Committee
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 12326
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you.
All this is necessary because David Mulroney, the former Canadian ambassador to China, received a call, not from a regular employee of Global Affairs Canada, but from the assistant deputy minister for Asia-Pacific at the department. The assistant deputy minister asked him the following:
“In this time of high tension and in an election environment, we all need to be very, very careful.”
He said that he made the call at the behest of the Prime Minister's Office. At this time, the PMO and the Prime Minister deny making the request. Someone is lying in this case, and the consequences are quite serious for our parliamentary system.
Is Mr. Mulroney lying? I don't think so.
Did Mr. Thoppil lie when he said that the Prime Minister's Office asked him to contact Mr. Mulroney? In addition, someone else in the Prime Minister's Office reportedly contacted Guy Saint-Jacques, another former Canadian ambassador to China.
I don't think that Mr. Thoppil lied. He had no reason to do so.
As assistant deputy minister, he is experienced enough to distinguish between partisan meddling and a request from the Prime Minister's Office. At this point, I believe that, to get to the bottom of the matter and find out the truth, we must hear from the witnesses named in the motion. Ms. Alleslev provided the rationale for our request. However, I believe that we must determine to what extent, in terms of public comments, the Prime Minister's Office can ask its public service to work with private citizens who have expertise in the matter.
These people have the right to make public comments, and they do so by drawing on their expertise. Asking them to speak carefully and to understand that they and Canada are acting in the best interests of the country by speaking with one voice constitutes an excessive and deliberate violation. If the Prime Minister's Office did indeed contact these former ambassadors, I think that this raises serious issues in terms of how we deal with the relationship between the Prime Minister's Office and the public service and how the Prime Minister's Office deals with private citizens.
To this end, I urge my Liberal colleagues on the committee to call this meeting and the aforementioned witnesses so that we can understand the entire situation and find out who is and who isn't telling the truth in this case. Based on the current information, if I consider the simplest explanation, I'd say that Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Saint-Jacques felt pressured to align their views with the government's perspective.
When he reported that he made the phone call at the behest of the Prime Minister's Office, the assistant deputy minister in question had no reason to lie. If the request did indeed come from the Prime Minister's Office, we must know who made the request and why, and we must ensure that this type of action won't be taken again. Only transparency and a public review by the committee will make this possible.
I urge the Liberal members of the committee to accept and adopt this motion. We want to get to the bottom of the matter, not only for the sake of democracy and freedom of expression, but also to know the full story.
Thank you.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you.
The role of a committee, when it isn't undertaking a study to further examine a given situation, is to ensure that the government remains accountable. In my eight and a half years as a member of Parliament, I've sat on various committees. I've noticed that some committees have forgotten this fundamental rule, particularly when it comes to the government, whether we're talking about the Conservatives in 2011 and 2015 or the Liberals now.
Based on the Liberals' comments that I've heard, since the Prime Minister's Office issued an official letter denying that the assistant deputy minister was instructed to contact the two former diplomats, we should simply accept the situation and not look any further, given that the Prime Minister's Office is obviously telling the truth. By sending us this letter, the Prime Minister's Office is saying that either these former diplomats—and we're not talking about just one, but two former diplomats who described the same situation—are lying or exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, or that the assistant deputy minister lied to the two former diplomats when he told them that he was calling on behalf or at the behest of the Prime Minister's Office.
In any case, the situation is serious. Either a senior government official, at the behest of the Prime Minister's Office, contacted former diplomats to tell them that they should perhaps tone down their comments and align their statements because it would be more prudent to do so from an electoral standpoint, or these people claimed that this occurred, which would also be an issue. I'm trying to understand why the government members aren't more willing, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, to conduct a more in-depth study of this highly problematic situation. Are we simply going to say that a letter of intent from the Prime Minister's Office states that this wasn't really the goal, that there were misinterpretations and that we, as a committee, will refuse to conduct a more in-depth study of the situation? That doesn't make any sense.
I think that the government members must understand their role in this committee. This isn't the House of Commons, and we have the right to be called by our last names because, in theory, we don't represent any constituencies or political parties. We must finally realize that we're working for the citizens of this country. We have a duty, as the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, to study an ethically problematic situation that has been reported in the media and for which we don't currently have a satisfactory solution.
Given all these factors, the government members of this committee should take their responsibilities seriously and agree to hear from these people in order to get to the bottom of the matter. I'm not suggesting that these people have been intimidated. However, I would say that they've at least been subjected to undue pressure from the Prime Minister's Office. If this has indeed occurred, the Prime Minister's Office must understand that the situation is unacceptable. It's not enough to say that people on the other side didn't really understand the goal.
I want to say one last time that the government members must understand the situation and their role in the committee, which is to ensure that their government remains accountable. If they fail to do so, we won't have any power to ensure accountability on our side.
Thank you.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to go back briefly to the short list submitted to the Prime Minister.
According to media reports, the person selected for this appointment was the first choice of the Government of Quebec, but no one can confirm or deny this information.
Do you think it would be preferable, while of course keeping the names of the other candidates confidential, that the Government of Quebec or the advisory board have permission to confirm whether the candidate selected by the Prime Minister was their first choice?
From what I understand, we make recommendations. So the Prime Minister could very well, even if this is very rarely the case, choose someone who is not on the list of recommendations, or not choose the first choice of the advisory board, but rather the second or third person on the list.
Would it be better if the Prime Minister could confirm that he opted for the first choice on the list? This would give us the assurance that he respects the non-partisan will of the various people who submitted recommendations.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
I understand that we must be careful about what information we are allowed to disclose or not. However, should we not at least know whether the Prime Minister followed the recommendations of the advisory board or whether he decided to move in his own direction? Would that not be transparency?
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
The same thing is happening right now. Everyone is trying to find out if Mr. Kasirer was the first choice and is asking questions along these lines. We are still trying to guess whether Mr. Kasirer was the first choice and whether it was respected.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Fine.
I would now like to know how language abilities are assessed. Do candidates take written language tests or do they do a self-assessment of their language skills?
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
There are currently two major justice review projects in Quebec.
The first area of reflection concerns family law reform, including the rights and obligations of common-law spouses, stepparents and grandparents. The reflection also focuses on the impact of the use of assisted reproduction techniques on family law and inheritance.
Another major area of reflection is how the justice system treats and judges sexual offences, particularly in cases where multiple charges have been laid, but only a small number have been retained for trial or court proceedings.
Among the candidates for the position of Quebec judge on the Supreme Court of Canada, have we sought expertise in these two particular areas where major reforms are being considered?
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Fine.
You mentioned Judge Kasirer's publications on family law, but I would like to know if he has any specific knowledge of family law and the reforms that will take place in Quebec.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Very well.
The fact remains that some sexual offences are referred to civil courts, although they are criminal in nature. This is currently the case in Quebec.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Ms. Campbell, do you have anything to add?
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Very well, thank you.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Flynn.
It's important that we talk about this situation because, as my colleague pointed out, people are worried. It's essential that we find out more about the federal government's capacity to take action and the means we have at our disposal, especially since the committee just wrapped up a study on cybersecurity in the financial sector before Parliament rose in June. I'll touch on some of the things the committee looked at in its study because they pertain to the matter at hand.
I'd like to follow up on some of your answers. First of all, it is rumoured that personal data was sold to criminal organizations outside Quebec and Canada. I know you can't comment on this case specifically, but at what point does the RCMP step in to assist the highly competent people at such organizations as the Sûreté du Québec when a case involves a criminal organization operating outside Canada that the RCMP is already monitoring?
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you.
You said local police forces, the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police were very competent when it came to dealing with cybersecurity issues and had significant powers. Does the RCMP have special expertise or information that could help them?
The reason I ask is that the government touted the consolidation of the cybersecurity capacity of the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, the RCMP and all the other agencies concerned as a way to ensure information was shared and everyone was on the same page. I'll be asking Mr. Boucher, of the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, about this as well when we hear from him.
Do you engage municipal or provincial police, as the case may be, in the same way?
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you. I don't mean to cut you off, but I have a limited amount of time.
When the committee was studying cybersecurity in the financial sector, we talked about the fact that people tend to think of state actors as being the threat. I won't name them, but I'm sure everyone has an idea of the countries that could pose a threat to Canada's cybersecurity.
I realize you can't talk about it, but in this particular case, we are dealing with an individual—an individual who poses a threat because the stolen data can be sold and could end up in the hands of state actors. One of the things the committee heard was that individuals represent the greatest threat. Is that always the case? Does a lone criminal wanting to steal data pose a greater threat than certain countries we would tend to suspect?
Results: 1 - 15 of 12326 | Page: 1 of 822

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

For more data options, please see Open Data