Patrick Leblond
Patrick Leblond spoke 64 times across 1 day of testimony.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci…
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
…Monsieur le commissaire. Alors, bonjour à toutes et à tous. Je m’appelle Patrick Leblond. Je suis le modérateur de cette séance. So I'll be moderating this session on Financial Governance, Policing and Intelligence in terms of -- I'm not sure how to best translate, but gouvernance financière, maintien de l’ordre et renseignements financiers. We're very privileged today to have five experts, four in person, one person online. Premièrement, j’aimerais introduire Michelle Cumyn qui est professeure titulaire à la Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval. Next, we have Jessica Davis, who is President and principle consultant at Insight Threat Intelligence. She is also the President of the Canadian Association for Intelligence and Security Studies. Then Michelle Gallant, who is Professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Manitoba. And then we have Gerard Kennedy, who is an Assistant Professor also at the Faculty of Law at the University of Manitoba. And finally, Christian Leuprecht, who is the Class of 1965 Distinguished Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada. He is also the Director of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations in the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University, and he joins us online from Germany if I am correct. So, de la façon que ça va fonctionner, les panélistes experts/expertes vont faire des commen… une présentation d’un maximum de 15 minutes, ensuite il va y avoir une discussion que je vais modérer, des questions, et après la pause on va avoir une autre série de questions et de réponses. So I would like to start with, in terms of the order, Christian. Are you ready to go?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Très bien. Merci.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci beaucoup, Christian. So, actually, you were within time, excellent. Now I would ask Jessica Davis, please -- 15 minutes.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci beaucoup, Jessica. Alors, on va poursuivre. Maintenant, je demanderais à Michelle Cumyn. S’il vous plait, Michelle.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci beaucoup, Michelle. So now we’ll move to Gerard Kennedy. Please, Gerald. Fifteen (15) minutes.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Gerard. Maintenant, j’aimerais demander à Michelle Gallant. Michelle, please?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci beaucoup, Michelle. So as the moderator, first I’d like to thank all the experts for their opening remarks presentation. We’ve covered a lot of ground, but there is more to be covered. Avant de poser des questions, j’aimerais donner la chance aux panelistes peut-être si il ou elle on des questions ou aimerait faire des commentaires par rapport à ce que d’autres panelistes ont dit. So I don’t know if you have -- if there are some who have things to say about what the others said? Jessica Davis?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Patrick Leblond, ici. Anyone else would like to ask or say something? Comment? Michelle Gallant?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Patrick Leblond. I think that’s a very good question. In fact, if I can ask -- and put it in different terms, because I was going to ask the panel to think about that, and in light of what you also said, Michelle Gallant, in your presentation. And that’s maybe to -- the question of risk; right? And Michelle Gallant, you talked about, you know, administrative registration, for instance, or disclosure; right? And especially with regards to foreign funding. So would a risk-based approach -- I mean, we see it -- I mean, already the anti-money laundering and terrorism financing is based on this notion of risk. What is the risk, in a way, for the state in terms of national security, which is why we have this? In terms of securities legislation, is the same thing; right? There are restrictions, disclosure requirements when it comes to raising funding for financing companies. So in a way, how is that different than raising funding for building a church or for organizing a group; et cetera? So I’d like to hear the members of the panel, and Christian, please, you know, raise your hand if you want to speak. In terms of what are the risks, ultimately, that we are talking about here; right? I mean, obviously the fact that we are talking about foreign funding means that there is a risk. I mean, in terms of politics, as Jessica Davis mentioned, you know, influence, undue influence over the political process is a risk; right? You don’t want foreign states to influence, you know, democratic results in one way or the other. That's why we have rules over funding, et cetera. But what are other risks that are applicable here? So I don't know if anyone wants to go first. Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Quelqu'un d'autre? Christian? Ah, oui.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Christian, please.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Christian. Patrick Leblond ici. Maintenant, l’intention est un enjeu majeur, mais je vais poser la question : comment on détermine l’intention? Est-ce qu’on demande tout simplement quelles sont les intentions des gens? Est-ce qu’on détermine soi-même est-ce qu’il y a une agence ou quelqu’un qui dit « ah! vous avez une intention… une bonne intention ou une mauvaise intention »? Comment on peut déterminer à l’avance l’intention si justement on dit « ben, c’est seulement dans le cas où il y a une menace »? So I don't know, how do you decide on intent and who is responsible, because I guess there is a danger that it could be abused. Someone could say, "Oh, no, you have bad intentions, and therefore, you know, we're not letting you get that foreign funding or even do anything." Je vois Michelle Gallant qui peut-être veut répondre.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci beaucoup, Michelle. Christian, would you -- Patrick Leblond. Christian, would you like to say something about intent and how -- and who could be -- decide this and how it would play in terms of it focussing more on threats than risks?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you very much, Christian. Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Patrick Leblond. Thank you ---
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Christian, yes.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Christian. If anyone else would like to take on this issue of intent or not? Okay, Jessica.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Okay, thank you very much, Jessica. Patrick Leblond. Let’s bring it back to foreign funding, which in a way is what I would like us to focus for now, and there are other issues. But in terms of the risks and the intent, and therefore the question of whether, you know, there should be disclosures, registration, as mentioned by Michelle Gallant, and I guess putting it in terms of -- that she presented it in terms of appropriateness; and is it necessary and when is it necessary? And, you know, I’m going to use other examples. We know, for instance, when it comes to foreign dark investment; you know, there’s the Investment Canada Act and that has been changed over time; the notion of national security was incorporated, and a lot of the focus has been on state-owned enterprises, for instance, that do invest. So I’m going to try to draw this parallel in terms of, I think, you know, Jessica Davis mentioned, well, foreign funding says something about intent. But it only says about that you support something; it doesn’t say in what way, for what purpose; you just support it. Should -- would it make sense -- and this is obviously open to all the panellists -- to draw categories? Say that state funding, for instance, from any state, is illegal, or at least -- you know, and then, obviously, there is the issue of well -- the state could say, “Well, we’re going to fund some private organization that is then going to fund something.” So like we would then have to go back to the financial chain. Is there a way or is there a logic to kind of having categories and saying, “Well, if it’s individuals, it’s okay; if it’s corporations, well, then that goes in another category; if it’s states, it goes, you know, like, no, no states,” for instance? In terms of maybe requiring the kinds of disclosures -- and then who discloses? Is it the party that seeks funding or is it the party that brings in the funding? Where does this disclosure take? Donc, je ne sais pas si quelqu’un aimerait peut- être discuter de cet enjeu de comment on peut justement approcher cette question de transparence ultimement. Michelle Gallant?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Michelle. Patrick Leblond. So if I can maybe go further, Michelle? Sorry; does it make sense to say -- well, if I understand, like, even if we had had information on -- I guess we -- whether -- on these transactions, would it have changed anything, right? In the sense, I guess -- and then this, as it was raised, right, by if those crowdfunding platforms had, you know, been registered and they had collected information, would it have changed anything? So Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you, Jessica. Patrick Leblond. Anyone else who would like to add? Because just ---
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Michelle Gallant.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Michelle Cumyn, yes?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Michelle Cumyn. Patrick Leblond here. Is it fair to say, at least from my perspective, going back to the -- what happened in Ottawa last winter, that in a way the money issue kind of came in because the occupation, if we want to call it that, or the convoy lasted for much longer than, you know, I guess everyone expected or hoped, and then it was seen as a way to put pressure on those who, you know, in a way overstayed their welcome. So originally, it seems, and many of you have talked about this, right, and I think Michelle Gallant and Michelle Cumyn made it quite clear, that while, you know, funding itself, funding is good for a democracy in a way; right? Something, a protest, is something that we should allow and potentially even encourage, right, that people have a right to demonstrate, they have a right to get together and say what they like and don't like. It seems that while it's one kind of this turn, then the money parts was seen as a way, "Well, if we cut the funding then they won't be able to do what they want." I don't know if -- like it seems that we're talking about two things here, and when is it that, you know, we slip into the other parts, and where -- and would the registration, the disclosures, the transparency change anything to that? Like ultimately, was it just to say, "Okay. Now, this is no longer just a protest", right, "it's an occupation. We need to get -- we've used", let's say, "whatever means we couldn't do it, and we think that if we cut the funding to these people and it's going to prevent new people from coming because we're going to threaten them", I have a question about that later, but would any of these disclosures, transparencies change that? I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but it seems that there are two things. One is kind of what happens before the money kind of gets there; right? Like in a way when we're talking about terrorism financing, we don't want them to get the money even before, we want the money to -- we want to be able to track it so that we can prevent some attack. But in this case, would it have changed anything? Jessica, you're nodding. Maybe...
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Yeah.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Oui, Michelle Cumyn.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci beaucoup, Michelle. Gerard, would you -- I have a question. Patrick Leblond. I have a question for Gerard, and this -- you talked about notice in the, you know, procedural fairness. You know, that normally before someone's assets get seized or frozen they should receive notice. And it was mentioned by the others that, and this is what happened, that in a way it's like, okay, once the Emergencies Act was invoked, the Regulations came in, and it was like "Okay. Now, if you don't leave Ottawa, or if you come to Ottawa, you risk having your financial assets, your bank account frozen and all that." Would that be considered as notice in terms of procedural fairness? Like in a way, you are warned. I just wonder what your opinion on that.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Patrick Leblond. Oh, Christian.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Please.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Patrick Leblond. Merci, Christian. I guess this -- ça soulève une question pour moi justement cette notion de modifications. Est-ce que, bon, Gerard, vous avez dit que, bon, pour les gens qui étaient à l’extérieur qui peut-être voulaient revenir passer le weekend à Ottawa pour s’amuser et manifester, OK, ça aurait été suffisant de leur dire, « ben, écoutez, si vous venez, on risque de peut- être geler votre compte bancaire, vos cartes, et cetera »; pour les gens qui étaient déjà là, peut-être pas. Mais est-ce que… parce que, bon, là, après ça, c’est comment on fait pour les identifier et qui on identifie exactement, mais est-ce que, si on avait dit, « bon ben, écoutez… », quelqu’un passe et demande le nom des gens qui sont tous présents dans un périmètre et on dit, « bon ben, voici la liste de toutes ces personnes qui à telle date étaient présentes et si elles sont encore présentes dans 48 heures, on va donner l’ordre aux institutions financières de bloquer, est-ce que ça, ça serait acceptable, disons? (LAUGHTER)
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Yes.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Gerard. Michelle Gallant?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you, Michelle. Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you, Jessica. Gerard.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci Gerard. Jessica, if I can go back to what you said, because I think this is an important point in terms of surveillance and what happens after, right, once you’re been designated, either officially by some authority or unofficially by a bank within the context of the regulation or something else, right, and you said that there’s always the potential that banks don’t forget, that they will use this in their risk assessment of customers, either existing ones or potential ones. And I don’t know -- and again, in -- and this is open to everyone, but should there be some kind of process, whether -- you know, obviously, it’s in a crisis situation like the one that we experienced last winter or, if there’s something, in a way, more systematic put in place where people should have some kind of appeal mechanism or transparency where they could look at their risk profile or some -- and I’m not even sure if it’s possible, but because I’m wondering, for instance, what if someone, you know, and we know participates in a protest, and they do so, you know, in -- with good intentions, to go back to intent that Christian was talking about. They take part in a protest. Maybe things get out of hand. They leave. They might get designated just because they were there. And then, all of a sudden, they have, you know, a sort of black mark on -- associated with their names. Do we know if that black mark stays forever? Do it disappear? Does it have an impact? Is there any way of finding out? Is there -- I’m just wondering because you raised an important issue and obviously, then, there can be associations. It's like, “Oh, well, these kinds of people participate in those kinds of activities that -- which potentially could be nefarious for -- to the state or the economy,” or something like that. And so I’m just wondering, is there a danger? And then what remedies or safeguards could -- should -- could we -- should we put in place even if -- to deal with the situation, but then what happens afterwards? You know, I’m thinking people who -- young people who demonstrate and might be arrested and then they have, you know, some kind of record that affects the rest of their lives even though, you know, they might have changed their lives. So in this context, is there something similar and what safeguards could we put in place to prevent abuse or discrimination in terms of the surveillance, and even doing business? So I mean I asked to Jessica but, obviously, this is open to the others as well.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Can I just maybe, then, go back to -- okay, that’s a very good point, but what if there is a list of designated individuals which is shared across the financial system. So then you lose that privacy, right? Now, you're on a list. You're blacklisted in a way for a particular situation. But is there a risk that then that particular situation then associates you as a risk individual for financial purposes, going forward?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you. Quelqu’un d’autre veut… Patric Leblond. Quelqu’un d’autre veut ajouter quelque chose? Personne?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Christian. I see one hand, so Gerard, please?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
You can also respond to Christian. I ---
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you. Michelle Gallant?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Michelle, Michelle Cumyn. We're going to take a -- on va faire la pause, alors je ne sais pas si, Michelle, vous vouliez ajouter quelque chose?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Ça va?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
OK. Alors, je crois qu’on va faire la pause maintenant d’une demi-heure et puis on reprend à 16 h 30. So ---
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Alors, nous sommes de retour. Patrick Leblond. Voilà, Christian, il est là. Donc, nous avons quelques petites questions et ensuite une question… en fait, deux questions d’ordre plus d’importance. La première, et c’est peut-être une… je pense c’est une question probablement pour Jessica Davis. Dans un contexte de crise lorsque justement… une des questions qui était posée, c’est les délais, par exemple entre le moment, par exemple, où peut-être une transaction est identifiée et ensuite l’information est remise ou transmise à CANAFE et ensuite elle était analysée, est-ce que y’a… ces délais-là sont importants ou ça se fait rapidement? Jessica, do you know?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Et pour l’analyse ensuite, avant de peut-être dire, OK, c’est…
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
…is that fashionable?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Excuse-moi, le terme en…
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci beaucoup.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Oui, oui.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Oui. Bien sûr, mais on se demandait. OK. Donc, effectivement, des délais très courts. Merci, Jessica. In terms of the second point that we had some discussions, one thing that was mentioned -- and you know, we talked about a lot of the potential longer-term unintended consequences for people who might be designated -- one thing that was mentioned is the -- not only in terms of the banks, but what would happen, let's say, if someone's bank accounts or money, assets, were seized or frozen and then they missed payments on their mortgage or on the couch that they bought or something, and then obviously, their credit score was affected? Again, when we think about proportionality, is -- you know, should these things be taken into account the longer- term effect because then is there any regrets? For instance, say, "Hey, yeah, I missed my payment because I didn't have access to my bank account because someone froze it because I, you know, went to a protest, or I gave money to people who went to a protest." So I'm curious to hear whether, you know, whether such unintended consequences, potential unintended consequences should be considered in the kind of proportionality tests when actually implementing or putting in place these kinds of measures. So I'm putting it open to everyone. So Michelle Gallant?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Gerard?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci. Patrick Leblond. J'aimerais retourner a l'enjeu du financement étranger, mais dans un contexte de -- so now -- well, during the protest and then afterwards, crowdfunding platforms have to be registered or have to register with FINTRAC. Before that, also, you know, crypto exchanges, wallets operating in Canada have to do so. But I guess one of the questions, and I'd like to hear the panelists, is the -- and Jessica mentioned, you know, obviously, the compliance burden that it puts on an entity like FINTRAC, but even beyond that, how does -- or how can -- I'm not sure, but if you have foreign entities, you know, and, you know, I assume if there is a crowdfunding platform somewhere in the world, or a crypto exchange, or a crypto wallet service, whatever they call themselves, you don't necessarily know or even care who's your clients; right? Especially if where you're physically located, at least legally, there is no requirement for, you know, know your client's information. You may not know that, oh, this person's from Canada. You may not even know that you have technically now that you have someone who has put money on your platform or donated money to your platform or that are receive money from your platform, that you should be registered. So, first of all, it's very difficult for an entity like FINTRAC to actually scour the world to find out, okay, who's doing business in Canada, who's not? So that's the first thing. The second thing is, even if that were possible, say, "Hey, you're not registered, so now you have to register." And then, you know, after I guess a certain time, you find out that the platform, crowdfunding, crypto, is not registered, then what? What happens? Does FINTRAC say, "Oh, you're not registered. You're not complying. We're going to shut you down." That's not going to happen especially if that platform is not in Canada. They can't really do that. Then can you block a website, like, an actual IP address from this platform and say, "Now Canadians now no longer have access to that"? Is that, you know -- and is that possible, or what is the process for doing that? And then even if you could do that, then what - - isn't there -- in this platform I just say, "Okay, well, now we're blocked here. We'll just create another IP address where people can go and do the same business they were doing before," and then you have to go through this whole process and this kind of cat and mouse. So the big question is, even if want to have this level of registration, disclosure, transparency, compliance, is it even possible, feasible? So I see Michelle who wants to say a lot of things. Michelle Gallant.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Michelle. Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Michelle Gallant? Yes.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you, Jessica. Patrick Leblond. And I guess it goes back to this question of to what extent is it feasible, you know, once there is a registration requirement for whatever funding or financial entity for FINTRAC, who is ultimately responsible for ensuring its compliance to actually do so. Because I guess it's very hard to identify something that, you know, you don't really know exists, and no one is kind of out there and say, "Hey, I'm here", and even more so if it's outside of Canada's borders somewhere on the ethernet, or even on the Dark Web for that matter. So -- but I think it's -- it raises an issue in terms of, you know, does it mean that ultimately you need more resources, or even the fact even if you had all the resources in the world it would not even be possible to actually do so. So I guess I just wanted to bring that up because to me it seems an important issue to think about when, you know, if the -- if some -- some people think that the answer is just, "Oh, well, just require them to register and if they don't comply then we're done." It seems that it's as you mentioned, it raises a number of issues, obviously, whether it's privacy, whether it's freedom, access to, you know, to information, or even in terms of efficacy. Oh, Christian, please.
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Christian. Patrick Leblond. I guess, and this I think will be the last element that we'll talk about. And I -- you know, in a way, as Christian just mentioned, you know, we have to think about this, and I think a lot of discussion has been about, you know, going forward. And one of the questions, and it was already kind of discussed, I think it was Christian in his original presentation. The question of in a way seizing assets or the risk, or the threat of seizing, freezing assets, financial assets, and to what extent it represents -- I think there are two things. One is to what extent it represents a risk to the overall financial system in terms of people's trust in the system, right, and going to also what Michelle Gallant said about in a way the fundamental right of, you know, getting money for causes if we want, right, or to organise protests, you know, in a democracy. And is there a risk that people, as a result of what happened and what could happen in the past, will now -- could feel or will now feel that, A, if I put my money in a, you know, a regular bank account could it be frozen? If I give money to a cause and all of a sudden that cause somehow doesn't quite turn out how we thought it would be because some individuals, not all of them, or some of them, decided to use the money for in a way not things that we had planned for, and all of a sudden, you know, because I gave my bank account is frozen or I have this cloud that, as Michelle mentioned, over my head, so therefore, either I'm not going to give any more money, so that obviously has an impact, that people's ability to collect funding, or I'm going to try to avoid the traditional financial systems? And I think it was Christian who said, "Well, are they going to move in a way to less regulate it darker corners of the financial system?", which obviously have their own consequences in terms of, you know, potentially as consumers losing their money, losing the value of their financial assets and all that. So I'd like -- you know, we have about -- we have ten minutes, or actually, nine minutes. I don't know if we could -- what are your thoughts. In a way in kind of the grand scheme of things is there -- you know, and again, going back to this proportionately element that Michelle Gallant raised, you know, is -- the freezing of assets or the seizing of assets is there a greater -- a risk to the system itself and the trust that people have in the financial system? I don't know who wants -- qui aimerait commencer pour conclure sur le niveau très macro. Michelle Gallant?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Michelle. Gerard?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you, Gerard. Jessica?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you. Michelle Cumyn?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Merci, Michelle. Christian, do you have a comment?
-
Patrick Leblond, Prof. (Public and International Affairs – University of Ottawa)
Thank you very much, Christian. Alors, c’est… je pense que c’est tout pour aujourd’hui en ce qui nous concerne, cette discussion qui a été très riche, beaucoup d’informations, et j’aimerais remercier nos panélistes : Christian Leuprecht, en ligne de l’Allemagne où il est en ce moment, Michelle Gallant, Michelle Cumyn, Jessica Davis, Gerard Kennedy, merci beaucoup à vous toutes et tous d’avoir été avec nous et de nous avoir fait part, en fait, de vos expériences, vos expertises, vos connaissances. Je pense que c’est… en tout cas, pour moi, ç’a été très utile, j’espère que ça l’est aussi pour le Commissaire et la Commission. Et donc, voilà, merci à vous toutes et tous.