Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 120 of 153
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Goldman, perhaps you could speak more at length on the actions of the Russian government. Essentially, we're talking about state actors or quasi-state actors, and it is immediately perceived as an act against the state. Whether you freeze a person's assets or just say you're freezing that person's assets, they were acting on behalf of the state in question, so it's immediately perceived as such.
Perhaps you could speak to what happened in the Magnitsky case.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
At the very end of your testimony today, Mr. Goldman, you mentioned that sanctions, whether they were effective or ineffective, were still a very interesting and important tool. I was hoping you could develop that a bit.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you both for your testimony.
We have just started a vast study that could be even more vast. Unfortunately, in a humanitarian situation, the right to life is the basic right at stake.
I would like to focus the discussion on the right to practice one’s religion and religious freedom. Groups like the Yezidis are more specifically affected by Daesh’s genocidal discourse.
To what extent will that discourse influence what is going to happen later, after Daesh is eliminated? Will the situation get worse because of religion and distinctions based on religious practices or because of the fact that people are simply united against Daesh?
I know that that question could take half an hour to answer. Perhaps you could answer concisely by focusing specifically on religious freedom.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Lilly and gentlemen, thank you for appearing and thank you for taking what is a broad approach to this panel and the examination at hand. What has become evident in a number of the appearances of witnesses before us with respect to the legislation and its operationalization is that we started out thinking about where the holes are in this legislation and where we can fill them and how it can be put in place in the most desirable way as part of Canadian policy and effective enforcement of these legislative tools, and quickly we've gotten into a few observations that are rather surprising. One is the inability to impose them in an effective way, and another is the potentially perverse effects that imposing them has, absent a broad multilateral approach.
I'm glad you've raised that point, because as we look at potentially putting in place something that would address gross violations of human rights, the issues you raise today are particularly important in making sure that this legislative tool, if deemed desirable by Parliament, actually works.
The current legislation, which is supposed to deal with something equally if not more grave, you've said either doesn't work, is very difficult to put into place, or creates disincentives or perverse effects on Canadian business, as Mr. Boscariol stated. It's particularly intriguing—and it won't be part of my intervention, but as we start to engage more with Iran—that what you've seemed to suggest is that Canadian business is at a disadvantage compared with partners who can react more quickly.
The question I have is with respect to gross violations of human rights and what we need to do; with where you see an opportunity for Canada to act, and—any one of you can answer this—with a focus on the potential countermeasures facing a country that is much more powerful than us both on an economic level and a political level and potentially a partner, whether acting unilaterally for a country like ours.... One, is such an approach desirable from a legal and political perspective? Two, would it actually work? Three, one of you gentlemen raised the rule of law—condemning people essentially before they're judged—but also the perverse effect that it can have on Canadian citizens as a result.
I know that's a long statement, but go at it as you see fit.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
You've heard today that we're examining potential holes in the current legislative scheme, including what may be missing, what's desirable, and what's needed to fix it. There has been some focus on human rights violations. It sounds as though in the legislative scheme you operate under there isn't a hole and that it's just a question of being able to do your job.
The issue I want to focus on—and it has to do with what Mr. Levitt brought up—is precisely the ability to do your job and to effectively capture an item, a good, or a person that would otherwise get out or get in, particularly in the area of dual-use equipment. Just walk me through—I have a very simplistic approach to this—the difference between a washing machine and a centrifuge that might end up, depending on how it's used, being used for cleaning clothes or for refining something.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
My understanding is that a lack of resources is really the biggest impediment to you being able to do your job, and I think you said that was also what the 2016 audit showed. Is there anything else that poses an impediment from an operational perspective?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
All right. I guess, from your perspective, your job is done once you've stopped whatever it is from going in or coming out, but I guess you're saying is there's frustration with then not seeing anything happen.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Van Der Klaauw, one of the accusations you hear as a recurring theme from the Burundi government is that the UN agency's foreign powers are just perpetuating foreign interests, supporting an insurgency movement. It seems to be a repeated theme throughout and it falls quickly into a colonialist discourse, probably too quickly but for opportunistic reasons. How do you respond to that on the ground and what is your relationship with the Burundian government, if any?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
We often get caught in a bit of a circle when we talk too quickly about prosecuting people, bringing people to justice, and often then neglect something that is almost equally, if not more important, which is preventing the degeneration of hostilities, preventing these situations in the first place, which is a much more difficult issue to address. What do you recommend to a country like Canada that has very little involvement with Burundi economically, politically? I think our representation is run out of Kenya.
What do you recommend to countries in our situation that are willing and wanting to act as to how we would work in a multilateral situation, whether it's more money, aid? Really, the question is yours.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Gentlemen.
As Bob alluded to earlier, we're beginning an extensive review of these two legislative regimes and their connected acts. Part of the exercise is to figure out, actually, what they do and what they don't do, what they should do, and what is desirable for this committee to recommend if there are holes. They are complicated; they're intertwined. Obviously what has been on the top of our minds, in light of the testimony that's been given in prior meetings of this committee, is the topic of gross violation of human rights, regardless of the country or officials perpetrating them.
The question really is, when you examine the legal regimes that exist in Canada, is there anything that addresses the ability of the government to freeze assets in the presence of a gross violation of human rights by a foreign official or a foreign person in the absence of terrorism? They would not fall under section 83 of the Criminal Code, the proceeds not being from that of crime. Literally, it's assets of a person in Canada, and then in the manifest presence of gross violation of international human rights, as assessed by some standard, which we don't need to go into at this point, that does not rise to a violation or a grave concern for international peace and security.
That sort of scenario takes us out of SEMA, and out of a requesting country under the FACFOA. In my mind, there's a void there, but you're the experts, and I would like you to speak to that.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is there anything that prevents the government from just doing it, with respect to foreign nationals and their assets situated in Canada, other than investment treaty protections?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
As a final question or observation, I would say far be it from Canada to act in a unilateral way in such a sensitive situation. The situation I'm describing is really one in which a large part of the international community could readily ascertain that, as you mentioned or at least alluded to earlier, you would prefer to act in concert in imposing sanctions.
So, if there's a hole of the nature I described that needs to be filled, what are the pitfalls internationally with respect to countermeasures that a country that may be stronger than ours or weaker than ours may enact against our nationals, which would obviously be foreign to them? What measures could be taken on a trade level against Canada should it choose a path that would be truly unilateral as opposed to working with its multilateral partners?
I'd be glad if you would like to comment on that. If it's outside the ambit of your presentation, that fine.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a quick comment about what my colleague raised about the success of SEMA. It seems to me, as I've read SEMA, that the success of the legislative regime doesn't necessarily depend on how many prosecutions there are. I think the role that you play is one of prevention and enforcing the fact that there may be export and import restrictions that are imposed upon a country. A lot of that has to do with information sharing and the work at the border in preventing stuff from going to the place where it shouldn't be going and then in turn coming in as part of enforcing the regime. It's surprising there is one prosecution only and one successful conviction.
When we're talking about assets, they may be ill-gotten or they may be “properly gotten”, or whatever the expression is.
The thing that interests me with you is the life cycle of what you do in freezing an asset. In my mind that's freezing a bank account, seizing a house, freezing a security, or preventing an export. How difficult are any of those four things to do once you get the green light, and how long does it take, typically, once you have the green light?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
In any of the legislative regimes that you have authority to act under, how difficult is it? What is the life cycle of a simple thing like freezing a bank account?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
When the threat exists, obviously this has to be done in a somewhat confidential situation to prevent the person from moving the money, in a very fluid transactional world, out of the country, or in some other fashion of obscuring the asset, in an effort to avoid detection and freezing, I guess. If there's a frustration related to the time period, that's a real hole in the implementation of the legislation, in my mind.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Professor Touzé, for your testimony.
I want to give you the opportunity to continue your explanations because I think this is very important.
Many experts have asked the United Nations to invoke Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, which is a weapon, a very serious tool. We're talking about military intervention here.
Before moving on to that step, what else can be done internationally? You spoke about co-operation, but there isn't any. You used the words “total denial”. What instruments, what tools do the United Nations have to multilaterally strengthen what we've seen, obviously, in all the reports and interventions with the state of Burundi so that we can avoid resorting to Chapter VII? We have reached a point where we need to make a decision without the approval of Russia, China and, above all, the neighbouring African states. What else do you think is left to do?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Ms. Nivyabandi and Mr. Manirakiza.
First, thank you for your courage. I hope the next time you come here, it will be to share your poetry with us.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I want to go back to what Mr. Anderson said about those responsible. Those people must be named. There are several international resolutions, commissions of inquiry, denunciations by western countries, so to speak, for lack of a better word.
Without international intervention, how interested is the government in making a change, in rectifying the situation and in following the rule of law? To that end, I would like you to name the state entities that are involved. We have talked about the ministry of the interior and the intelligence service. The youth group, which I assume has quasi-state status, is left to its own devices by political institutions. I would especially like to give you the opportunity to name the state entities that are involved.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Good afternoon. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Tertsakian.
At the outset, you very clearly stated that Burundi has been slipping out of the media cycle despite the fact that the situation is getting worse and worse. Do you have some tangible recommendations for the Canadian government, which, of course, must act in a multilateral context, in a part of Africa where it is not very involved, according to my research.
You talked about the impunity that the world needs to know about, the current situation and especially the government's actions. In practical terms, what would you recommend to the Canadian government? What actions would you suggest to the government to show the world what is happening in Burundi?
Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Parenteau, I appreciate the fact that you speak in both official languages. We rarely have the opportunity to hear presentations in which English and French are used equally. Continue making the effort and try to integrate this practice into the public service.
The question I want to ask you is more or less hypothetical.
Imagine the minister tells you he wants to get involved in a region of the world. Take Burundi, for example, since the study starts with that country. You are experts on the subject. What would you tell him?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Parenteau and Madam Norton, welcome to the committee.
My question is very simple. Are we headed toward a new Rwanda? If not, why not?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
When we study the situation in Burundi, we see that several of the conditions needed to provoke an explosive conflict are present. First of all, there is no political will on the part of the president of Burundi and his government to allow people into the country to bear witness to the situation, which would be very important. There is also a shortage of food.
Peace missions proposed by western states have been turned down. There are a few political, socio-economic or ethnic conflicts. In that context, we wonder about Canada's role, and especially about its capacity to intervene. The fact that Burundi is a francophone state could be an advantage for us.
Mr. Parenteau, you mentioned that our presence in that country is minimal. In light of the situation and the worldwide inertia, I wonder, aside from the good words and recommendations of our minister, what we can do as a country in the face of that situation? What are you doing to keep the minister abreast of the situation and emphasize its importance?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
The diplomatic response is being carried out from Nairobi, which is several thousand kilometres away from Bujumbura. Is that the case?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is a motion I presented a couple of days ago, and I'll read it:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee report the following immediately to the House:
a) that the House recognize that there is strong evidence that the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has committed and is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against religious, ethnic, and other groups in Iraq and Syria, including Yazidis, Shia and Sunni Muslims, Christians, and members of the LGBTQ2 community;
b) that the Government of Canada continue its efforts to have these atrocities properly investigated and, where appropriate, referred to the International Criminal Court to formally determine the existence of genocide and to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice; and
c) that the Government of Canada and the international community continue their efforts to combat ISIL, as well as help protect these vulnerable populations.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a brief one. I've heard a number of Garnett's speeches both in Parliament and committee, and I want to thank him for his advocacy. I know he does his homework. We do hold different positions sometimes. I don't believe it's much different on this one. I do appreciate the effort.
I believe the words of this motion stand by themselves and I'm prepared to vote on them.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.
I would like to quickly touch on the role that women play in the process of development aid. We have just finished a report on peace and security. We talk about the important role that women play and should play from now on in the process of peace and security.
I would like to focus—as you mentioned, Ms. Paradis—on the specific process of development aid. I find it strange that we do not give more money to Guatemala, which is not one of our target countries today. We should be giving more, but it should have a specific target, the role that women could play in this process.
Could you talk about that aspect, perhaps using the role they have played in Colombia as a model?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would like to clarify what I said.
Our analysis on poverty shows that women are disproportionately affected by this. Given the rate of around 60% in Guatemala, women are either at the front when it comes to leadership, or suffering the consequences of it. I think it's obvious.
I believe I still have a minute or two. You can address this aspect, or I can let another committee member take the floor.
Ms. Paradis, do you have anything to say about that?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, thank you.
Thank you both for being here.
When we talk about the causes of the problems in Honduras, we often talk about corruption, the country’s geographical position in relation to drug trafficking and its negative impact on civil society, and the impact of mining, especially on indigenous peoples. There are other causes, of course, but those are usually the ones cited as the main causes or as those contributing the most to the obstacles in Honduras.
In light of these rather serious socio-political circumstances, how can we ensure that our international aid gets into the right hands and is put to good use?
Furthermore, how can we ensure that our Canadian mining companies conduct themselves appropriately? Earlier, you mentioned your business committee that tries to ensure that human rights are upheld. Clearly, some companies, such as Gildan, are not involved in mining, but how can we really make sure that people respect rights, especially when the companies are Canadian?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
You touched briefly on an important point, which is that Canada has a limited amount of time, money, and resources to dedicate to what is probably mankind's greatest challenge, that of eliminating or significantly limiting extreme poverty.
One of the frustrations that I think we face when we look at the countries that are selected as countries of focus is why one and not the other? For example, you look at West Africa and ask why so much goes to Mali, and why there's not enough to Burkina Faso, and then Benin, with similar and very close population numbers. Obviously, poverty doesn't stop at customs control. The question, then, is what you do with limited resources, limited involvement specialities, and, frankly, engagement in these countries.
You mentioned transitioning to thematic approaches. The issue then is where Canada can contribute its expertise. That is essentially my question for you.
Mr Fryars, you mentioned nutrition, and Ms. Riseboro, you mentioned the role of women and championing that issue. We have water issues being championed and all sorts of things where Canada can be a leader. What is your view on those three issues and on perhaps what I'm missing in that regard?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's helpful.
Ms. Mondaca, go ahead, please.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, both.
First, Mr. Robinson, I want to thank you for your service. You've lasted longer than most of us will. Your principled stances on LGBT rights, medical assistance in dying, and the environment have inspired a great number of parliamentarians in this current wave and, I would venture to say, regardless of political affiliation.
Mr. Benn, we discussed this earlier at lunch, but I want to provide you with the opportunity to say this on the record. Again, TB is sort of the forgotten child and, in terms of spreadability, and in my mind, perhaps the most dangerous threat to eradicate, particularly given the challenges in implementing what we discussed of getting into prisons and getting awareness into poorer areas.
What are the challenges you face, whether they are eastern bloc countries or others in getting that implementation and getting the proper prophylactics or awareness into those areas of difficulty?
Just for the record, I want to say that the conference will be in my riding, so I would encourage you all to come. That's the one political point that I....
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
You stated that you're a funding agency, and I talked about implementation. What are the specific actions you take with more recalcitrant partners to get the message out?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
I want to echo the condolences expressed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Cavallaro. Again, Ms. Caceres, my condolences for your loss.
This question is for Mr. Cavallaro.
We had a report a year ago, which MP Anderson referred to. One of the recommendations was that Canada continue engagement as a donor country and as a trading partner, with a view as well to promoting human rights.
The report referred to Gildan Activewear as being one the biggest private employers in the country. It's a Canadian company. There are other countries pulling back their aid or their trade with Honduras in the light of a breakdown of civil society.
What do you believe is the way forward for change? I know there is very little time, but could you touch briefly on what the ultimate outcome would be, other than the inherent value of shining a light on the human rights abuses with an OAS investigation?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you to both, and I'll follow up along those lines of thought.
It's always shocking to me how much play a cartoon can be given. It's there to amuse, incite, or whatnot. I think it underscores the value of freedom of expression and the careful approach we need to take when limiting freedom of expression.
Just to be clear, your cartoons were political commentary, not inflammatory depictions of religious figures. Showing an Iranian leader as a crocodile shouldn't be a reason for having your life and family threatened. It's abhorrent.
It is a reminder about how important freedom of expression is and the impact these things can have on change and transformation.
As you know, this current government is taking a cautious approach to re-engagement with Iran, and I'd like to get your thoughts on what you said earlier, which was using the human rights angle as a chip. I hesitate to use that term, because it implies bargaining, whereas the human rights agenda should be a principled approach, as you both mentioned.
Given this government, where do you think the human rights agenda can be best played? You may not be familiar with their undertaking to re-engage with Iran in a cautious manner.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
A number of you spoke directly or indirectly about climate change and how that is making your jobs more challenging and difficult, and you alluded just a few seconds ago to to a requirement for more flexibility. You think of the immediate impact that the droughts have on immigration, conflict, and access to food.
I would like you to touch on that at some length. Develop that theme and describe how Canada can best leverage its assets. Obviously there is some cross-pollination between the Ministry of the Environment, the foreign affairs department, and international aid and some of the challenges you see in your specific jobs in the near future.
Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for their input.
Mr. Munro, I sense a considerable amount of frustration on your end, and it's clearly justified. As you said, eliminating extreme poverty should be the focus. I was particularly struck by Mr. Brown's remarks and his frustration with the review process. To that, I would say, give it a chance. Our mandate has only just begun, but there is a genuine desire to take action, as well as a significant amount of consultation taking place, particularly within this committee.
I heard a number of practical suggestions. You'll have to forgive me on that front; my father was an academic and I get very frustrated when people don't propose practical solutions to a problem. I've always had that mentality. Please don't take offence because of my bias, but I heard you talk about decentralization and specialization. You touched on increasing funding for eradicating extreme poverty and giving decentralized diplomatic channels an opportunity to get involved. It may also be a good idea to consider funding for diplomats, given that they have an intimate knowledge of the issues on the ground.
Could you elaborate on concrete decisions and measures that could be implemented straightaway or perhaps after a short period of reflection?
You talked about possibly wanting to bask in the glory of donating money. That said, are there other countries doing a better job than we are? Is handing over the money and just letting them do their thing the way to go?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you both for coming. The question I have really goes to the point that Mr. Akhavan made about there being extremes in the pendulum regarding the approach to re-engagement. You mentioned initially that Canada had to play the geopolitical game. I guess it's a very important game and indeed not a game, but at the other end, blind re-engagement is not advisable for all the reasons you mentioned.
Mr. Akhavan, you made a number of statements about Iranian civil society, notably that it has the biggest potential to develop and flourish compared to its similarly situated neighbours. I'd like you to develop that in the context of a careful re-engagement in terms of trade or lifting of various sanctions. Perhaps you could take a few minutes to juxtapose that with what the Europeans are taking and what kind of symbolic acts Canada can perform in order to get the right point on the pendulum to engage Iran and use the chips carefully.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Dr. Shaheed, perhaps you could build on that. I note that your report was criticized by Iran in a very cavalier fashion. Where do you think western powers are going right in their approach to Iran—right or wrong, in fact—in light of the P5+1 agreement?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Welcome, Ms. Mohammed.
It's important to understand, when it comes to talking about reconstruction or aid, we're not starting from scratch when it comes to Iraq. If you examine the historical role of women in Iraqi society, relative to other similarly situated countries in the Middle East, Iraq started relatively higher with participation of women in civil society; they were active in the workforce and in political life.
Indeed, if you look at the provisional constitution of 1970, rights were guaranteed to women and the laws enacted thereunder gave rights to women or enshrined rights to women that were being exercised. Then in the 1990s it started spiralling under. Then, as you said in your testimony, the Security Council in 2003...and it's been even worse since then.
What are the elements in the current constitution that strip women further of their human rights guarantees and promote a more religious-based agenda? What do you think could bring us back, and then be better, to where Iraqi society left off before the various iterations of wars that have happened since the 1990s?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you to the members of the commission on foreign policy and to Mr. Guevara for coming. I would like to note that you are among colleagues who don't face the same situation you do, so from our side there's a lot of respect for what you're doing and why you came here. Thank you again for having the courage to stand up.
When we talk about human rights violations, people often speak about the rule of law, and here we're not even at that point. There's a complete attack on your ability to do your jobs, whether through personal intimidation or threats of a different nature. None of us here face that. There would not be the same group of people around the table if we faced the threats you face. To that end I would like you to speak a bit more directly about the personal harassment you and your families face at home and abroad.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
General Bowes and General Nixon, I know it's been said twice, but I'll say it another time: thank you for your ongoing service.
General Bowes, you touched briefly on our relationship with the indigenous peoples in the north. Perhaps you could expand a little on that and where you see added value specifically with respect to our relationship with the Canadian Rangers. Is there value in deepening and strengthening that relationship, or broadening it with a view toward ensuring ongoing territorial sovereignty?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dion, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as follows:
[...] any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person [...]
Obviously, the mistreatment of prisoners and inmates is serious, inhumane and always illegal.
Mr. Minister, this week you signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I would like to know how signing this protocol will help us achieve the objective of eliminating torture.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Minister, the committee heard from numerous witnesses during its study on women, peace and security. They told us that the department had stopped providing base funding to small NGOs, in Canada and in developing countries. This is of course tremendously problematic for many of them.
I would like to know whether you will consider this in your review the policies of Global Affairs Canada.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Gentlemen, thank you for coming.
In the Global Affairs Canada report for planning priorities for 2016-17, there is a forecasted spending for 2015-16, under international security and democratic development, for the amount of $395,178,104. The same report indicates that planned spending for international security and democratic development for 2016-17 is $237,901,526. Where does that difference come from?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I can repeat them, and if you don't have it in front of you, you can get back to me. It's okay.
In the planning priorities for 2016-17, there is a forecasted spending for the 2015-16 period for international security and democratic development of $395 million. The same report indicates planned spending for 2016-17 of $237 million.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. Thank you.
Then, if you could just explain.... It appears in the footnotes at times that many of the performance targets are to “obtain baseline information”. Could you briefly explain what exactly that is?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Ms. Lewa, for your testimony. Perhaps my question will allow you to get into your recommendations.
We've heard from many witnesses, at least one of whom has asked that no trade be undertaken with the government until there is improvement in the human rights situation of the Rohingya. Obviously, with a fledgling democracy, that may have an inverse effect on the situation that is faced by those people. Another witness mentioned that certain trade/aid—and those are obviously two distinct groups—be targeted, if we were to undertake sanctions.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on increasing trade and obviously increasing aid, and how to perhaps leverage or link it to improvement in the human rights situation and legal status of the Rohingya.
Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
You touched briefly on the conditions faced by the Rohingya in two other countries. You didn't mention Bangladesh, and our numbers from 2015 indicate that there are 32,000 registered Rohingya and perhaps even 200,000 non-registered there.
Can you touch a little on the conditions faced by those refugees in Bangladesh and perhaps the response of the Bangladesh government in response to that mass entry?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thanks to all three of you for your testimony and, indeed, your courage.
Ms. Abdallah, thank you for being here. Thank you for believing in our country. I believe that I can dare to speak on behalf of this committee and say thank you for making Canada better. It's through people like you that we improve as a country, as a nation.
Your testimony left everyone deeply moved, so thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's unquestionable that the behaviour by Daesh is genocidal, disgusting, blood-curdling, and needs to end.
There's a question I have for the three of you. Whoever feels more like taking the question first, feel free.
Are we doing enough as a country? Canada expanded its aid and its engagement in the region significantly, in my opinion. Are we doing enough? What is the international community doing now? What more should it be doing to protect every single last Yazidi? I would like to get your sense of what's missing in this equation.
It's not a mistake, but we tend to conflate long-term solutions with the short-term solutions, and the immediacy of this situation is quite obvious. I'd like to focus on the immediacy. In the long term, obviously getting women engaged as 50% of the armed forces is something that I've pushed even to the top general in the Canadian Army, but the immediacy is what I'd like an answer on today from you.
Results: 61 - 120 of 153 | Page: 2 of 3

|<
<
1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data