Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 153
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?
Results: 76 - 90 of 153 | Page: 6 of 11

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data