,” replied Isabelle Jacques, assistant deputy minister of finance..“Did you appreciate the significance?” asked Cameron. “The intent was not to get at the families,” replied Jacques..The impact of frozen accounts “was solely between the RCMP and financial service providers,” said Jacques. But Cameron challenged the testimony. “The Department of Finance takes no responsibility?” he asked..“The question is, if the government is saying these measures were the right thing to do and the Department of Finance says, ‘We had no part in the enforcement of this,’ and the people who had enforcement in this say, ‘We didn’t write this law,’ who takes responsibility for the fact these accounts were frozen, that people couldn’t pay their rent, that people couldn’t buy their groceries? Who takes responsibility for that?”
The Department of Finance had no opinion “one way or another” whether Freedom Convoy protesters were terrorists, according to Deputy Minister Michael Sabia. “I’m not going to give you a yes or no,” Sabia said under questioning on why cabinet used a 9/11 anti-terror law to freeze millions in accounts held by protest sympathizers..“People have every right to protest,” Sabia testified at the Public Order Emergency Commission on Thursday. “That’s an important part of our democratic system. There were no easy answers here.”.According to Blacklock's Reporter, cabinet used the Proceeds Of Crime And Terrorist Financing Act to freeze some $7.8 million held in 437 bank and credit union accounts and bitcoin wallets. Evidence at the judicial inquiry showed banks were given wide latitude in enforcing police blacklists or applying their own..Brendan Miller, lawyer for the Freedom Convoy, questioned the account freeze. “You have no information to the effect that they were terrorists,” said Miller:.Deputy Sabia: “We had no information one way or the other on that issue.”Counsel Miller: “So the answer is no?”Deputy Sabia: “I said we had no information one way or the other on that.”Counsel Miller: “So you had no information one way or the other. Let’s make it clear. You were not informed, you were given no information, that these individuals in Ottawa protesting were terrorists, yes or no?”Deputy Sabia: “Well, I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer.”.Gordon Cameron, lawyer for the Public Order Emergency Commission, described the account freeze as far-reaching. “Who takes responsibility for the fact these accounts were frozen, that people couldn’t pay their rent, that people couldn’t buy their groceries? Who takes responsibility for that?”.“You’re starting to affect more than the protesters and you know that,” Cameron told witnesses from the finance department. “In the first scenario you’re saying to the protester, ‘We are going to cut off the money you are using to buy gas for your truck.’ And in the second mode you’re saying, ‘We are going to cut off your family’s money that they use to buy groceries and pay rent, so you’d better get out of this protest,’ right?”.“I understand what you’re saying,” replied Isabelle Jacques, assistant deputy minister of finance..“Did you appreciate the significance?” asked Cameron. “The intent was not to get at the families,” replied Jacques..The impact of frozen accounts “was solely between the RCMP and financial service providers,” said Jacques. But Cameron challenged the testimony. “The Department of Finance takes no responsibility?” he asked..“The question is, if the government is saying these measures were the right thing to do and the Department of Finance says, ‘We had no part in the enforcement of this,’ and the people who had enforcement in this say, ‘We didn’t write this law,’ who takes responsibility for the fact these accounts were frozen, that people couldn’t pay their rent, that people couldn’t buy their groceries? Who takes responsibility for that?”
