Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  At least a number of Iranian companies have established procurement companies or subsidiaries that are incorporated under Canadian law, sometimes run by Canadian citizens, that can be traced back to Iran. I do not have any hard evidence that these companies have been engaged in clear violations of the sanctions regime, but I think it deserves some scrutiny, given their connections, given that in some cases—I have at least one case in mind—these connections have been blurred or wilfully denied or removed.

Financial System Review Act  Speaker, we are debating Bill S-5. However, we are also debating part of the amendment that was tabled. Let us be very clear. The amendment talks about the fact that the immunity resulting from this provision could negatively impact the office's transparency and accountability to the Canadian public with respect to Bill S-5.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  If you are an ordinary Iranian and you can't afford to buy meat more than once a month, and you have to take up an extra job or two in order to pay your bills, and even as a government employee you see your revenues profoundly eroded by inflation and the devaluation of the currency, and you're told by your government that all of your suffering is not caused by the outside pressure imposed by sanctions, you must obviously conclude that it's the incompetence and mismanagement of the government that is causing your suffering. I think that if you take all of this combined, it's quite clear that very few people inside Iran are prepared to believe what they're told. The question is how you leverage this widespread lack of confidence in their government to make things change inside the country.

Financial System Review Act  I wonder what this means. I have to interpret this myself, because the government was not very clear on this subject. All that matters to this government is the financial system, not the Canadian economy. Yet they cannot be separated. It is important to discuss the financial system, but we must also discuss the impact that it can have on the Canadian economy.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In the past, police power was often used against the mob. There were many occasions when the state regarded the citizens as the enemy. This is more clear in continental jurisprudence than it is in our British tradition. The ultimate law is the safety of the state. That's an old legal principle—lex ultimus salus populi est. The state has always had the power, whether it admits it or not, or whether political theory admits it or not, to ensure that the state itself survives.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The question I wanted to get to is quite fundamental. It appears to me quite clear that despite your observations about the minister's musing about you're either with us or with the child pornographers, Anonymous was not reacting to that; they were reacting to the bill.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  This is a very new and very difficult area, because in some ways the web is private communication between people and in other ways the web is a statement of a public utterance. Sometimes the border is not clear between them.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Anonymous not only called for the removal, in its entirety, of Bill C-30, but also Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act. It is clear to me, at least, and I believe to those of us on this side of the table, that there was a threat against the legislation, not against anything else. I think that's the fundamental issue we have to deal with here.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  They say they “know all about” Minister Toews and threaten to release more information during Operation White North unless he accedes to their demands. I recognize those are not physical threats, but it appears to me that they are clear threats against our democracy. If a person or a group can threaten to subvert the legislative agenda of any government, is that not a threat?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In the past we've known who makes the threats. If somebody at a meeting throws a tomato at a member of Parliament, it's a pretty clear threat, and you know who did it, but the anonymity of the web has added a dimension that was much less important before, and this raises problems.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think the threat itself came at the end of a process of other actions and statements, some of which, I think I made clear, I do not like, and that the threat itself was made as a consequence of these previous things. As a committee you can certainly deal with the issue of the end threat as an issue in itself.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Professor Franks, for being here. Am I correct that in your opinion it wasn't entirely clear to you that what Anonymous said on YouTube was of an offensive nature versus a threatening nature? Did you speculate and say that you weren't sure where it was located?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Professor Franks, for being here. I must admit that I'm not quite clear on your position. If you could put yourself in the position of the Speaker, Mr. Scheer, having heard the arguments you heard from all sides of the House, would you have ruled that this was a breach of privilege in this case?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In terms of the role that we're now having to play as a committee in making a final determination as to whether there has been a breach of the privilege of the member, is the fact that you have threats combined with—let's assume—only offensive words not sufficient? It's very clear: “You must resign your seat and you must withdraw this legislation, or else”. Are the two combined, along with the clarity of what they are demanding as action on the part of the minister or the member, not sufficient to make a final determination of breach of privilege?

Justice committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Tilson, obviously the object of this bill is pretty clear in my mind: denouncing the conduct and disrespect to war memorials. There's been some confusion with regard to other monuments, churches, etc. The war dead fought for democracy. They fought for religious beliefs.