44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 10:43:37 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. In my previous question, I asked the member for Oxford, who also happens to be on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, if he had read the emergency measures regulations, to which he said that he had not.
Could the member confirm whether the places listed in subsections 1(a) to 1(f) of the regulations, such as airports and international bridges, have been under threat, which necessitated the declaration of the Emergencies Act? Indeed, do they continue to be a security risk? Qujannamiik.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:45:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague and to the House that we have received lots of warnings, and we are continuing to receive warnings, from our security and cybersecurity experts that Canada and many democratically elected governments are under a real threat. We have seen proof of that here within our own borders. Weapons and armour have been seized. Plots have been revealed. That should be enough to wake us all up.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:41:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the four branches in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, there is reference to foreign influence. It is generally understood to be state-sponsored foreign influence. I do think we ought to be wary here, and perhaps have permanent rules with proper due process to address that issue going forward.
I do not think we want to address that issue, which is not going to go away, tomorrow or within 30 days. I think we are going to want more permanent rules that are firmer and have proper due process.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:04:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, three of the safeguards that have been put into the act are the three criteria that the government must meet in order to trigger a public order emergency.
The first is a threat or the actual use of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological objective. The second is a threat to the health, safety and lives of Canadians that is beyond the capacity of a province to deal with, or alternatively that there is a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity or security of this country. The last is that there is no other law in Canada, federal or provincial, that could effectively deal with the situation.
Those three criteria are safeguards in preventing intrusions into civil liberties.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:49:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member touched on a lot of aspects in his question. To me, based on my analysis as a lawyer, when I look at section 16 and what is defined in the CSIS Act as a threat to the security of Canada, I do not think the threshold has been met.
However, I understand different lawyers and different legal experts can have different legal opinions. I also understand I am not privy to all the information that cabinet has. In such circumstances, there is usually always a great deal of deference given to the executive. However, based on the information I have and based on my reading of the law, I do not think the threshold was met.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:53:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands again.
I do not believe that that aspect meets any of the four possibilities in the definition of security threat in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, for the simple reason that foreign interference would require a state actor. That does not appear to be the case at the moment.
In that respect, all Canadians who donate to organizations like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International for advocacy in other countries could find themselves—
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:20:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just politely point out some confusion. The member talks about leaders seeking political advantage, when it was the interim leader of the opposition who actually emailed her entire caucus to say that political advantage should be sought by not discouraging the blockades. That was on day four.
We have heard from many Conservative members about the threat having abated, but I will ask the member, when we have illegal protesters who have been removed from outside this building, but are staging 30 kilometres away; when we have a blockade that was attempted at Windsor on February 16; when we have a blockade that was successfully reinstalled in Surrey on February 18; and when we have an investigation into a hate group that was at the Coutts border, in his very own province, and the investigation into links between that group and what is happening here is still ongoing, would he agree with me that there is still an ongoing threat to the safety and security of Canadians that needs to be addressed through this legislation?
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
