Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 14 of 14
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
So you are really forced to wait for the court's decision. If the decision of the court is not in your favour, how do you use see things proceeding?
Leonid Volkov
View Leonid Volkov Profile
Leonid Volkov
2021-05-06 16:25
We don't have any doubts about what the decision will be. Russia, unfortunately, doesn't have an independent court. On May 17 it will happen, so we are getting ready for it. We are moving more now into the sunlight. The Internet feels still like a relatively free medium. A lot of things that we are doing are actually enabled through the Internet. For this tactical voting, we don't need offline infrastructure to do it.
We will of course keep moving on with our anti-corruption investigations. Now we relocate some of our stuff from Russia to Lithuania or to other countries to keep it safe. We'll pretty much continue doing what we are doing now. We face a lot of organizational changes. We have to rearrange many processes, but we'll carry on.
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Volkov.
[Pursuant to a motion passed on May 11, 2021, a portion of this testimony has been deleted. See Minutes of Proceedings of May 11, 2021]
Mr. Robert Oliphant: I want to assure you, following Mr. Chong's questions—you may or may not be aware—that on March 24, our Minister of Foreign Affairs issued another round of sanctions in direct response to Mr. Navalny's arrest and detention. We are constantly reviewing these sanctions.
We have two different regimes for sanctions in Canada. We make sure that they're both judicious and effective, so we won't be putting criminals on sanctions, despite people perhaps saying.... We look for very effective ways. We also do it in tandem with international partners, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, European Union and so on.
This is a constant discussion. If there are suggestions that you have for that, we're always happy to take them, because we will review them. However, we have two pieces of legislation that we have to follow. We're very careful in how we do that. That list on March 24 was done in concert with the Americans.
I want to get out of sanctions for a moment, though, and talk about the effect of the prosecutors' move against the anti-corruption foundation. How will that limit either your work in Russia or outside of Russia, and do you have any suggestions for Canada, with the prosecutors labelling you as an extremist organization for the anti-corruption work you're doing, on how we can be supportive?
Leonid Volkov
View Leonid Volkov Profile
Leonid Volkov
2021-05-06 16:36
Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant.
On sanctions, I think a lot of important things already have been said. I understand how complicated this process is, how many legal complications it has.
One little thing to add is that, of course, it's very important that the international community act together: Canada, United States, European Union and the U.K. However, let me suggest that the key part of the story is the U.K here.
Leonid Volkov
View Leonid Volkov Profile
Leonid Volkov
2021-05-06 16:37
If you could kind of push and influence the U.K. informally, it's most essential, because 80% of those assets in question are being stashed in London.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
Witnesses to these proceedings as well as from the five Nuu-chah-nulth nations in my riding that are in court with your government have stated that the government has failed to honour Supreme Court of Canada decisions that affirm first nations treaty and protected inherent rights to fish or to earn a moderate living. The DFO interim policy response of the aboriginal fisheries strategy, the FSC licensing system and other access programs don't address the treaty-protected inherent rights of first nations.
Is your government going to address the decades of outstanding business by demonstrating a willingness to prioritize this work with first nations and ensure that these court decisions are honoured and implemented effectively through nation-to-nation dialogue?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
I would say that this is absolutely our number one priority. I will say that we have been working with first nations to make sure that they are able to implement the treaty right that is Supreme Court affirmed. These are ongoing discussions that we are having now with first nations communities. No one is arguing that they have the right. We have to make sure that we implement it, and that is what we are working towards. We are not shirking our responsibilities, as you seem to indicate. This is something that has been top of mind for me, and I have been working diligently—
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you.
I will say that this is not something that's a simple solution. This is not an easy solution. If it were easy, it would have been solved years ago. I'm going to continue doing everything I can to make sure that first nations rights are implemented.
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to extend my thanks to all the witnesses for appearing today and for the submissions. I know that some of them have been made separately.
At the beginning, I always have to express my frustration that some of the issues we're talking about in the committee go well beyond the mandate of the justice committee in studying Bill C-7. I hope we will have a special committee established that can deal with those broader issues, because these cannot be solved by adding one or two sessions to this committee.
My first question is for Monsieur Roberge. We have had testimony that raises questions about why the Truchon decision was not appealed. I would like to hear some comments on the relationship between the Truchon and Carter decisions, because I think there is a view that Truchon is set squarely within the parameters of Carter, and that some of these basic decisions were actually settled in Carter at the beginning of this litigation.
David E. Roberge
View David E. Roberge Profile
David E. Roberge
2020-11-12 11:51
I'm not going to speculate as to why the Truchon decision was not appealed. That said, I think there are, indeed, common grounds between the two decisions, that of Carter and the Supreme Court of Canada and the Quebec decision in Truchon.
I think one of the common grounds for the CBA is, indeed, that both courts recognized the need again to have vulnerability assessed on an individual basis by a physician. While there are risks when discussing MAID for vulnerable people, those risks, the Supreme Court says, are already part and parcel of the medical system in other kinds of end-of-life decision-making, and they could be resolved through a proper assessment of informed consent.
I'm not going to go into the technicalities of the decision, but while the Supreme Court of Canada decision was grounded as an infringement of section 7, the Québec Superior Court also found an infringement of section 15.
I hope my remarks are helpful.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
As I was saying, Senator Peticlerc said yesterday in respect to what she heard from the witnesses at committee on Tuesday:
They cannot possibly represent and speak for all persons with a disability. Obviously, because you know they don't speak for me.
Furthermore, she said that neither did they speak for Nicole Gladu or Jean Truchon, the two Montrealers who successfully challenged the provision in the assisted-dying law—who committee members know are themselves persons with disabilities.
I want to ask the former judge Monsieur Rochon and Mr. Roberge a question about the Truchon decision. A witness on Tuesday impugned the integrity of that decision by alleging conflicts of interest and bias in deciding the case and said that, in fact, there should have been a recusal of Madame Justice Baudouin in that case.
Mr. Rochon, as a former member of the Quebec court, do you have any comments on that attack on the Quebec court and its independence?
André Rochon
View André Rochon Profile
Hon. André Rochon
2020-11-12 12:07
Justice Baudouin's decision has not been appealed. In my opinion, it is well founded and is very much in keeping with the principles of the Carter decision.
Justice Baudouin affirmed two fundamental principles that underlie her decision and that deserve to be recognized. The first is that this assessment is made on an individual basis. The second is that denying people medical assistance in dying constitutes discrimination against them.
David E. Roberge
View David E. Roberge Profile
David E. Roberge
2020-11-12 12:08
Not really. Again, it wasn't really within the mandate of the CBA's working group on end of life to address the question you just raised.
Results: 1 - 14 of 14

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data