Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 2318
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's argument for invoking the Emergencies Act on Canadians is very quickly falling apart. Last week, we learned the RCMP did not ask the government to invoke the act, and just yesterday we learned the Ottawa police did not either. The Liberals are simply not telling Canadians the truth.
The Emergencies Act was an overreach by the Prime Minister and a government in trouble. Their power grab was just another example of classic Liberal cover-up, denial and blame. Is that not the truth?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the illegal blockades in our cities and at our ports represented a threat to Canadian jobs, to trade and to our democracy. Police told us they needed additional tools to clear the blockades and, as OPP Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy said at yesterday's meeting:
The Emergencies Act [gave police] effective supplementary tools needed to help protect critical infrastructure and ensure the continuous and safe delivery of essential goods and services, while at the same time maintaining—or in the case of Ottawa, restoring—peace, order and public security.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's divisiveness is the reason the protest started and his failure to lead is the reason it got worse. The Prime Minister called people names: he wedged, he divided and then he spread misinformation. Then, to deal with the mess that he created, he invoked the Emergencies Act, stomping on freedoms and freezing bank accounts. Now he is covering up.
The time has come for the Prime Minister to stop spreading disinformation and stop hiding the fact that he and his ministers had no valid reason to invoke the Emergencies Act. Will he do that? Will he tell the truth?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, in February, when blockades and occupations disrupted our economy, hurt workers and endangered public safety, we invoked the Emergencies Act to help bring them to an end. We have now announced the Public Order Emergency Commission: an independent public inquiry to examine the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken in response, as required under the act.
I know that the interim leader of the Conservative Party, as well as members of the Conservative Party, may not want light shed on these events, given their support of these blockades, but Canadians want to know the truth.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I begin my remarks by recognizing the hard-working people who live in the Ontario riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for their confidence in me as their federal member of Parliament. They are the reason I will not waver in my determination to build a better Canada.
Earlier this year, I asked a very simple and direct question to the Prime Minister regarding the inappropriate use of Canada's women and men who serve in Canada's armed forces to spy on their fellow citizens. Rather than answer in a clear and forthright manner, the Liberal government once again responded with a propaganda technique that Russian madman Vladimir Putin uses to misinform the Russian population about the genocide taking place in Ukraine.
The propaganda technique I am referring to is illuminated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as accusation in a mirror. Accusation in a mirror, or AIM, is the rhetorical practice of falsely accusing others of conducting, plotting or committing precisely the same transgressions as one plans to commit against them.
The claim, by the Prime Minister and his senior members in the Liberal Party, that members of the “Freedom Convoy” were racists, misogynists and unacceptable is a textbook example of accusation in a mirror: dehumanizing and demonizing that comes by labelling certain groups in society as undesirable.
Canadians can see the hypocrisy in the Prime Minister accusing others of being racist, as he did today during question period, when the Prime Minister himself enjoys dressing up in costumes and in blackface to make fun of other people's cultures and skin colour.
The accusation-in-a-mirror propaganda technique has been used in non-genocidal and other forms of persecution committed against Jews, Blacks and first nations, among others. He had the audacity of using AIM in this instance to claim conspiracy theories and to hide the misdeed that is actually taking place.
This is not to be confused with IMVE: ideologically motivated violent extremism. IMVE is the term used by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to identify members of the radical ultraleft who burn churches, violently destroy public infrastructure, attack oil workers with axes in British Columbia and plant car bombs with the express intent to maim and kill, as in the recent incident in Montreal. The fact there have been no arrests for these recent activities would reveal a double standard of the Prime Minister and members of his government and where their sympathies lie.
The Prime Minister called members of the "Freedom Convoy" misogynists, homophobes and racists. He did so out of ignorance, hate and the absence of evidence. The Prime Minister accused my Conservative colleague of using “misinformation and disinformation... and conspiracy theories”. That the flight took place is fact; not conspiracy theory.
This fact was confirmed by the Department of National Defence after it was forced to respond to media reports. What an incredible coincidence it was that the day the “Freedom Convoy” began to arrive in Ottawa there just happened to be, according to the government, a preplanned so-called training flight to test top-secret surveillance equipment.
After a clumsy attempt by DND to first disassociate itself from the spy surveillance flights, DND was forced to issue an apology as more information about the spy flight became known. DND claims it instructed the spy plane to refrain from flying over downtown Ottawa during the truckers' strike action.
Canadians then learned that, as an excuse to get around the DND directive to stay away from the skies over the “Freedom Convoy”, Canadian special forces military leaders reportedly used a private defence contractor's military plane to conduct the spy operations. The modified small passenger plane that was conducting spying was outfitted with surveillance equipment allowing for the interception of cell phone calls, radio transmissions and other communications—
View Bryan May Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bryan May Profile
2022-05-18 19:26
Madam Speaker, when we stand here in the House of Commons and talk about military equipment such as ships, jets and even boots on the ground, what we are really talking about are national defence security capabilities. These are the tools that make it possible for the Canadian Armed Forces to carry out the missions that are critical to the defence of Canada. To carry out those missions, our military must maintain a state of constant readiness. Being operationally ready means training.
This government expects and depends upon the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to do what they need to do to maintain their mandated state of readiness and expertise. Having the right personnel properly trained to use equipment, technology and tools is critical to readiness and to our national defence and security. With this in mind, I would like to address the hon. member's question about the Canadian Armed Forces training flight that took place at the same time as the protest on Parliament Hill this past February.
This training flight was undertaken to maintain essential qualifications on airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance-related equipment. It was planned well prior to the protest taking place on Parliament Hill and relied on an existing contract to facilitate. The training was planned as part of an annual training requirement and the aircraft was booked in advance. I can confirm for the House that the training exercise and the protest on Parliament Hill were entirely unrelated.
Canadian Armed Forces members undertake such training to support their operations abroad. In fact, airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities are strictly governed by Canada and international laws. Canadians should be heartened to know that our Canadian Armed Forces members train routinely in and around communities across the country and indeed around the national capital region as well. We should expect no less if we want a military that is ready to defend our country and our way of life.
During the flight in question, this training exercise took place in the vicinity of the national capital and did travel over the downtown core. The objective was to meet annual training requirements and certification, and there was nothing extraordinary about it. Training with airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities can occur at other times of the year as well. There is nothing unusual about those flights either.
We know from experience that when training gets cancelled there is a negative impact on certifications, qualifications and, by extension, operational readiness. That is why the training went ahead. We must ensure our Canadian Armed Forces members are ready in this time of evolving global uncertainty. This means making sure that we have the right equipment and the right training to meet their skills on the platforms they need to be trained on when they need it.
I thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for this country each and every day defending our freedom and our democracy.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, anytime the Prime Minister or other members of the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition utter the words “conspiracy theory”, their intent is to fictionalize their own conspiracy theories to hide the truth.
Using the Canadian military to spy on its own citizens is a very dangerous act. If the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition the Prime Minister leads actually believes in the transparency and accountability necessary for a functioning democracy, it would provide all the data and flight logs from the spy flights. Let Canadians decide what the truth is.
Did the government spy on its own citizens without the legal or moral authority to do so? The Prime Minister and his socialist coalition partners must be held accountable for their actions.
View Bryan May Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bryan May Profile
2022-05-18 19:31
Madam Speaker, we demand a lot of our military. We have seen CAF members undertake atypical tasks, such as setting up vaccine distribution systems, supporting health professionals in long-term care facilities and supporting humanitarian efforts, but above all else, our military must stand ready to defend Canada at home and abroad. That means maintaining capabilities, including highly specialized technical surveillance systems that protect our forces when the government sends them into harm's way. It means ensuring that we can move massive volumes of personnel and equipment throughout Canada and around the world. It means conducting humanitarian and search and rescue missions across vast landscapes from coast to coast to coast.
We demand a lot from our military members, and they deliver. The reason they deliver is because they are trained to deliver. I thank all members of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces for their commitment to keeping Canadians safe and protecting the interests of Canadians abroad.
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has claimed numerous times that he invoked the Emergencies Act after a recommendation to do so by law enforcement. Last week, RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki told committee that, “There was never a question of requesting the Emergencies Act,” and that she could think of no other law enforcement body requesting it, either.
Can the minister tell Canadians what law enforcement asked him to invoke the Emergencies Act?
View Marco Mendicino Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, let me clarify again for my hon. colleague what the commissioner said. She said:
...what I can say is that the Emergencies Act did give us the tools that we needed...to get the job done quickly.
She said:
I can tell you from an RCMP perspective, for example, that we were in the midst of trying to enforce at Coutts and we could not enforce, because we couldn't access any tow trucks.
Those are just two very clear statements from the RCMP commissioner who explained how the Emergencies Act helped to restore public safety.
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, that still does not answer the question. The RCMP commissioner may have said it was necessary, but she clearly refuted what the minister's claim was, which was that they had recommended it. On May 2, the Minister of Public Safety stated in the House, “At the recommendation of police, we invoked the Emergencies Act”. On April 28, he further stated, “It was on the advice of law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act.”
Can the minister back up these statements by answering my question, or will he admit that these statements were false?
View Marco Mendicino Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am just finally glad that on Monday, May 16, my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party admitted that the RCMP commissioner's testimony was that the Emergencies Act was necessary in his own words. It finally happened. We have been waiting months for that admission. We invoked the Emergencies Act to protect Canadians. We invoked it and we will continue to participate now in the review exercise in a way that is transparent.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the illegal protest in Ottawa, the Minister of Public Safety said on May 2, “At the recommendation of police, we invoked the Emergencies Act”. Last week, the RCMP commissioner said in committee that there was never a question of requesting the Emergencies Act.
The question is very simple: Who is telling the truth? Is it the minister or the RCMP commissioner?
Personally, I have a lot more confidence in the RCMP commissioner.
View Marco Mendicino Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned a few times, the commissioner said during her testimony that there were provisions in the Emergencies Act that acted as motivators and as deterrents for people to return.
What I can say is that the Emergencies Act gave us the tools we needed to get the job done quickly. Today, Monday, May 16, the Conservatives finally recognized that.
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner for the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, just gave shocking testimony at committee, which contradicts a key claim of the Liberal government. For weeks, the Minister of Public Safety has claimed that law enforcement asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act. In fact, on May 3, the minister said he acted on the recommendations of law enforcement.
Commissioner Lucki testified that the RCMP never asked the government to invoke the act. Will the minister tell Canadians who in law enforcement asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, or will he admit he just made it up?
Results: 1 - 15 of 2318 | Page: 1 of 155

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data