Traduction de «Custodial transfer » (Anglais → Français) :

Question No. 111 Hon. Ralph Goodale: With regard to the Privy Council Office, and to the following documents: the Information to Obtain a Production Order and a Sealing Order, made on June 24th, 2013 by Corporal Greg Horton of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Ottawa, Ontario, before Chantal Dominique Marie Lurette, a Commissioner for the Taking of Oaths in the Province of Ontario, in which he states he has reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that offences contrary to an Act of Parliament have been made by Michael Duffy; the statements made in the Senate by Senator Michael Duffy on October 22, 2013, and statements made to the press on October 21, 2013 in Ottawa by Donald Bayne, a lawyer of that city acting on behalf of Senato ...[+++]r Duffy: (a) does the Access to Information Directorate of the Privy Council Office still conclude that no records exist with regard to Access to Information requests A-2013-00231, A-2013-00232, A-2013-00233, A-2013-00075, A-2013-00076, A-2013-00077, A-2013-00080, A-2013-00085, A-2013-00099, A-2013-00101, A-2013-00103, A-2013-00104, A-2013-00105, A-2013-00106, A-2013-00113, A-2013-00114, A-2013-00116, A-2013-00120, A-2013-00125, A-2013-00126, A-2013-00131, A-2013-00132, A-2013-00139, and A-2012-00751; (b) will the Directorate re-examine the handling of those requests in light of the new information outlined above; (c) did the Privy Council Office formerly hold records which would have satisfied one or more of those requests; (d) if so, were the records transferred, removed, or destroyed; (e) if transferred or removed, to whose custody or control were they transferred or removed; (f) if destroyed, when were they destroyed, on what date or dates was the destruction approved, and what is the file number of any order, instruction, directive, or authorization concerning their transfer, removal, or destruction?

Further, where the law of a third country requires that certain financial instruments be held in custody by a local entity and there are no local entities that satisfy all depositary delegation requirements, the depositary should be able to discharge itself of liability provided that: the rules or instruments of incorporation of the AIF concerned expressly allow for such a discharge; the investors have been duly informed of that discharge and the circumstances justifying the discharge prior to their investment; the AIF or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF instructed the depositary to delegate the custody of such financial instruments to a ...[+++]local entity; there is a written contract between the depositary and the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, which expressly allows such a discharge; and there is a written contract between the depositary and the third party which expressly transfers the liability of the depositary to that third party and makes it possible for the AIF, or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, to make a claim against the third party in respect of the loss of financial instruments or for the depositary to make such a claim on their behalf.

Appropriate signatures for each custody transfer.

Question No. 204 Ms. Dawn Black: With regard to detainee handling in Afghanistan: (a) at what time was Canada first granted formal access to Afghan monitor detention facilities in Kandahar; (b) how many Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) officers were in Kandahar in August 2005, and what was the number for each month since; (c) did CSC direct their officers to specifically monitor detainees taken by Canadians and held in Afghan custody, and, if so, what form did that direction take; (d) what type of investigation was begun by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces following the publishing of reports of torture in ...[+++] the Globe and Mail on Monday, April 23, 2007, and when was it commenced; (e) what is the number of detainees transferred to Afghan custody since the signing of the December 18, 2005, “Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees Between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”; (f) following the processing of transfer documents and the release of a detainee to Afghan authorities, how are National Defence Headquarters, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and the Minister of National Defence informed of this transfer respectively; (g) when was information about the Department of Foreign Affairs country reports, starting in 2002, describing torture and inhumane treatment in Afghan prisons as “common”, first released outside of the Department and when were i) the current and previous Foreign Affairs Ministers made aware, ii) the current and previous Defence Ministers made aware, iii) the current and previous Prime Ministers made aware; (h) when were negotiations begun on the arrangement for monitoring access announced by the Minister of National Defence on Wednesday April 25, 2007, and i) when were negotiations concluded, ii) when was the CDS made aware of the arrangement, iii) when was the Minister of Foreign Affairs made aware of the arrangement, iv) when was the Prime Minister made awa ...

The Commission recalls that while recognising the need to find ways of improving the effectiveness of transfers, custodial measures should be only used as a last resort, when all other non-custodial measures are not expected to bring satisfactory results and because there are objective reasons to believe that there is a high risk of the asylum seeker absconding.

The main idea of a new instrument on mutual recognition of non-custodial pre-trial supervision measures is to substitute pre-trial detention with a non-custodial supervision measure and to transfer this measure to the Member State where the suspected person normally has his or her residence.