Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 28
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Naturally, I would not presume to dispute the opinion that Ms. Faille has just put forward. Unlike her, I have not worked in that area. I have never submitted a memorandum to cabinet. For our part, we relied on Mr. Walsh's testimony, that concurs perfectly with what the hon. memb

March 25th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mrs. Corkery's testimony reads as follows: “We didn't receive anything under December 4—it was dated December 3, but it arrived on December 4—and it was quite general”. A little further on, she says, and I quote: “We did receive a letter, dated December 3, which we got on Decembe

March 25th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

March 25th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  If we stay with paragraph 38, the French version says that “on devrait faire une distinction entre une décision politique et une décision administrative…”. In the transcript, he makes mention of a decision coming from the professional level and one made at ministerial level. We c

March 25th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The committee can change paragraph 38 if it wishes. As I mentioned when telling you what is in the transcript, Mr. Walsh does not talk about an administrative decision, but about a recommendation coming from the professional level.

March 25th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  If I may, the committee had adopted the changes, but not the paragraph as such.

March 25th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I'm going to try to answer your question, Mr. Paquette. As my colleague was saying, when Ms. Biggs and the Minister appeared, they both promised to send documents to the committee that would reflect a similar practice to the one being considered now. We received only one documen

March 24th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Once again, we hesitated somewhat. It must have come that way from the translation service, and we left it. It's the committee report.

March 24th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  So, it's a supplementary opinion.

March 24th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Proulx, we could add in brackets that the “non”—or “not” in this case—was only written in English.

March 24th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  We even considered translating it as “ne pas”.

March 24th, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Pardon me, but the analysts were instructed to include this option.

March 21st, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Or to have it contain only the findings.

March 21st, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's correct, Mr. Chair. First, Mr. Menzies's title is in the right place. In paragraph 33, in the fourth line from the bottom, where it says “la divulgation ne risquait pas”, we would have to take out the negation.

March 21st, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair

Procedure and House Affairs committee  We would take out the negative form.

March 21st, 2011Committee meeting

Nicolas Auclair