Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 88 of 88
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 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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is a motion I presented a couple of days ago, and I'll read it:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee report the following immediately to the House:
a) that the House recognize that there is strong evidence that the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has committed and is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against religious, ethnic, and other groups in Iraq and Syria, including Yazidis, Shia and Sunni Muslims, Christians, and members of the LGBTQ2 community;
b) that the Government of Canada continue its efforts to have these atrocities properly investigated and, where appropriate, referred to the International Criminal Court to formally determine the existence of genocide and to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice; and
c) that the Government of Canada and the international community continue their efforts to combat ISIL, as well as help protect these vulnerable populations.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a brief one. I've heard a number of Garnett's speeches both in Parliament and committee, and I want to thank him for his advocacy. I know he does his homework. We do hold different positions sometimes. I don't believe it's much different on this one. I do appreciate the effort.
I believe the words of this motion stand by themselves and I'm prepared to vote on them.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.
I would like to quickly touch on the role that women play in the process of development aid. We have just finished a report on peace and security. We talk about the important role that women play and should play from now on in the process of peace and security.
I would like to focus—as you mentioned, Ms. Paradis—on the specific process of development aid. I find it strange that we do not give more money to Guatemala, which is not one of our target countries today. We should be giving more, but it should have a specific target, the role that women could play in this process.
Could you talk about that aspect, perhaps using the role they have played in Colombia as a model?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would like to clarify what I said.
Our analysis on poverty shows that women are disproportionately affected by this. Given the rate of around 60% in Guatemala, women are either at the front when it comes to leadership, or suffering the consequences of it. I think it's obvious.
I believe I still have a minute or two. You can address this aspect, or I can let another committee member take the floor.
Ms. Paradis, do you have anything to say about that?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
You touched briefly on an important point, which is that Canada has a limited amount of time, money, and resources to dedicate to what is probably mankind's greatest challenge, that of eliminating or significantly limiting extreme poverty.
One of the frustrations that I think we face when we look at the countries that are selected as countries of focus is why one and not the other? For example, you look at West Africa and ask why so much goes to Mali, and why there's not enough to Burkina Faso, and then Benin, with similar and very close population numbers. Obviously, poverty doesn't stop at customs control. The question, then, is what you do with limited resources, limited involvement specialities, and, frankly, engagement in these countries.
You mentioned transitioning to thematic approaches. The issue then is where Canada can contribute its expertise. That is essentially my question for you.
Mr Fryars, you mentioned nutrition, and Ms. Riseboro, you mentioned the role of women and championing that issue. We have water issues being championed and all sorts of things where Canada can be a leader. What is your view on those three issues and on perhaps what I'm missing in that regard?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's helpful.
Ms. Mondaca, go ahead, please.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, both.
First, Mr. Robinson, I want to thank you for your service. You've lasted longer than most of us will. Your principled stances on LGBT rights, medical assistance in dying, and the environment have inspired a great number of parliamentarians in this current wave and, I would venture to say, regardless of political affiliation.
Mr. Benn, we discussed this earlier at lunch, but I want to provide you with the opportunity to say this on the record. Again, TB is sort of the forgotten child and, in terms of spreadability, and in my mind, perhaps the most dangerous threat to eradicate, particularly given the challenges in implementing what we discussed of getting into prisons and getting awareness into poorer areas.
What are the challenges you face, whether they are eastern bloc countries or others in getting that implementation and getting the proper prophylactics or awareness into those areas of difficulty?
Just for the record, I want to say that the conference will be in my riding, so I would encourage you all to come. That's the one political point that I....
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
You stated that you're a funding agency, and I talked about implementation. What are the specific actions you take with more recalcitrant partners to get the message out?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
A number of you spoke directly or indirectly about climate change and how that is making your jobs more challenging and difficult, and you alluded just a few seconds ago to to a requirement for more flexibility. You think of the immediate impact that the droughts have on immigration, conflict, and access to food.
I would like you to touch on that at some length. Develop that theme and describe how Canada can best leverage its assets. Obviously there is some cross-pollination between the Ministry of the Environment, the foreign affairs department, and international aid and some of the challenges you see in your specific jobs in the near future.
Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for their input.
Mr. Munro, I sense a considerable amount of frustration on your end, and it's clearly justified. As you said, eliminating extreme poverty should be the focus. I was particularly struck by Mr. Brown's remarks and his frustration with the review process. To that, I would say, give it a chance. Our mandate has only just begun, but there is a genuine desire to take action, as well as a significant amount of consultation taking place, particularly within this committee.
I heard a number of practical suggestions. You'll have to forgive me on that front; my father was an academic and I get very frustrated when people don't propose practical solutions to a problem. I've always had that mentality. Please don't take offence because of my bias, but I heard you talk about decentralization and specialization. You touched on increasing funding for eradicating extreme poverty and giving decentralized diplomatic channels an opportunity to get involved. It may also be a good idea to consider funding for diplomats, given that they have an intimate knowledge of the issues on the ground.
Could you elaborate on concrete decisions and measures that could be implemented straightaway or perhaps after a short period of reflection?
You talked about possibly wanting to bask in the glory of donating money. That said, are there other countries doing a better job than we are? Is handing over the money and just letting them do their thing the way to go?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Welcome, Ms. Mohammed.
It's important to understand, when it comes to talking about reconstruction or aid, we're not starting from scratch when it comes to Iraq. If you examine the historical role of women in Iraqi society, relative to other similarly situated countries in the Middle East, Iraq started relatively higher with participation of women in civil society; they were active in the workforce and in political life.
Indeed, if you look at the provisional constitution of 1970, rights were guaranteed to women and the laws enacted thereunder gave rights to women or enshrined rights to women that were being exercised. Then in the 1990s it started spiralling under. Then, as you said in your testimony, the Security Council in 2003...and it's been even worse since then.
What are the elements in the current constitution that strip women further of their human rights guarantees and promote a more religious-based agenda? What do you think could bring us back, and then be better, to where Iraqi society left off before the various iterations of wars that have happened since the 1990s?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dion, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as follows:
[...] any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person [...]
Obviously, the mistreatment of prisoners and inmates is serious, inhumane and always illegal.
Mr. Minister, this week you signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I would like to know how signing this protocol will help us achieve the objective of eliminating torture.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Minister, the committee heard from numerous witnesses during its study on women, peace and security. They told us that the department had stopped providing base funding to small NGOs, in Canada and in developing countries. This is of course tremendously problematic for many of them.
I would like to know whether you will consider this in your review the policies of Global Affairs Canada.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Gentlemen, thank you for coming.
In the Global Affairs Canada report for planning priorities for 2016-17, there is a forecasted spending for 2015-16, under international security and democratic development, for the amount of $395,178,104. The same report indicates that planned spending for international security and democratic development for 2016-17 is $237,901,526. Where does that difference come from?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I can repeat them, and if you don't have it in front of you, you can get back to me. It's okay.
In the planning priorities for 2016-17, there is a forecasted spending for the 2015-16 period for international security and democratic development of $395 million. The same report indicates planned spending for 2016-17 of $237 million.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. Thank you.
Then, if you could just explain.... It appears in the footnotes at times that many of the performance targets are to “obtain baseline information”. Could you briefly explain what exactly that is?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thanks to all three of you for your testimony and, indeed, your courage.
Ms. Abdallah, thank you for being here. Thank you for believing in our country. I believe that I can dare to speak on behalf of this committee and say thank you for making Canada better. It's through people like you that we improve as a country, as a nation.
Your testimony left everyone deeply moved, so thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's unquestionable that the behaviour by Daesh is genocidal, disgusting, blood-curdling, and needs to end.
There's a question I have for the three of you. Whoever feels more like taking the question first, feel free.
Are we doing enough as a country? Canada expanded its aid and its engagement in the region significantly, in my opinion. Are we doing enough? What is the international community doing now? What more should it be doing to protect every single last Yazidi? I would like to get your sense of what's missing in this equation.
It's not a mistake, but we tend to conflate long-term solutions with the short-term solutions, and the immediacy of this situation is quite obvious. I'd like to focus on the immediacy. In the long term, obviously getting women engaged as 50% of the armed forces is something that I've pushed even to the top general in the Canadian Army, but the immediacy is what I'd like an answer on today from you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Good afternoon, everyone.
I move the following motion:
That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills,
(a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider;
(b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and
(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Welcome, Madam Minister.
In your presentation, you mentioned that you are going to conduct a review of Canada's priorities in international assistance. The members of this committee are anxious to find out how that goes.
Could you tell us a little more about what you anticipate in the coming months? Could you focus on the parts about the elimination of extreme poverty as well as on Canada's objective and contribution in that regard? That is an important subject for Canadians and I would like to hear you talk about it a little more.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
I'll turn things over to my colleagues, who are eager to ask you questions.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
General Vance, Chief Superintendent Fleury, I appreciate your input and your presentations. They are very insightful.
I had the honour to serve in the armed forces. I taught a platoon that comprised six women in an infantry role, both basic training and basic infantry training. That experience for a number of the members blew away a number of the myths that exist with respect to women in that role. Those are despicable myths and they lead to and result in a sexualized culture and indeed crimes and the despicable behaviour that's outlined in the Deschamps report. That colours the comments I'm about to make.
General Vance, you took accountability and I think one of the first bubbles in the report is your statement that it stops here, or words to that effect. I applaud that. My question is, are we going far enough? I'd like to hear your specific thoughts on attaining a 50% goal of women in the armed forces, both in combat and non-combat roles.
Chief Superintendent Fleury, I understand you're speaking for the RCMP, and if it's not your authority, feel free not to comment, but I'd like to hear that with respect to the RCMP as well.
These two institutions are basically the flag bearers of Canada. They shape our national identity and indeed our own personal identities. I fear that this culture, the behaviour, and indeed the crimes that are outlined in these reports, won't cease to exist until we attain a much more representative threshold than simply 25%, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
General Vance.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I asked whether 25% was far enough.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
There are two aspects to this motion: the form and the substance.
Let us first deal with the one that is less important, the form. The idea of a subcommittee implies a lot of things, including establishing the committee, of course. That requires considering the busy schedules of the people responsible for studying the matter. There is also the idea of assigning everything important for our foreign policy to subcommittees. So there are various reasons not to agree with the need for a subcommittee.
Still on the subject of the form, our committee has operated on a model of consensus and collaboration, which unfortunately seems to be coming to an end today. Let us first realize that your motion on women, peace and security is the first study we have decided to undertake. The study is really interesting; it is important for the future of Canada, whether nationally or internationally.
We considered and approved Mr. Allison's motion on one of the studies coming up. I would like this committee to continue along the same lines. Unfortunately, there was a certain lack of courtesy in the way in which this motion was introduced, through the media first. I feel that you spent more time discussing it in the media than with us individually. I received an email that was not very personal. We have not discussed it with you to any extent, and I would like us to have done so more.
Be that as it may, this motion is too important for us to dwell on the form. We really must consider the substance as the priority. Human rights and arms sales are very important matters for all states, developed and underdeveloped. In that sense, I have no objection.
I would like to read you a passage from Minister Dion's mandate letter. It reads as follows:
Reenergize Canadian diplomacy and leadership on key international issues and in multilateral institutions. This would include: Working with the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, to champion the values of inclusive and accountable governance, peaceful pluralism and respect for diversity, and human rights including the rights of women and refugees;Acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty.
Personally, I would like to give him a chance. I feel it is too soon to think about a committee, let alone a subcommittee. Even in terms of the substance, it is a little too soon. Let us give the Prime Minister and Minister Dion a chance to do what they have to do. If not, we can look at the motion again or put it in a different form in August or next spring.
I sit on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, and I would welcome the motion in that forum. We look forward to it. At the moment, unfortunately, despite all the respect I have for you and your motion, I am going to vote against this one.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you both for your presentations. They were very compelling.
Permit me one small observation: when I read a number of the reports focused on these issues they obviously include very compelling stories, with concrete proposals, and initiatives, but the concept of male buy-in is often completely absent. I don't know if it's because of the history of the study behind these initiatives, but they seem to it allow people to abscond from responsibility and avoid the elephant in the room, which is male buy-in.
We have a Prime Minister who, in terms of feminism, epitomizes male buy-in.
I think it's unfortunate that women are singled out based on gender and that men are often referred to in these reports in the passive voice. The best way to obscure something is to refer to it in the passive voice. That's my observation about a number of these reports.
I think it's important to call things out. To give people, and men specifically, the responsibility of taking action, not for the sake of taking action, but because it's the right thing to do.
That said, I'd like to give my remaining time to Karina Gould. Her question is actually better than mine.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Maybe I can tweet my question?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
One of the most significant changes that we have seen in your foreign affairs approach compared to the previous government is, as you said, the planning of a re-engagement policy. You have expressed your intent to re-establish the diplomatic relations with Iran and the possibility of opening a consulate in Tehran. In addition, you stated that you would resume the dialogue with Russia rather than continue to ignore it.
Why do you think this re-engagement policy is an improvement over the previous strategies used to interact with those countries? Could you also explain the role that an internationally re-engaged and popular Prime Minister may play in this new approach?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
First, thanks to all three of you for taking the time to come and present to us. It's very insightful, and the testimony today has been very thought through.
Ms. Delahanty, I'd like you to touch on what you said on the government progress reports and the lack of specificity in what is allocated to gender inequality and women's rights. What are the key indicators that you're looking to see progress on from those reports?
Connected to that, what is the number you're looking for from government? You mentioned a 15% number, but what is the specific number in relation to that?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's what the UN is saying. Okay.
That was more the first question. I was just curious if you had an exact number.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
It was on indicators of progress that you're looking to see more development on in the progress reports.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's International Women's Day, and in that spirit, I would propose that you permit me to switch my time with Hélène. She can take her six minutes, and I would be glad to do that.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Doctor, walk us through the life cycle of a contribution from a state for a random amount of, say, $81 million.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
If you could, just walk us through the life cycle, if you will, of a contribution from a country. Any amount would do. What portion is attributed to which indicators that you measure as success as part of your reports? Which ones, for example, go to administrative costs? Where does the final amount end up, and how does that tie in to your indicators of success? I'm sorry, but it's a multi-faceted question.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you. I was originally going to ask you about contraception, but I think you focused on that.
I want to focus on the other bucket indicators that you put at the back. Which one of those, if there is any, and if it's a number of indicators, is the better correlation as to whether you've achieved your goal in development?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Ms. Guttman, I want to develop a bit what Mr. Kent said. What role do you play in encouraging women to join armed forces and police forces? As background to that, I taught one of the first infantry sections with women in Canada. It certainly changed the tone of the section, and probably increased performance. It is one of those last barriers internationally to be broken down. What role do you play in encouraging, writ large, the participation of women in armed forces and police forces?
Also, what role do you play in making sure the codes of conduct are enforced? A lot of Canada's role, obviously, is setting the example. What role do you play in making sure that the laws of war are observed and that the internal codes of conduct are enforced and prosecuted aggressively?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations. I have a question that can be either simple or complex, depending on the answer.
Almost all of you are deputy ministers. You gave us a good overview of the situation and described your mandate letters clearly. I'd like you each to take turns and tell me how this committee and the government can have an impact on your work. We won't necessarily follow, but what direction would you like this committee to take in its dealings with you?
We have made a commitment to unmuzzle you—perhaps that isn't the best word. As deputy ministers, you have an opportunity to introduce policies. Since we have a limited amount of time, I'd like you to discuss two or three points as they relate to international development.
Any of you can answer that.
Thank you.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
My name is Marc Miller, member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs. Ms. Laverdière, I just want to say that we are all feminists here. So you are in good company.
I also want to thank those who have come to participate in this meeting. I thank them for their commitment.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Just to make sure we're on the same page, there is a process we want to respect. Obviously, that is a very important meeting, and if we have the time, we should meet. Madam Laverdière wants to form two committees. They are equally important. I think we have to have ground rules.
I get it, Garnett. It's a great idea and it conveys our respect to him, but I think we need a process and ground rules.
Results: 1 - 88 of 88

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data