Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 201 - 300 of 370
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
To the extent that the services and administration haven't been involved—like in FNHA or in territories—we have had an excellent response rate from provinces. We have joint protocols in many measures to augment and coordinate among each other. You don't want authorities tripping over each other. With responsible leadership, I think everyone is cognizant of the fact that we have to rely on science and to check our operational controls and our capacity to surge.
I won't speculate as to unwillingness. I think everyone is on the same page and knows the emergency and urgency of this pandemic and at the very least how to slow it. There is good to very good communication among governments to ensure that communities in need get the services they need when they need them. Should they not, we are prepared to step in aggressively.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
We have a wide variety of measures we can put in place when these issues arise. The very strict standards around water are such that issues arise more frequently. Correspondingly, we respond quickly. If you look at what happened in Fort Severn, we're working quite quickly to thaw the pipe that froze.
These things do arise, and we're ready to act quite quickly.
As to the inventory, if we have a second, I'll let my staff respond to the inventory.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered here today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples.
I know that this directly impacted many of you in the room today, as it impacted the communities you represent, and the lives of your constituents.
The conversations that happened in Smithers with Minister Bennett are a positive and vital step, but there's no doubt that there's more work to do, work that many of you in this room know well as members of this important parliamentary committee. There's a lot of work to be done in addressing the underlying concerns of the Wet'suwet'en and the resulting solidarity actions that took place across the country.
However, I'm glad that together we can demonstrate a peaceful, achievable resolution. I believe the easy way is not always the right way. Sometimes using force is a sign of weakness. Over the past few weeks, we've seen the result of ignorance, fear and lack of understanding in vitriolic messages and comments online, through stories of individuals being targeted in public and private, and we saw that not far from here in Ottawa. An indigenous youth group had to move their planned weekly gathering due to the receipt of a death threat.
I think this shows that we have a long way to go when it comes to learning the dark parts of the history of this unreconciled country and its peoples, and truly making an effort to learn from one another and listen.
I've said this before and I'll continue to say it: When we don't have an open and honest dialogue, we simply can't move forward together.
Consistent, open and respectful dialogue is paramount to achieve peace, cooperation and prosperity in this country for all peoples.
It's in this spirit of peace and co-operation that I gathered with members of the Kanyen’kehá:ka along the rail tracks in Tyendinaga, as members will know. We pursued an open dialogue and made concerted efforts to move towards a peaceful resolution. Modest but important progress was made through this dialogue.
However, there was an immense amount of suspicion towards my presence—fear it was a ruse and that the police would move in. It's not every day that people are surrounded by police, and the reactions are normal. Parts of the conversation with the leadership of the community, elders and community members, including women and children, were very difficult, very painful and very personal. Upsetting stories were shared about this country's troubling treatment of indigenous peoples.
These are very serious issues which demand our attention, and have demanded it for hundreds of years, and there's no place in this discussion for rhetoric and vitriol.
The question I have found myself asking in the last few weeks is this: are we going to do things the way we have always done them, which has brought us to this point in our relationship, or do we take a new approach that engages in a true government-to-government relationship?
My greatest challenge in the past month in particular, but in the relationship in general, is trust. It prevents the best and most well-thought-out initiatives from moving forward. It is clear that our work must earn that trust over time.
In looking towards building a better future where we earn that trust, I believe it's important to acknowledge the past. For almost 500 years, indigenous peoples have faced discrimination in every aspect of their lives. The Crown, in part, has prevented a true equal partnership from developing with indigenous peoples, imposing instead a relationship based on colonial, paternalistic ways of thinking and doing. This approach has resulted in a legacy of devastation, pain and suffering, and it's not acceptable.
Many of us know where this has gotten us: a broken child and family system where indigenous children up to the age of 14 make up over 50% of kids in foster care even though they represent 7.7% of all Canadian children; shocking rates of suicide among indigenous youth, causing untold pain and hurt that will plague families and communities for generations to come; untenable housing situations where water that is unsafe to drink or even bathe in comes out of the taps; and communities that don't have reliable access to roads, health centres, or even schools.
When we formed government 4 years ago, we made many significant promises including on some of these areas I just touched upon.
We have delivered on much of that but the most important lesson we learned was that everything has to be done in true partnership. That Canada will succeed when we follow the voices of those whom we have ignored and disrespected for far too long, and those who lead communities across this country.
We know that there is no quick fix for the decades of systemic discrimination that indigenous peoples in Canada have faced. But our government is committed to putting in the time, energy and resources to right past wrongs and build a better way forward for future generations.
We do our best to undertake this work in a way that departs from much of our shared history—a history in which the inherent rights, leadership and cultural vitality have not been respected as they should have been.
Our approach is founded on partnership and co-development and is anchored in listening to indigenous leaders, elders, youth and community members and working to support their attainment of their goals based on their priorities.
Since 2016, we've invested $21 billion in the priorities of indigenous partners, priorities that have been set by indigenous partners, and together we've made some progress, but we still have a long way to close the unacceptable socio-economic gap that exists between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.
For hundreds of years, indigenous peoples have been calling on the Canadian government to recognize and affirm their jurisdiction over their own affairs, to have control and agency over their land, housing, education, governance system and child and family services. Self-determination improves the well-being and prosperity of indigenous communities, and that's something all Canadians should strive to support.
There is no question that self-determination is a better way forward.
Self-governing indigenous peoples have a proven track record of greater socio-economic success. More children are completing high school, fewer people are unemployed, and health outcomes are much better. Indigenous-led initiatives are more successful, as we have seen time and time again.
There is a critical need to support nation and community-led success in every indigenous community in Canada, not just in education, but also in health care, water and resource management, child and family services, in short, in all sectors.
This is why our government continues to work on shifting policies to recognize the inherent right of self-government for first nations, Inuit and Métis. That means moving to novel models of indigenous government and supporting indigenous communities to assert their rights.
We are working to support first nations to opt out of sections of the Indian Act in areas such as land, environment, resource management and elections. As an example, we're working with indigenous institutions in first nations to develop the tools they need to drive local economic development, empower their communities and promote prosperity.
Since 2019, nine first nations have begun operating under their community-ratified land codes through the framework agreement on first nations land management and the First Nations Land Management Act. In addition, 18 first nations have joined the 264 other first nations asserting jurisdiction in the area of fiscal governance by opting into the First Nations Fiscal Management Act.
Self-determination is key to unlocking economic potential, creating opportunities for growth and closing socio-economic gaps. We know that with advancing self-determination, the potential for success is enormous—success of indigenous peoples and, frankly, all of Canada.
To get there, we need to understand that recognizing and affirming rights is a first step in finding a way forward. We need to support indigenous partners to identify our challenges and then we need to rise to those challenges. Finally, we need to recognize that the most important actions we can take are to listen to the hard truths, embrace change and welcome creative ideas. A transformation like that will take determination, persistence, patience and truth telling.
The work ahead of us will be difficult. As I mentioned, this path will require a lot from us. We will have to work in true partnership and listen, even when the truth will be hard to hear. We will have to continue to communicate, even when we disagree. We will need to continue to collaborate and look for creative ways to move forward, as well as new paths to healing and true understanding.
We've all seen what happens when we fail to maintain dialogue. This leads to mistrust and confusion, which can cause conflict and hinder our common journey. I want to be clear: it is up to the rights holders to determine who speaks for them about their indigenous rights and title. We will continue to work toward continuing these conversations. Despite all these challenges, I know that the hard work ahead of us is well worth the effort.
Together, we can build a better Canada, and that's what we're going to do. It will be a country in which healthy, prosperous and self-reliant indigenous nations will be key partners. We have the opportunity to learn from our shared history, to share our pain and even our joy, and to do the work that will result in a country where everyone can succeed.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on all sides to realize this essential work and enormous potential. It requires the participation of all Canadians.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Meegwetch.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think you are familiar, Jaime, with some of the hereditary structures that exist in Mi'kmaq communities and some of the challenges that have been faced there with respect to elected band councils and, in fact, with some of the progress that has been made. It is absolutely uneven throughout the country
I think, as Carolyn summarized, some progress has been made out west in starting to create the basis for engagement with hereditary leadership. In the country, the Indian Act-imposed band council system is viewed in many indigenous communities as colonialist and paternalistic. It has removed, and the Government of Canada has consciously contributed to remove, structures that existed well before the existence of Canada that are highly democratic in nature and have a very rich history.
As a country and as a nation that wants to move forward with what we call reconciliation, we cannot ignore those voices, conscious of the fact that at times the government, as I mentioned earlier, has been deliberate in dismantling those structures. In some cases we have had very little engagement, if any. I, myself, have been involved in opening dialogues with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. They are modest. They tend to be not in the public sphere. But there is a lot of work to be done. There is an immense amount of complexity in that relationship because we're talking about many nations that cross the U.S. border as well. It is something that has created within certain communities, in fact, the crisis of legitimacy. This isn't to say that elected band councils are not fierce defenders of their communities. They are. It just has created a reality where there is sometimes a perceived sense of illegitimacy that has contributed to frustrate not only the relationship but the ability to work in partnership. It is something that we are realizing, probably more slowly than we should, but we are realizing it and we need to address fundamental issues that Carolyn had to face over a four-day period with respect to lands and title that had been recognized in the Delgamuukw decision. Simply saying to yourself that you're only going to engage with this particular band council because it suits your needs is highly utilitarian in thinking and not the right way to approach things.
There are some communities that are entirely comfortable with an elected system, and there are some communities that wish to do a different job and move forward. That's why we have all those instruments that I named in my opening remarks. For some communities, that doesn't work and we have to realize that and get creative and see how we come together. This will all contribute to stability, good governance and respect for the relationship, which is perhaps the element of respect and truth that is missing. But I think it is the right way to advance the nation. It can be complicated. It can be messy. But we can't sit here and say we're going to go dictate the terms on which we engage, whether it's rights recognition frameworks or otherwise. We have to realize that in some communities and some nations there is a treaty-based relationship that communities are demanding to be respected and in others there's a much older and some others a much newer relationship.
There is an immense amount of nuance, and I think you hit the nail on the head in asking that question, Jaime, because it goes to the complex nature of that relationship and the steps we need to take to move forward.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
We are going to share our speaking time.
As you know, Ms. Bérubé, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was a product of the Oka crisis. There were a lot of lessons to be learned as a result of this huge inquiry by the commission, lessons that were not necessarily followed, for example, with regard to land purchases. I am not telling you that this is a simplistic analysis, because it is a very profound reflection. Many of the recommendations were not followed. There have been times when the government's commitment has fallen short, admittedly, and that has happened in every respect.
The splitting of the former department into our two current departments is precisely because of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a split that did not take place at that time, but more than 20 years later. That is the same lesson we learned from the Delgamuukw decision. In the wake of the Okanagan crisis, we realized, as Quebeckers and Canadians, that there is a real tension, which has a legitimate basis that dates back long before the very creation of Canada, with respect to the participation of the armed forces. It is a scar that remains open within these communities.
We often talk about the economic repercussions that persist on the economies of Quebec and Canada, and it must be emphasized. On the other hand, the greatest impacts, proportionately, have been felt in Kahnawake and Kanesatake, an underdevelopment that has persisted and continues to this day.
We have seen the prejudice and bias that followed resurface, whether in the media or in comments posted on Facebook. These were the same comments that were made after the Oka crisis. There was the death of the corporal appointed following the intervention of the Sûreté du Québec, or SQ. There was also the death of a man who was leaving Kahnawake when a rock was thrown against his window. He had a heart attack and he died from it.
These are things we need to think about as a society. I dare to believe that there have been changes as a result of the Ipperwash crisis. In Ontario, there has been a reform of police practices and indigenous engagement within the police force, which is a response to that cultural sensitivity and the demands that have been around for a very long time. Is there more work to be done? I would say very humbly yes.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
First, thank you for the question.
This is highly emotional—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
—because we're speaking about first nations—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
—children, and this government is resolutely convinced—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
What we're facing as a government is a challenge on many levels. The Prime Minister, in his mandate letter to me, has been quite clear that we will compensate first nation children for what they have suffered—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is a very important issue to me, MP Gazan, so I'm glad to answer it at a later date, but it's something that requires a lot more discussion—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think as Canadians we need to look only at the examples of Poundmaker, Big Bear, or Louis Riel to understand that sometimes invocation of the rule of law has been used against indigenous peoples to perpetrate historic injustices. That should be clear to everyone in this room and to all Canadians.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I agree with the historic nature of UNDRIP, and I want to recognize the contribution of Romeo Saganash in putting forward that bill. It had the full support of our government, and it is something that we are resolutely committed to as a government. I commend Minister Bennett for achieving in four days what couldn't be achieved in 23 years. It's very important for everyone—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I can confirm with the member that I'm on the committee and participating fully. I'll leave it at that. We have a meeting today, and I will be updating members on the issues. I'd be prepared to update you on the issues with respect to our engagements in indigenous communities and our reaction and preparation for coronavirus, which is a very serious issue.
I would preface my following comment with the fact that I don't think that the introduction of UNDRIP and the work the government and the NDP did on it, fostered by and put forward by Romeo Saganash, is storytelling. I think it's very important. It's very important for Canadians to realize that.
With respect to coronavirus, indigenous communities are more vulnerable for a number of reasons: historic socio-economic gaps, overcrowding and lack of access to clean and safe drinking water. These are all issues that we as a government on a long-term basis—and on a short-term basis with respect to the long-term water advisories that we are committed to remove by March 2021.... There are also systemic issues with respect to cultural approaches with medical facilities and health care, and issues with access and remoteness. These are all factors that have contributed, for example, to the unacceptable rates of tuberculosis in those communities.
We have our experience from the H1N1 virus. I have a dedicated team that is working on surge capacity. I'd absolutely be more than glad to update this committee or anyone willing to engage with me on this issue. Foremost, it's to indigenous communities that we are striving to reach out to, and have already done, but we'll be increasing that capacity in the short term. Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I can't pick and choose who shows up at a barricade. I have to deal with the cards that are dealt to me and engage in that dialogue and figure out why these solidarity movements are popping up. You can only do that through conversations, some of which are difficult, and I have no choice but to respect the views that are communicated to me at that point in time. Whether I agree with them or not, it's very important to continue that dialogue and have a path and a game plan towards peaceful resolution.
Everyone wanted peaceful resolution, but that game plan and that step plan is very important, and that includes dialogue. We do engage. The whole point of my department is to close that socio-economic gap so that indigenous peoples have substantive equality with non-indigenous peoples. That, in and of itself, is a huge catalyst for economic growth. There are economic development portfolios in both my and Minister Bennett's departments.
We know that when self-determination is achieved, indigenous peoples are driving resource development in many communities. You need only look at Treaty 8. You need only look at the Cree in northern Quebec. Those projects are key to the development of our country, but that takes catching up the gap in education, health, infrastructure, emergency management, all those precursors that in fact you and I probably take for granted.
These are very important. We will engage with all actors, resource development actors included. I meet with them all the time.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Let me add on to what Carolyn said. My greatest concern, when I heard from the leadership in Kahnawake, was about the 200 kids who study off-reserve and how they are being targeted. Our concern in all of this is the safety of all Canadians, and particularly those most vulnerable, but when you hear stories like that, it really brings home what this means and the need to achieve a peaceful resolution.
Building trust sometimes means being vulnerable and going on a playing field that isn't yours, exposing yourself. Nine hours of transcript for a minister is a significant amount of exposure; it's minimal compared to the vulnerabilities the people who accepted to meet me face. I feel safe around police forces; they don't. That insecurity was palpable in the room on many occasions. This is systemic, ongoing and documented. It isn't something that people just throw out there; it is documented in reports.
That trust has been broken for decades, so it isn't someone like me who is going to repair it or something like this government that will repair it simply in one year, with a bunch of programs that are historic in their investment quantum. It will take a long time to repair these bonds that have been broken, and probably more mistakes will be made. It's just something we have to be relentless about. It's about building relationships. In any community, even across this committee you build relationships and that builds a modicum of trust—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
—and confidence. It allows you to move on. It's systemic. We can work at it as a country. I'm confident.
Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
[Member spoke in Mohawk as follows:]
Wa’tkwanonhwerá:ton í:se néne kèn:’en sewatia’tarò:ron. Kwe kaweienón:ni.
[Mohawk text translated as follows:]
I thank you all who are gathered here. Hello Kaweienón:ni.
Ms. Margaret (Kaweienón:ni) Peters:
[Witness spoke in Mohawk as follows:]
Kwe.
[Mohawk text translated as follows:]
Hello.
Mr. Marc Miller:
[Member spoke in Mohawk as follows:]
oh niiohtonhátie?
[Mohawk text translated as follows:]
How is it going along?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
[Member spoke in Mohawk as follows:]
Wenhniserí:io wáhi!
[Mohawk text translated as follows:]
It is a nice day isn’t it!
Ms. Margaret (Kaweienón:ni) Peters:
[Witness spoke in Mohawk as follows:]
Nahò:ten?
[Mohawk text translated as follows:]
What?
Mr. Marc Miller:
[Member spoke in Mohawk as follows:]
Wenhniserí:io.
[Mohawk text translated as follows:]
It is a nice day.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I first off want to acknowledge the two fluent language speakers here who are members of Parliament, members of the NDP who have spent a good part of their lives in the struggle to preserve indigenous languages. I'm just a learner. I do want to underscore that.
Kaweienón:ni, could you speak briefly? I'm going to give my colleague Kent Hehr my last couple of minutes, but I want you to speak to your struggle in your community to preserve the language.
I visited Akwesasne Freedom School. It's a school that is built out of armed struggle over treaty rights, and out of that came a school that was able to preserve and underscore language, culture, tradition. What is your experience in ensuring that people actually become speakers?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
[Member spoke in Mohawk as follows:]
Wa’tkwanonhwerá:ton ní:se ne kèn:’en sewatia’tarò:ron. Òn:wa ken’ wenhniserá:te wa’tkwanonhwerá:ton katsi’tsákwas, Amos, tánon Claudette ne kí:ken kanonshakwe’niiò:ke. Í:kehre ó:ni taietewatenonhwerá:ton tsi ionkwatia’tarò:ron tsi ionhwentsá:te ne ratirón:taks.
[Mohawk text translated as follows:]
I thank you all who have gathered here. Today I thank you Katsi’tsákwas, Amos, and Claudette who are here, at main house. I want us too to thank those that have gathered here in Algonquin land.
[English]
I want to acknowledge our presence on traditional Algonquin territories.
Thanks for coming.
I want to focus on one specific issue that I want to take up with people working in grassroots organizations.
Katsi'tsakwas, I know your work: I know you fought tooth and nail in Kanesatake to revitalize the language. I want to focus on the funding repercussions and the issues surrounding the scope of the ILA funding, the criticisms you have with it, and the necessity for persistent, consistent and wide-scope funding, and then focus on some of the challenges that students, particularly in the immersion stream, have with getting from non-fluency to a stage of fluency that allows them to start perpetuating or at least self-learning. Can you touch on those specific aspects as they touch on the financing and the flaws with the current ILA funding?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Amos, Cayuga is a language that is in a much more threatened state, even compared with Kanien'kéha. How would the question I posed to Ellen apply to Cayuga, particularly in its current state of vitality? What do you think the additional measures would be to even begin to close a gap, if that's even the proper comparison?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. I'd like to note that Gordie is colour-blind, which explains the pink jacket. Actually, it is an initiative to underline efforts against bullying. There is a reason for the colour.
What's always confounded me in this legislation is the imperfect attempt to try to encapsulate the diversity and richness of 60 or 70 languages into a piece of legislation, with imperfect consulting. Money may be attached in a budget conferred to people who know best how to do it, who are outside legislators in Parliament. By the nature of the legislation itself, it's always been an imperfect endeavour, while important symbolically and important in terms of real rights.
Mr. Joffe, you have much more experience in this field as a lawyer than I have. In a vacuum, absent money and cognizant of the fact that governments are catching up with courts and there is much work to do, what is the value in and of itself of the rights recognized under this piece of legislation—all in a minute?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Exactly, so I represent a slight slice of the St. Lawrence—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'd have to ask the CFO.
Voices: Oh, oh!
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I can guarantee that I'll wield the immense power that I hold within government to move this forward.
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'd like you to speak briefly regarding your concerns with the drug trade in the northern triangle states, and the effect it's having geopolitically, particularly on a society level with respect to those states, and your organization's ability to further the human rights agenda.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
The question to both of you is, how do you choose your priorities? Let me explain.
The frustration we feel as a committee, as politicians, is generally that there seems to be an obsession with capturing the one-off successes, the release from jail, and obviously one person sweltering unjustly in jail is one person too many. The human rights agenda writ large seems to be, from a popular perspective, inherently individualistic—for a number of reasons, and with cause—but sometimes the sense is that there is an impossibility to capture, advocate, or push for systemic changes in countries, pushing for a simple thing: one country observing one clause in their charter of human rights that would save 1,000 lives we've never heard of, or don't necessarily have to hear about, but it would save those lives.
I guess, Professor Cotler, you faced this first-hand as Minister of Justice, that tension between systemic change—the desire as a progressive country to achieve systemic change throughout the world with other states—and this seeming obsession. It's obsessive in the media, and I don't blame the media for that. I blame the human mind, focusing on one person who has been released or on one success story in a country that has a systemic record of human rights violations.
My question to you is, how do you choose your priorities? I think you answered why: it's because you're optimistic. Sometimes you must feel like Sisyphus. How do you address your daily activity with helping individuals who desperately need it, and advocating for systemic and progressive change?
Professor Cotler, perhaps, could answer first.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you both. It's great to have Canada's foremost human rights defender in front us, together with the world's greatest chess player. It's a true honour to be able to ask questions to you about this extremely compelling case and the bodies of legislation that we are studying.
For your benefit, there's no conclusion yet. We haven't finished our report and we haven't completed the witness testimony, but what we have been able to identify clearly is a gap in the ability to freeze assets of foreign nationals who have committed gross human rights violations. Now, proceeding from that premise or conclusion to putting that into effect is a lot more difficult than it seems at the outset. There are grave concerns in a pluralistic democracy with respect to the rule of law as understood in many facets, one of the facets being gathering evidence of those gross human rights violations. In the case at hand that you've mentioned, obviously there was a sufficient determination that those occurred. I'm not contesting that.
What I'm trying to ask, I guess, is about placing those into a body of law. We're concerned, obviously, with the rule of law, the ability of someone who is accused of these acts to appear and be able to plead their case. You are asking us to freeze assets of someone, assets that may be ill-gotten, in which case there's already a law in our Criminal Code that deals with that, or they may simply be assets that were acquired in a different manner. There are valuable arguments for freezing them as a deterrent, or as a moral imperative.
Mr. Cotler, you're a jurist and a pre-eminent lawyer. Essentially, what I would like to hear are your concerns for the rule of law.
Then Mr. Kasparov, what do you think the effect...? You mentioned earlier, when you responded to Mr. Kent, about the impact on Russia of this type of sanction by a country such as Canada, and the countermeasures that we need to be aware of if we're to enact this legislation vis-à-vis such a country, or indeed other countries.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With your colleagues present, and on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I had the honour of announcing a grant of $1 million in the light of your civic engagement. I was able to see your colleagues in action and to have your activities well described to me.
I would like to come back to your domestic activities, because here we are talking mostly about civic engagement in Canada.
In our study on the Yazidis, a witness mentioned that most human rights violations are committed by people known in the villages, when they were experiencing social disintegration, an erosion of the social fabric.
How can your action help to strengthen the dialogue between the parties who may be threatened where their society is being weakened, such as with the Yazidis and those around them?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Absolutely.
In terms of education and awareness, which specific steps have to be taken in a program in a third-world country, a developing country?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
You work with state players, not just with civil society specifically. Have you been able to bring awareness to the authorities, telling them, for example, that they cannot use the fight against terrorism as an excuse to brush aside human rights? That is certainly a very hard discussion, I agree. However, the excuse is often used by state players in order to justify human rights violations.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Do you feel that there is progress or do you feel that the state sometimes uses you as an excuse to somehow justify its actions with respect to human rights? Is there any tension on that front?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
My next question is about the involvement, education and awareness of Canadians. When I spoke with your colleagues, we mostly talked about raising awareness of human rights among Canadians.
Could you briefly explain the usefulness of that initiative?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you both for coming. This study has gone off on a bit of a tangent. If we were purists about the bodies of legislation we are studying, you wouldn't be here, although I think, Ms. Fenner, you raised an extremely important point. The relevancy of your presence here today is that corruption causes the behaviour that we are, at the basis, examining today, whether it's violations of international law or human rights violations or different reprehensible practices by governments, or by corporations in this case. It hits on an extremely important point, which is that corruption is at the root of a lot of behaviour.
The question I had generally was on deferred prosecution agreements and what their impact is on recovering the assets. The U.S. has them. It has gone after a number of corporations. Those corporations are listed on a website. Their guilt, their culpability, is clearly stated. The idea behind it is that once a corporation makes a payment, that money is gone to the official in question. However, in prosecuting the corporation in question, at the end of the day, more often than not it isn't so much the shareholders or the beneficiaries who will pay, but the employees, because business will be lost.
I'd like your view on that as it applies to Canada with respect to deferred prosecution agreements.
Perhaps Professor Ferguson can go first.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Fenner, do you have a couple of words? I don't want you to miss your flight.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today.
I want to continue on the human rights path, although on a different tack. Richard, perhaps the first question is for you.
Generally, the realm of sanctions, whether unilateral or multilateral, has been reserved for areas of high politics, nuclear interests, interests where the behaviour of an actor in question to be sanctioned has threatened international peace and security. The migration towards sanctioning individuals and not states on the basis of a level of human rights violation that is deemed to be intolerable generally answers to a call to condemn based on a moral imperative, as Mr. Levitt alluded to.
I'm wondering what the limits to that approach are intellectually, and even from an idealist perspective. We have disagreements with our closest ally as to the death penalty. We have disagreements with the way certain European countries behave. I'm not talking about a relativist moral slippery slope. I'm simply talking about where we draw the line. Effectiveness is one argument, but it doesn't necessarily counter the moral imperative.
There is also a beauty in freezing someone's assets that are situated here where they have committed a gross indecent act. It would be reprehensible to let them derive gain from those assets.
I'd like you to take a few minutes to reflect on that sort of tension that we're facing, from a geopolitical and trade perspective.
Thanks.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Mr. Juneau, you said that closing the consulate and our sanctions against Iran have hurt us a great deal, particularly with respect to trade with that country. You said that we are practically behind the wall.
Can you elaborate on this with examples of the negative impact this has had on Canada?
I would also add that you can sign up for a membership on our party's site at liberal.ca, and it is free. Just joking, of course.
I will let you answer my question.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
The North Korean sanctions regime, in terms of sanction regimes writ large, is probably the most closed system we have compared to any other ongoing regime. Yet, you've identified a number of holes, and principally I guess they deal with workarounds in the system.
Could you speak briefly to what you see the North Koreans doing, and where they're trending in terms of trying to work around these things?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
This may not be in your realm of expertise, but I would like to hear some of your reflections on the impact of the North Korean people. Obviously, news is sporadic and probably unreliable, but you do hear of periodic famines and crop shortages.
There's that, and if you do have time, could you touch on consular relations? Obviously Canada has none. Most countries do not have any. I believe the Swedes have an embassy, and that's pretty much about it, with a few more exceptions.
What is your view on limited openness and engagement with the North Korean people?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Ms. Prost, I want to focus a little more intensively on the standard that you came up with. You raised concerns which we echo concerning the rule of law, due process, whatever you want to call it. As a democratic country we don't have the luxury that some other countries may have of putting people on our list and doing certain things to them that we might want to do, but we can't, because we respect the rule of law.
I may be overstating the case as well, because there is a tendency immediately to jump to a more criminal standard and burden of proof, which may not be necessary in cases.
To back up, what we're examining is the potential holes in SEMA or FACFOA or concurrent criminal legislation with respect to gross violations of human rights and the ability to put someone who may have committed these gross and indecent acts on a list and freeze their assets in Canada, whether they're ill-gotten or not.
Some of the legislative tools that we have exist in Canada already, and they're subject to the standard review, more often than not by the courts. In SEMA that may not be the case; in FACFOA it may not be the case, and you have rightly highlighted that. As well, there is the UN act that is implemented here. The standard of administrative review through administrative action, on the other hand, might be too low a threshold.
I'd like to put this kind of tension in your hands and see what you think is a proper venue for a piece of legislation that would contemplate freezing the assets of someone who, on the balance of probabilities, has in fact committed such acts and whose assets are situated in Canada, and what sort of safeguards would be desirable.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
To be clear, the freezing of assets can obviously have a chilling effect on these people, who may be at large, in their ability to perpetrate further actions that are undesirable.
On the other hand, the challenge at a domestic level is the ability of those people who, as foreign nationals, obviously don't have the same charter protections that we have as Canadian citizens, but who may have some form of protection they can use. Trying to build that in from the get-go, I believe, is a challenge. As you mentioned earlier with respect to the legislation that's in place, it's already in the Criminal Code with respect to proceeds of crime, or terrorism. There is obviously a built-in protection.
The other tension that exists has to do with the operational level. What do you present to a bank in terms of evidence or documents to have them freeze an account, or to prevent a security from being transacted?
I don't know if you have any experience with that, but I'd love to hear from you on it.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Money laundering is actually an important distinction, because what it prevents.... It's not so much the freezing but the effect of freezing, insofar as the bank that is holding the account or the security or whatever it is can't then transfer it out, because it does not have the proper assurances that it is going to the right place or is duly held by the person wanting to transfer it. I think that's an important distinction to make.
That's it for my questions. I will pass on the rest of my time.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for coming in.
I have a quick question as to the logistics of tagging a bank account or freezing a bank account or a securities account. You're talking to a former mergers and acquisitions lawyer who knows how conservative you are and has spent many Friday afternoons wondering why funds weren't wired, so I get it, and I get that you're conservative.
I'm now wondering about the rights of your custodian of funds or securities. I'm wondering about the people who have entrusted their funds to you, and what they expect their institution to be doing, and how there can be overcompliance and you're faced with this perhaps bureaucratic or logistical nightmare.
What happens when a law enforcement official or a public administration official comes and says an account is suspicious and you should freeze it? I'm being silly, but do you ask where the warrant is or ask where the proof is? What does your legal team ask at the outset?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
There is a range of thought processes that you go through. I understand if we're talking about SEMA or FACFOA, your frustration is finding out in the first place, and then it's pretty easy to freeze, as opposed to more of a money-laundering situation.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
Dr. Sangay, welcome. I have a quick question. I'd like you to perhaps develop on the middle way and how you see that as the way forward, touching perhaps on two aspects. First, how do you perceive the reception of this approach by the Chinese government? Second, how are you able to do this given the very difficult reality that you face as an administration in exile? How do you achieve consensus and how do you know that this is the proper way to reflect what both the people in Tibet and those in exile believe? I'm just curious as to how your structure achieves this policy perspective.
I guess the first question is with respect to the Chinese government.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Just to re-centre what I had asked, how do you believe this approach, the middle approach, will be received by the Chinese government? Second, how do you achieve a consensus that reflects the wishes of your people both in Tibet and abroad, in exile?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
I want to focus a little more on evidence collection. I mean, obviously with mass graves, after the evidence that the acts have occurred, the concern is around trying to tie those acts to the perpetrators. I read only a short brief on what you've done. It seems like a very, very tall task in a very, very difficult situation.
Perhaps you could just speak a little more about trying to tie the crimes to individuals.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Another aspect that another witness raised was the fact that a lot of the crimes, however they're characterized, were perpetrated by more low-level operators, neighbours, and friends—more local players in villages. How do you address that, first, obviously, in terms of documenting that—I assume there's a huge challenge—and second, as you look at post-state governance, a process of reconciliation that wouldn't necessarily entail full prosecution whether that ability is there in the first place or not? I'm just curious as to your views on a form of reconciliation that may preclude a strict application of law.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a final question on your operating budget. The Government of Canada funded another $1.5 million. Is that sufficient, all in all? Can you give me a frank opinion, as to the contribution of member states and the people you're seeking money from, on what is your ideal world? If it's not enough, I'd be glad to hear a number.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Mr. Adsett, previously when you met with us, we discussed the holes that may exist in the current legislation, particularly with respect to gross violations of human rights. It's a topic that flows throughout the discussion we've been having at committee.
You mentioned that there is no perfect fit, obviously, whether it's in SEMA, FACFOA, or the current legislation that exists in the Criminal Code, and there seems, again, to be some confusion as to where the holes are.
A lot of people discuss the ability to freeze assets that are the product of crime, or proceeds of crime, and that legislation exists. Then in the context of a threat against international peace, obviously, the instruments under SEMA exist. Some of the concerns that have been raised are more in the nature of law enforcement. That is probably something, unless I'm mistaking the roles, you couldn't answer.
The question, then, is on the hole that does exist with respect to freezing legitimate assets or the proceeds of crime, but let's focus on legitimate assets that may exist within Canada with respect to gross human rights violators.
There are a number of concerns with plugging that hole, namely, due process, the ability to seize those assets—again, more in the realm of law enforcement—and also the nature of unintended consequences and repercussions of the state that may be involved that is backing the people who are violating human rights in a gross fashion.
I want to focus on more of a legal question. If you can't answer it, I'll submit it to you and perhaps you could submit a written response to the committee. What prevents, right now, the minister, by order in council or otherwise, from finding that a person abroad has violated human rights in a gross indecent fashion and freezing their assets in Canada? Again, I'm not talking about a Canadian national. I'm talking about a foreign national.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, I can't afford your billable rate on my salary—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
—so I'm glad you're now providing legal advice.
Let me ask how that is or is not precluded by an order in council, simply the minister deciding that this event has occurred and that action needs to be taken.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I want to continue on another related notion we're examining as part of the consideration of expanding this legislation with respect to gross human rights violations, but it isn't limited to that. It's limited to the individuals who find themselves on a list, often against their will, and it has to do with due process. It's the elements of due process that we don't necessarily think of.
Obviously, we think of the ability of a person to appear in front of a court and get proper judicial review. I'm sure you would like a lot of these people who come to Canada to stand in front of a court so that you could actually get your hands on them.
One of the things has to do with the judiciousness of imposing these sanctions on individuals in the first place. That is in the nature of reliable evidence gathering, the ability, as my colleagues mentioned, of a company, let's say, doing business somewhere, to access a list that is maybe cohesive, coherent, or up to date, and then challenging it in a court of law.
Hugh, perhaps you're the best person to answer this. What are your thoughts on that process as we look to expanding or at least reviewing the current legislative scheme?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I had not realized that Mr. Bertin was here with us.
Mr. Bertin, perhaps you are not the person I should be putting this question to, but I would like to know what measures the countries affected by this law can take against us and how effective they could be. What is the effectiveness of the measures we could take against these countries, especially when this is done unilaterally?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Ms. Kikoler, for coming in and presenting to us.
I'd like to go back to one of the things you said at the very beginning. I may have ascribed more weight to it than you intended, but you said you had found a number of groups guilty of crimes against humanity or genocide. That's one of the distinctions we've been trying to focus on in the House, and indeed we've recognized unanimously the Yazidi genocide. I'd like you to expand on how you came to the conclusions with respect to which groups had suffered crimes against humanity vis-à-vis genocide.
Some of the words that get lost in the definition of “genocide”, particularly in the political field, are the words “intent”, “to destroy”, and “as such”. The knee-jerk reaction, when something horrible has occurred—indeed, a crime against humanity—is to assume immediately that it's genocide, and it gets lost, particularly in the political narrative or even sometimes in the legal narrative. Can you just develop on what you've seen and what your study focused on?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thanks.
Again, in the last part of your address you mentioned doing a better job of early detection, but indeed, if you look back at the genocide convention, the two stated purposes are to punish, but obviously even more importantly to prevent. Obviously someone has done a bad job of detecting in this case. We all probably share responsibility.
I'd like you to develop the elements that you see as important in early detection.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
David, since you are a student of political Islam in the area, I'm curious about your thoughts about religion generally and the role it's playing in this conflict. I guess that's a broad brush stroke. If you look at the history of Iraq and Syria, particularly with the reign of the Baathist parties in both those countries, relative to the rest of the area, it's generally seen as a secular society, and now there's a tendency to divide ethnic groups neatly and tidily along religious lines, which, as you will agree, is perhaps not the case.
Let's hope we get to a post-conflict governance model, but as we look toward governance generally in both those areas in the next few years, I'm curious as to your views on how neatly things can be divided into religious buckets as opposed to simple power grabs and other interests, ethnocultural divides.
Certainly in the case of the Yazidis, the religious narrative of the Daesh's attempt to exterminate them was there, and there has been some suggestion by a number of panellists who have appeared before us that the religious or ethnocultural differences will be greater as there is a power void.
I'm curious to hear your views on this.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I just wanted to hear your thoughts, because I don't think there's much of an answer to that type of question. I'm just curious to hear your general views on it, since you're on the ground and a student of political Islam.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Finally, is it your sense that some of these differences, whether they're ethnoculturally based or religiously based, will get worse if there is a power void, or do you see things differently?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
I'm interested in the numbers in and of themselves, and far be it from me to question them. It's just the multipliers that you apply can at times appear to be random, and it isn't just a question as to whether a donation is voluntary or not. Obviously involuntary donation, whether it's one or a million, is unacceptable and should be called out.
I'm simply interested in trying to figure out how you can assess the progression, or at least if there is any improvement in the way the Chinese state is behaving. How can you document that if arbitrary numbers and multipliers are applied? Certainly when you see the numbers, you start to scratch your head as to whether they can be accurate. One would indicate a much higher execution rate, for example, if this were the case, than is publicized, and then in other cases there's the cause. As well, David, you mentioned that it didn't have so much to do with the black market, but attributed it to Falun Gong, house Christians, and so forth.
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of all this and figure out how you address some of the criticisms of the numbers and the black market implementation capacity issues that are often thrown back at you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
The next question is about the black market and implementation issues that may be thrown back as a counterweight to say that it doesn't exclusively address the Falun Gong and other religious minorities or practitioners.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a final small question. What is your capacity to verify whether there has been any incremental change since December 2014 and the beginning of 2015?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Halvorssen, I truly appreciate the emphasis in your advocacy. I think it moves forward a point that we are trying to study, at least when we break it down.
With great respect, where I do see quite a large disservice in your advocacy is the tendency to mix up the issues with the facts at hand. We are studying a legislative scheme. It's FACFOA and SEMA, which deal with the sanctions Canada may impose on states or actors at the request of states, and the potential holes, which you identified specifically in the area of gross human rights violations and in corruption.
What I tend to hear from advocates such as you and others, for which you are obviously not responsible, is a tendency to commit this confusion of proceeds of crime with the opposite of ill-gotten assets, assets that are not tainted by criminality, and say that there is a hole somehow in Canadian legislation.
I don't like doing this, but let me read from the Criminal Code, which states quite clearly that, in Canada:
Every one commits an offence who uses, transfers the possession of, sends or delivers to any person or place, transports, transmits, alters, disposes of or otherwise deals with, in any manner and by any means, any property or any proceeds of any property with intent to conceal or convert that property or those proceeds, knowing or believing that all or a part of that property or of those proceeds was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of(a) the commission in Canada of a designated offence; or(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted a designated offence.
Clearly, this, along with our well-documented money-laundering legislation, provides a pretty important net to catch people who are trying to hide assets in Canada that are derived from or are the proceeds of crime.
You may have legitimate arguments about the ability to seize assets. We have our own questions with respect to our own officials. You may have legitimate arguments with respect to people elsewhere who have committed gross human rights violations—quite disgusting ones, and we've heard a lot of evidence of that—but when it comes to ill-gotten gains, Canada has quite a tight regime. When it comes to SEMA and threats against international peace, it is quite a tight regime. It's the same thing with FACFOA, although the hole you identified was designated by the nature of the legislative scheme.
I think that when you are trying to address a very important point, there is a very important disservice done by mixing apples and oranges.
Obviously, you are cognizant of the fact that we are a pluralistic democratic country. We are often dealing with state actors or non-state actors who live under a regime that isn't the same as ours. We don't necessarily have the same tools at our disposal that a so-called kleptocracy may have, and we do have to follow the rule of law. What are your concerns with people or institutions that we may consider putting on lists, freezing their assets, which may have been gotten by legitimate means in Canada, and their ability to use our judicial system to abide by a very important rule in Canada, which they have in the United States as well, and in Britain, which is the rule of law and due process?
Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
I represent part of a city that has the most Syrians in Canada. They contact me and my fellow members of Parliament almost daily to express their concern. I want to underscore the fact that they obviously took politics here as well as from their home country, and they don't necessarily support one side over another. There are strong sympathies for various factions, including the government. However, not one of them has said that there is any justification for what's going on in Aleppo. They raise the concern of the humanitarian situation and the violation, especially by the Syrian government but on all sides, in what's going on in Aleppo. It's indeed a tragedy.
We rarely get the chance to hear someone on the ground speak about this. I'd like to give more opportunity to Mr. Al Saleh to speak specifically of the humanitarian challenges he's seeing in east Aleppo. Those would obviously be focused on the targeting of civilians and on the restriction of aid, food, and medical access, in his eyes and in the actions his group are facing on a daily basis.
Could you expand on that a little more, Mr. Al Saleh?
Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thanks for the testimony today. I'll match your “callow” professor with a number of callow politicians around this table any day.
In your 1994 book on sanctions, which focused on Canadian and Australian foreign policy, you noted that Canada in particular lacked the economic capability to “give the sanctions of major powers their bite”, thus essentially saying that the sanctions were symbolic.
If we go back to what my colleague MP Kent was saying with respect to a sanctions regime that would condemn or seize assets of gross human rights violators, the initial act of seizing the assets has some beauty to it, because it is smart, at least at first glance, in the sense that you're grabbing an asset on Canadian territory of a person who has manifestly committed these gross human rights violations, but the unintended consequence is what I'd like to focus on, or at least a countermeasure that could be enacted against Canada and could have on Canadians perverse consequences that were never intended in the first place.
It seems to me that there's a distinction to draw between the easiness of freezing an asset that belongs to someone if it's properly identified and then focusing on the countermeasure, which may have perverse consequences, vis-à-vis a broader regime that simply doesn't work because Canada lacks the heft to put bite into its actions. I do think we need to examine at what point our actions have consequences for other Canadians that weren't intended in the first place. The initial ability to freeze those assets, if you can actually do it, is interesting as a policy measure and, properly, to send a message to the person who has committed those acts that they can't hide their assets in Canada.
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?
Results: 201 - 300 of 370 | Page: 3 of 4

|<
<
1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data