Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 950
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all three of you for coming.
General Beare, what is mission success?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
We can clearly measure March 2014 as a leaving date, getting everybody home safe and sound, and your equipment, etc. That's an easy measurement. But the first two are exceedingly vague.
Do you have a metric established as to when you will say we have successfully transitioned the leadership, for instance?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
You haven't set it out in terms of “By 2013 we want to have this done, and by 2014 we want to have that done”, or are there benchmarks by which you measure your success on your metric?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Your metric of success is therefore the international metric of success rather than the Canadian metric of success. So the only sure thing with respect to the Canadian metric of success is that we're leaving March 14.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Welcome. Thank you, Chair, and thanks to you all.
My first question has to do with the threshold, if you will, to trigger interest on the part of a crown attorney in whatever payments are being made, because a lot of this stuff is pretty low-level—$20, $40, $60 to get through a border and so on. At this point, we don't seem to have much of a definition as to what will create the interest of a crown attorney in these payments.
As I would understand the way you've framed it, everything is illegal until it's not, which leaves a pretty major area of uncertainty in the law.
Why take that approach? Why not establish, either by regulation or in legislation, a de minimis requirement and a specific exclusionary requirement of what does not constitute these kinds of offences?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's because there is this kind of grey area. In theory, at least, you could slip $20 to a border guard and that could attract the attention of a prosecutor. Is that correct or not correct?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Well, you and I went to the same boring lectures in the first year of criminal law.
Mr. Alan H. Kessel: Exactly.
Hon. John McKay: I understand that, but because there is no minimal threshold, if you will, everything is illegal until it's not.
I'm just pointing it out. I'm not sure I would react any differently than you.
I am puzzled, frankly, by the government's attitude, its kind of resistance to going ahead with my bill, which creates in effect a database of information on what's actually happening out there in terms of payments to governments.
It seemed to me that, one way or another, Canada will be dragged into the Dodd–Frank regime, and in effect that will be a database for a prosecutor. With a database, you then have some basis for determining what catches a criminal prosecutor's attention and what doesn't catch a criminal prosecutor's attention.
Let's face it, when I pay a licensing fee to obtain a mining concession, I am trying to facilitate my business; there is another line where I am bribing someone to facilitate my business.
I'd be interested in your thoughts as to whether in fact, while you are postponing the implementation of the facilitation payments section, the buildup of their database would in fact be useful to a prosecutor.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
What's interesting to me about taking out the profit part of the definition is that you actually increase the universe of people who will be exposed to this kind of criminalization of their activity. Without the actual definition, a lot of NGOs operate on very low levels of “facilitation”, for want of a better term.
I want to leave that question, but I still.... The difference between regulatory and criminalization is sometimes a very fine line. I would have thought that building up a regulatory data bank of information is a prosecutor's dream. You'd be able to look back at five years of filings and say to yourself, “Well, this is what they disclosed, and this is what they didn't disclose.”
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
You're a generous chair.
I do have another one, if....
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I've always been able to count on your generosity, Chair.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes.
Thank you, Colonel, for coming.
Last Monday we had some pretty dramatic testimony from some folks. I don't know whether you were here or whether you read the transcripts, but there were two families and two soldiers who talked about their own situations. It was pretty difficult and very compelling testimony.
One soldier brought in a shopping bag filled with binders. He had four binders packed with rules and regulations as to what he could or could not do in order to be able to have his house renovated. He and his wife, to their great surprise, are now $30,000 in debt, because apparently they offended something or other. They're not quite sure what, but nevertheless they're in a bit of a pickle.
Is this the kind of thing in which your service intervenes?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
The way he described it didn't seem to be provincial versus federal or municipal or whatever—all that sort of stuff that you can get in normal situations. It seemed to be directly soldier on military. He seemed to have either been misled or poorly informed; I'm not quite sure which. He seemed to be in some need of somebody to come in and help him.
I was thinking, as you were giving your testimony, that you look like the guy. Is that fair, or is it not fair?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
What would be impairing you from stepping in?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
He can't even dial up this 1-800 number you have here to get help from your office with respect to his interaction between Colonel Blais and his operation and himself.
Results: 1 - 15 of 950 | Page: 1 of 64

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data