Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 107
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
As others have said, I didn't see this until just before question period. This was an important part of our discussion from before, and I think that passing the bill without clause 75 is not a good idea. Instinctively, I feel the way Mr. Harris does: annoyed that we had some time and didn't allow ourselves the time to really focus as we need to.
That said, I don't want to lose the possibility of all the work that has been done on this having a chance to see the light of day. As it was described, option 3 is the widest option. If somebody proposed it as a motion, so that we could discuss option 3 to see how far we get in it, with the possibility of coming to a conclusion today and having things then move ahead to see whether there is a possibility that it goes through the Senate....
I think a mistake was made in dealing with the process of it. I don't think it was an absence of goodwill; it was a mistake. It's too bad and it creates awkwardnesses and worse, as Mr. Bachand said and Mr. Harris said. But I would still prefer to see whether or not we can come to an agreement on it and would ask whether somebody would be willing to propose a motion that would suggest that we adopt option 3 and then get on to a discussion about it.
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
No, I agree with what you're saying, Chair. We're back here now, and we have progressed to looking at this as closely as we can. We have the opportunity to do so.
The Libya briefing will be very nice to have, and I hope we will still have the chance to have it, but I think we have some work to do on this first.
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Just going back to the example that was presented, that of the soldier being ordered to shine shoes and deciding not to, that would be insubordination. If it was insubordination, then whatever penalty that would be applied would have to be a matter that would generate a criminal record. Is that right?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Just quickly, then, there was another example. I think it was under malingering, under 98 or 99. The most minor example of malingering might be...? Can you give me an example of that? Would that bring with it a criminal offence or not?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
What would be the most minor or among the most minor malingering offences?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Instead of a malingering charge under the example you provide--somebody claims to have the flu--what might they be charged with?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Sure. Is 129 a bit of a catch-all?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
What you believe is that what is there can operate both ways. Not only wouldn't there be too severe a charge being brought just because it happened to fall under a heading that generates severe consequences, but at the same time something that was also worthy of note and worthy of some kind of punishment would not go unpunished because the option would be either something too great or not at all.
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm not even quite sure how to phrase some of these questions. I'll just start with things I would like to know, and whether you're able to tell me or not is another question.
I can imagine how, in the early stages like this, things would be fairly straightforward. I can also imagine how, as you described at some point earlier, this is an evolving situation. I've also listened to a number of the debates on news shows and news channels from the U.S. in the last few days, and the kind of speculation that is part of those shows about what the real U.S. purposes are, how far they imagine this situation will evolve, and what kinds of goals they may have.
When you have rules of engagement like this--and it's just to help me think through this--and a few different actors that are part of it, is it fairly normal for people to interpret the rules of engagement somewhat differently, from one actor to another?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
As you say, things evolve. At least some of the ranges of goals I have heard go beyond the protection of civilians to in a sense freeze certain circumstances. So a division of Libya would result. And there is certainly the discussion about regime change--going as far as that.
Is it possible for someone under these rules of engagement to interpret them in that way, so in order to achieve those goals under the rules of engagement they could interpret that this is as far as one can reasonably go? Or you can go further on that. Is that part of the complication of any kind of effort like this?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
There are two questions I'd like to ask, and I'm sure my time is getting close to the end.
When we're talking about the involvement of Arab League nations or African Union nations, is it possible that what is going on now is that for a lot of those nations it is a kind of wait and see? They're seeing how this mission is going. They're seeing the extent to which it is going. They're seeing not only a global reaction but also a reaction of other nations that may be part of the Arab League or the African Union, and they will get involved more or less depending on what they see in these days ahead. That's the one question.
On the other question, as you describe--again, I can imagine this and picture this--as things evolve, and as you said, the discussions continue, and you have the different forums in which to have these discussions, and some are willing to go to a certain extent, others are less willing to go to a certain extent.... Is the challenge for any country once they're in the midst of something like this to get drawn along with certain actions and directions that are happening that they may find very difficult to get out of, even if the original position is not where they're interested in going?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
You described certain instances where you said objectively they were minor. The example was used about causing a fire or something along that line. If somebody was causing a fire but in an instance that was very minor, objectively, then would the decision rendered be necessarily one where a criminal record would follow?
View Ken Dryden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Well, again, we're talking about something that is objectively minor. My question is the same point: do we want somebody to carry a criminal record where they have caused something that was objectively very minor?
Their option would be either to render the decision where there would be a criminal record, or to say to themselves, “Look, I realize that it's causing a fire, but it's really not all that significant, and I know that it would generate a criminal record, so therefore I am not going come down as hard as I should because I don't have the option of coming down in a less serious way...I only have to come down in a harsher way, which in fact is a punishment beyond what should be the case”.
Results: 1 - 15 of 107 | Page: 1 of 8

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

For more data options, please see Open Data