Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 4162
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
If that's okay with you, I don't see a problem with it.
You are indicating that it's okay with you.
Therefore, we will spend an hour and a half with the first panel of witnesses, as planned.
Mr. Clerk, please notify Mr. Sloly of the situation so that he doesn't needlessly wait for us and to let him know that we will call him back.
Thank you.
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 11 of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, which was created pursuant to the order of the House on March 2, 2022, and the Senate on March 3, 2022.
Today's meeting is taking place and a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021.
I'd like to remind all those present in the room to follow the recommendations from public health authorities, as well as directives of the Board of Internal Economy to maintain health and safety.
Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me, as we may need to suspend for a few minutes to ensure all members are able to participate fully.
I also remind witnesses that an interpretation service is available to them.
To access it, please click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen.
We now welcome our first witnesses. The commissioner, deputy commissioner and chief superintendent of the Ontario Provincial Police will appear during the first half of the meeting. That will be all, in accordance with the decision we just made.
I would therefore like to welcome the commissioner, deputy commissioner and chief superintendent of the Ontario Provincial Police.
You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Commissioner Thomas Carrique, you have five minutes.
Thomas Carrique
View Thomas Carrique Profile
Thomas Carrique
2022-06-21 19:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good evening, joint chairs, vice-chairs and committee members—
Thomas Carrique
View Thomas Carrique Profile
Thomas Carrique
2022-06-21 19:30
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am joined here today by OPP deputy commissioner of field operations Chris Harkins and the chief superintendent, Carson Pardy, who was assigned to the integrated planning process.
Under the Ontario Police Services Act, the OPP has a unique dual mandate, providing frontline policing services to 328 municipalities across the province, as well as providing assistance and/or specialized support to municipal police services upon request.
As it relates to the “freedom convoy” and the associated illegal blockades in the city of Ottawa, the OPP's provincial operations intelligence bureau commenced reporting to our policing partners on January 13, 2022. As of January 22, daily intelligence reports focused on the convoy headed to Ottawa and the anticipated protest movements across the province. The intelligence reporting was shared with more than 35 Canadian law enforcement and security agencies.
As the convoy crossed the Manitoba-Ontario border and travelled across the province until it arrived in Ottawa on January 28, OPP officers professionally fulfilled their duties without incident. In support of the Ottawa Police Service, throughout the occupation, an increasing number of OPP officers and specialized resources from various services became engaged, ultimately contributing to an integrated plan and the establishment of a unified command.
Simultaneously, our members responded to many other convoys and demonstrations that consistently and repeatedly emerged in communities across Ontario, including but not limited to the critical blockade of the Ambassador Bridge, the blockade of Highway 402, and multiple other attempts to block Canada-U.S. land border crossings and demonstrations that posed a risk to the area of the Ontario legislature. In addition, from day one, when the convoy entered Ontario, we were responsive to requests for assistance from other municipal police services.
This was a provincial and national emergency that garnered international attention. In response, the OPP and more than 20 other police services from across the country—
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry but we're going to have to adjourn. Our proceedings are not being publicly broadcast in either the Senate or the House of Commons. In addition, we have some MPs and witnesses attending with the Zoom application. We will therefore have to reschedule this meeting for another time.
Mr. Motz, you have the floor.
Gwen Boniface
View Gwen Boniface Profile
Hon. Gwen Boniface
2022-06-14 18:33
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 10 of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency created pursuant to the order of the House on March 2, 2022, and the Senate on March 3, 2022.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021.
I'd like to remind all those present in the room to follow the recommendations from public health authorities, as well as directives of the Board of Internal Economy to maintain health and safety.
Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me, as we may need to suspend for a few minutes to ensure all members are able to participate fully.
Witnesses should also be aware that translation is available through the globe icon at the bottom of their screen.
We have with us today, from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m., the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Finance.
Welcome.
She is joined by officials Isabelle Jacques, assistant deputy minister, financial sector policy branch; Jenifer Aitken, acting assistant deputy minister, law branch; and Sarah Paquet, director and chief executive officer, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Minister, we welcome you. You have five minutes for your opening comments.
The floor is yours. Please begin.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Chair, members and senators.
The work of this committee is very important and I hope my appearance will be helpful.
I am accompanied here today by the women of Finance, Isabelle Jacques, the assistant deputy minister; Jenifer Aitken, also assistant deputy minister of the law branch; and Sarah Paquet, the CEO of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
My ministerial colleagues have explained how the Emergencies Act was invoked and carried out. I'm here to speak about the economic costs of the occupation and blockade and the measures carried out under the emergency economic measures order.
It was just three months ago that we saw the end of the blockades of key border crossings and the occupation of our nation's capital, which were doing great damage to Canada's economy and to our reputation as a reliable trading partner.
Tens of millions of dollars in daily trade were disrupted due to the blockades at border crossings. According to StatsCan, in Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million in daily trade was affected by the blockades. In Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade was affected by the blockade.
The blockade of the Ambassador Bridge affected about $390 million in trade each day. This bridge supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and the United States.
The world's confidence in Canada as an investment destination was being undermined. We fought fiercely to protect Canada's privileged trading relationship with the United States during the NAFTA negotiations and in the face of the illegal and unjustified section 232 tariffs. We could not allow that hard-won success to be compromised, and we could not allow the livelihoods of Canadian workers to continue to be threatened just as we were all working so hard to recover from the economic damage caused by COVID-19.
And so, on Monday, February 14, more than two weeks after the occupation and blockades began, the Government of Canada invoked the Emergencies Act as a last resort to restore public order.
In the context of that necessary measure, the Emergency Economic Measures Order came into force on February 15 and introduced a number of temporary financial measures.
As a result of the blockades, on February 23, the government revoked the state of emergency declaration under the Emergencies Act as well as all temporary measures provided for under the Emergency Measures Regulations and the Emergency Economic Measures Order.
Madam Chair, I would like to explain the temporary measures provided for under the order and to show why the implementation of those measures was necessary and effective.
The order contains measures designed to limit financing of the illegal activities that led to the state of emergency, that is to say the funding from various organizations and individuals.
These measures meant that Canadian financial service providers—not the Government of Canada—were required, without the need for a court order, to freeze or suspend the account of an individual or business participating in the blockades, and to refuse to provide service or to facilitate any transaction related to funding the illegal blockades and occupation. In practice, they did so based either on information they received from law enforcement agencies authorized to be disclosed by the emergency economic measures order, or on information collected from their own internal processes.
I'd like to emphasize a very critical point here, that financial service providers made these decisions independently. There was no political direction.
As of February 21, during the period when the order was active, enforcement action under the emergency economic measures order had culminated in the freezing of approximately 280 financial products, such as savings and chequing accounts, credit cards, and lines of credit for a total of approximately $8 million, including $3.8 million from a payment processor. Further, 170 Bitcoin addresses were identified and shared with virtual currency exchangers.
Law enforcement agencies were authorized to provide information to Canadian financial service providers. This included the identity of persons and entities believed to be participating in illegal blockades. If the law enforcement agencies were satisfied, this disclosure would help financial service providers apply the order.
For their part, Canadian financial service providers were directed to review their relationships with anyone involved in the blockades on an ongoing basis and to report the existence of related property and transactions to the RCMP or CSIS.
Madam Chair, as the government said at the time, and has proved to be the case, these measures were temporary.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here.
Being that you're the most senior official who's been here in this committee so far, will the government waive cabinet confident and solicitor-client privilege on the documents ordered by this committee?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question, Mr. Motz.
The government has received the motion, and the public service is working on it diligently. I think everyone here appreciates the importance of cabinet confidentiality.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
This means that we won't get anything, probably.
Ms. Freeland, senior officials from your department who are with you here today appeared before our committee earlier this spring. Yet, none of the witnesses you offered could speak to the economic implications of the protest in February that we asked them about. It's convenient for you, considering that you put great stock not only in the invocation of the act, but also in your statements today claiming economic justifications for declaring a national emergency.
Will you make available to this committee the appropriate expert witnesses who can actually defend these economic claims?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I can quote two experts, if you'd like, right now.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
I don't want to have them quoted. I want to have the names of those from your department who can come here to this committee.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
An expert I think worth listening to is Flavio Volpe, president of Canada's Automotive Parts Manufacturer's Association. He was quoted widely in the press.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm sorry, the question was about witnesses from your own department. Who from your department can answer specific questions on the economic impact? We asked last time and couldn't get an answer. Can you provide them?
Just a yes or no would be good. If you could give us those witnesses' names and provide them, that would be awesome, please.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
As a former journalist, Mr. Motz, I always believe in going to primary sources.
Another source whose testimony I would urge you to refer to is Michigan representative Elissa Slotkin, who made some very concerning comments during the blockades about the implications for the United States' trading relationship with Canada.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Again, that doesn't necessarily have any impact on my question or the answer to my question on the expert witnesses from your department.
My question, then, is relating to your department. Did anyone in government instruct public servants to conjure up an economic narrative to support its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act?
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Was the government informed at any point by public servants that the economic data either didn't exist, did not answer the questions you wanted to be answered, or did not produce the results you preferred to hear? If so, did the government instruct those public servants to generate numbers to back up its claims, regardless of the data problems?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Motz, I am Canada's finance minister. I was our chief negotiator during the NAFTA negotiations, or I led the negotiations, assisted very ably by Steve Verheul. I personally had many conversations and read many reports that caused me to be very concerned about the economic consequences of the illegal blockades and occupation. I spoke directly with Canadian business leaders, who told me that they were hearing from investors that their confidence in Canada, as an investment destination, was shaken.
I spoke directly from and read the comments of many U.S. political leaders who spoke about how the blockades—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
—were encouraging protectionism against Canada.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
—my question was about within your own department. You may not be aware of this, but there's a reason I'm asking that question.
Just so that you are aware, in your opening statement you made some suggestions that.... The word you used was that trade was “disrupted”. But Stats Canada has reported that the cross-border trade in Ontario and Alberta during the time of the blockade was actually up 16% compared with last year. Although disruptive, inappropriate and illegal, it appears that the blockade at the borders did not have the economic impact you're suggesting, and it certainly did not warrant the use of the Emergencies Act as you're suggesting.
I have one other question. You said you froze around 280 accounts—around $8 million, you suggest. What caused the government to continue to freeze those bank accounts after the blockades were cleared and the trucks were gone from Wellington?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have to go back to your previous assertion about the economic damage, Mr. Motz. I was very gravely concerned about the damage to our trading relationship with the United States and our reputation as a reliable partner.
I have to quote Representative Slotkin, who said, “The one thing that couldn’t be more clear is that we have to bring American manufacturing back home to states like Michigan.”
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Representative Slotkin said, “we need to continue the work”—
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Minister, thank you for being here. I believe you were mid-sentence in quoting somebody. Would you perhaps like to finish and provide us with the full quote for the record?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I would.
Look, I appreciate that many of us here are elected and we have a partisan job to do, but I really want to speak very sincerely as Canada's finance minister and as a person who fought so hard, supported really by our whole country, to maintain that essential trading relationship with the United States. It was clear to me that with each passing hour, our economic reputation with the United States as a reliable trading partner and as a reliable investment destination was being damaged.
I'm going to quote Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan congresswoman. This is what she had to say:
It doesn’t matter if it’s an adversary or an ally—we can’t be this reliant on parts coming from foreign countries.
The one thing that couldn’t be more clear is that we have to bring American manufacturing back home to states like Michigan. If we don’t, it’s American workers...who are left holding the bag.
Then she vowed the following:
to continue the work that Michiganders have been pushing for over the last 30 years: bringing manufacturing of critical items back to the U.S. so we’re not dependent on others for our economic security.
This is so dangerous to Canada, colleagues. I was deeply, deeply concerned that these illegal blockades and this illegal occupation would provoke a whole new wave of protectionism and deeply erode our trading relationship with the United States. That was a real economic threat.
Going back to Mr. Motz's point, reputational harm is not something that you necessarily feel fully in the moment. It's something that you feel in the years ahead. Later on I'll quote Flavio Volpe, who talked about, at the time, his concerns that, going forward, investors would not choose to put their money into Canada because they would, quite reasonably, say to themselves that there is no guarantee that parts we build in Canada will be able to freely and easily travel to the United States.
I also spoke directly with U.S. government officials. They were very, very worried. I was very, very worried as well. The measures that we took were serious. The members of this committee are right to scrutinize them carefully. But I do also want to remind everyone here that the economic harm—in the moment and in the weeks, months and indeed years to come—was serious, and it was becoming more serious every single day.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for that, Minister.
I too, at the time, was extremely concerned. At the time of invocation of the Emergencies Act, as I understand it—both at the time and from testimony at this committee—the blockade at the Coutts, Alberta, international border was ongoing and that the border would only reopen on February 15. The blockade at Emerson, Manitoba, was also ongoing and the border there would only open two days following the invocation of the Emergencies Act. In Surrey, B.C., it was the same thing. It would only open several days later. There was a continued threat of further blockades at the Windsor border, which, as you mentioned, Minister, affected about $400 million in trade each day.
I would like to hear you on the economic importance of this, not only for our country but also for workers. I have read a quote from Dave Cassidy, the president of Local 444 of the United Auto Workers, which represents workers at the factory in Windsor. He said:
Our whole economy…depends on that bridge being open
If these lines don't run and the workers are sent home, then these working families unfortunately become collateral damage to the protest that's going on at the bridge
Minister, can you speak to the importance of supporting our Canadian workers at this time?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome to the committee, Minister.
I'm pleased to learn that you're already working on production of the documents we've requested. I understand what cabinet secrecy is. I imagine you also understand the importance of the work we're doing and the fact that we've been sworn in and may receive confidential documents and information.
We can't carry out our mandate if we don't have all the information and documents we need to do so. I hope you're aware of that too. I'm sure you're making good faith efforts to do what has to be done for us to have that information and those documents.
Having said that, I'd like some clarification on one point.
Did you take part in cabinet discussions before the Emergencies Act was proclaimed?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
We had discussions with the Incident Response Group. That group consists of key ministers.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Did you discuss whether the Emergencies Act should be invoked?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
We discussed the situation. I described the significant economic consequences. We also discussed how we might terminate the blockades and occupation as well as the matter of costs.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
When did those discussions begin or take place?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
The committee's meetings are public. A notice was published for each of the committee's meetings.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Was the decision to proclaim the Emergencies Act made in that committee?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
The information was already public, and, as it was an important decision, it was made at a full cabinet meeting.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
I see.
You said that the roadblocks in question and the occupation of Wellington Street, among other things, caused significant damage to the Canadian economy.
Would you please explain how the roadblock on Wellington Street hurt the Canadian economy?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's a good question.
There were two kinds of consequences. First, it had a major impact on Ottawa's economy and on the Outaouais regional economy. I'm sure that's important for you since you're a member from Quebec.
According to a Radio-Canada article, which cited—
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
I apologize for interrupting, Minister. I don't mean to be rude, but, as you know, we don't really have a lot of time. I don't want to hear about the article. Perhaps I worded my question poorly.
In your opinion, as a minister, how did the protests on Wellington Street impact the Canadian economy?
What's the connection between the two situations?
Personally, I don't see it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
The blockades and the occupation had an impact in two ways. First, they compromised the economy of the greater Ottawa region.
Second, they undermined Canada's reputation. Canada is normally considered a politically stable state, which is very important for investors.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
I understand.
You told us earlier that the act was invoked as a last resort because it was necessary. My question is this: what did you try to do before resorting to it?
When you say it was a last resort, it's usually because you've tried something else and it didn't work.
What did you do to prevent or shut down the protests on Wellington Street?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
You've already spoken with other colleagues and officials about the work that was done on the ground and with the people responsible for implementing the act from a national security standpoint. However, I want to point out, as Minister of Finance, that every hour and every day of the occupation and blockades hurt our economy.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
I only have a few seconds left. What did you try before invoking the Emergencies Act?
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you.
I'll say, right off the top, welcome, Deputy Prime Minister. You're here both as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
I have to say that I'm very concerned about the nature of the answers. I'm the fourth questioner, yet I'm not sure you've brought any additional facts. You're quoting news articles. You're quoting people. You're talking about primary sources.
I will put to you that we need you as a primary source, as somebody who supported this. I need to know if the government had, within its department—within your department, your ministry—facts that meant the economic impacts of the occupation were significant enough to meet the threshold of “threats to national security”, as legally defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act. I'm not talking about feelings. I'm not talking about reputation and how bad we might look in the world. I'm talking about quantifiable facts your department would have provided for the inevitable invocation of the act.
I'm going to put the question to you directly: What were the economic impacts of the occupation, and were they significant enough to meet the threshold of a threat to national security, under section 2 of the CSIS Act?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm happy to answer your question if I'm not interrupted. I have to start again.
Sincerely, with all due respect, I dispute the contention that, when it comes to the economy, reputation doesn't matter. In fact, Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner, as a reliable investment destination, as a country with peace, order and good government, and as a country with stable and effective political institutions.... These are some of the most precious things we have, as an economy, and they're the foundation of our prosperity.
I would—
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
That's not the question I asked you.
The question I asked you is, what economic impacts of the occupation did your ministry provide, and what legal opinion was provided that would have met the threshold, as defined under section 2 of the CSIS Act?
I'm not talking about pontification. I'm talking about facts, here.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I don't believe I'm pontificating.
Let me, again, be really clear. The economic impact was absolutely clearly there.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
The economic impact on the region of Ottawa was clear, the economic impact on actual trade that was blocked, and the ongoing future economic impact and the harm done to our reputation as a reliable trading partner—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I had many conversations with Canadian business leaders.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
That's not good enough.
Madam Chair, look. There are two things that are happening right now.
One, the audio and the feedback is making this very difficult for me to engage, and I don't know if somebody has a live mike there.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
Okay.
Well, I'm going to go back to the most basic question: Can the Minister of Finance provide something generated within her department, which is not an external reference to an American governor or any external bodies, that quantifies the threshold under section 2 that goes beyond reputation? I'm talking about real economic impacts that are quantifiable and that her ministry, I hope, would have generated in some kind of report or some kind of briefing. If so, will she please provide it to this committee today?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
I have to say that I disagree so forcefully with the premise of the question. Reputational damage, when it comes to an economy, when it comes to a trading relationship, when it comes to Canada's reputation—
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
This is just repeating the same answer.
Look, at the end of the day, we have a job at this committee to get to the heart of the matter. You can reject the premise of the question. All you have to say is that your ministry did not generate any internal information that would be for the good and the welfare of this committee, because that's what I'm hearing right now in the repeating of these answers.
I'm going to move on.
You stated on February 17 that you had spoken directly with the heads of major banks and the director of FINTRAC. What was the nature of those conversations? Did the banks and FINTRAC express either support or opposition to any of the temporary measures in the order?
Gwen Boniface
View Gwen Boniface Profile
Hon. Gwen Boniface
2022-06-14 19:03
Thank you very much.
Minister, I would like to zero in on the Ottawa occupation and the effect of the economic measures. As you know, this issue has been raised continually, namely the link between the Ottawa occupation in particular and the measures. With other tools that were provided through the emergency measures regulations, why were the economic measures needed to disperse the occupation? I'm trying to figure out what the thought process was going into it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Maybe I'll start, if it's in the spirit of your question, by talking a little bit about the economic damage to Ottawa.
Let me start by pointing out that the City of Ottawa released a report last week detailing the cost of the illegal blockade to the City of Ottawa itself. They put the cost at $37 million. Larry Andrade, a Deloitte partner, calculated the damages suffered by businesses and employees in the Ottawa area during the occupation period to be between $150 million and $207 million. The Retail Council of Canada estimated that there were losses of $3 million per day in sales.
When it comes to the second part of your question, on the thought process, I do want to assure the members of this committee that I am very aware of the seriousness of invoking the Emergencies Act. I'm very aware that doing so was a big decision. What I as Minister of Finance would like to say to you and to Canadians is that the gravity of that decision was weighed, in my mind and in the discussions within our department, against the gravity of the economic damage that was being done. The economic damage that was being done truly was compounded. Every day that it went on, specific damage was being done, but every single day that it went on, that really was a blow to Canada's reputation. It was a blow to every single Canadian who goes out and tries to get someone to invest in the country. It was a blow to every single Canadian who tries to be a supplier to an American partner. I heard directly in conversations I had with Canadian business leaders who were getting in touch with me that they were gravely concerned. I actually heard it from some members of this committee who asked me questions in question period and who, at the time, were gravely concerned. Certainly, I, of course, was not the only person in the Department of Finance who was working on this. My officials and my political colleagues were all hearing exactly the same thing.
Gwen Boniface
View Gwen Boniface Profile
Hon. Gwen Boniface
2022-06-14 19:06
Thank you for that.
Just quickly, one of the issues that have been raised, certainly at this committee, on the economic measures had to do with the communication and understanding of Canadians who may have made a donation at the front end, thinking it was for a legitimate cause, which certainly caused a lot of grave concern for them in terms of what it meant.
I'm wondering if you've done any review of how that was communicated and whether or not there have been any lessons learned from that process.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think that is an excellent question, and because it's so important, and given the importance of clear communication, I do want to take this opportunity to reinforce that. I'm now going to read from the RCMP statement of February 21:
At no time, did we provide a list of donors to Financial Institutions.
It's important for Canadians to understand that, because you're quite right, Senator, that someone could well have made a donation that was perfectly legal, to a legal cause. I want to assure them that at no time did the RCMP give their names to financial institutions.
I also want to point out that on June 9 the Bank of Canada released its annual financial system review, and it actually found that the degree of confidence in Canada's financial institutions and system is at the highest level ever. I am not, in any way, challenging—
Claude Carignan
View Claude Carignan Profile
Hon. Claude Carignan
2022-06-14 19:08
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, you did say that cabinet made the decision to declare the state of emergency.
Didn't you?
Results: 1 - 60 of 4162 | Page: 1 of 70

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

For more data options, please see Open Data