Concluding observations Panama

15. Concluding observations Panama

What do you mean, sir?

in the dark when she's so scared of it?

Comments on the Canadian draft firearm protocol

Comments on the Canadian draft Firearm Protocol

The representatives of Canada, Egypt, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom shared this view.

This view was supported by the delegations of Canada, Cuba and Switzerland.

Communication No. 879 1998, Howard v. Canada (Views adopted on 26 July 2005, eighty fourth session)

See Ominayak et al. v. Canada, case No. 167 1984, Views adopted on 26 March 1990, at para. 32.1.

I always knew that most women were cheats, hypocritical and hard.

Lovelace v. Canada, case No. 24 1977, Views adopted on 19 September 1979.

The CHAIRMAN said that if he heard no objection he would take it that the Committee wished to take note of the points mentioned by the representative of Panama and to approve the draft decision.

Van Duzen v. Canada, case No. 50 1979, Views adopted on 25 July 1980.

See communication No. 167 1984, Bernard Ominayak et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 26 March 1990, at para.

Canada was ready to work with other delegations to resolve the remaining issues with the hope that consensus could soon be reached.

Davidson v. Canada, case No. 359 1989, Views adopted 31 March 1993, and Länsman v. Finland case No. 671 995, Views adopted on 30 October 1996.

Here. No hard feelings?

Ever met a Canadian?

See, inter alia, the views of the representative of China (GA L 3267), Canada (ibid.), Portugal (ibid.), Italy (ibid.), Japan (GA L 3268) and Malaysia (ibid.).

I'll get.

See they get plenty of tea.

See, inter alia, the views of Germany (GA L 3267), Canada (ibid.), Guatemala (ibid.) and Malaysia (GA L 3268).

Mr. D'Allaire (Canada) expressed support for the text as it stood and for the views expressed by the United States delegation.

Saw this man take this without paying for it.

Make up your mind!

Met a Canadian once.

I saw you in the mirror, with a gun.

He took my mittens and vanished into thin air.

And Mr. Heifetz was a very cool person, so he picked up his violin and said, Funny, I don't hear anything.

For the Committee's reasoning on whether or not to issue a request under rule 92, see the Committee's Views in communication No. 558 1993 (Canepa v. Canada).

1998, Howard v. Canada (Views adopted on 26 July 2005, eighty fourth session)

Would you mind?

You mean you're confused?

Yes, Capt. Butler, I remember you.

He'll see you get it. It'll give the show away.

I'll get my bathing trunks. I'll be down in a few minutes.

Communication No. 1998, Howard v. Canada (Views adopted on 26 July 2005, eighty fourth session) 12

It is a new cylinder.

You got your dingus.

l was just thinking.

You work it out any way you think best.

I'd be glad to bring it up.

Have you made up your mind?

Mr. Mazzoni (Italy) said that he agreed with the Canadian delegation that a signature was valid for legal purposes if it was associated with a person's clearly stated intent.