Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Commissioner. You said you were going to submit your proposals for modernizing the act in the spring. Why did you choose that timing?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
I understand. Now I'd like to go back to what my colleague Mr. Blaney raised and get into the details.
Mr. Pelletier, a great constitutional scholar whom I like, said, "I see the two governments are passing the buck back and forth on this issue. It's merely become a pretext for Ontario, and that attitude is somewhat suspect."
I don't think the federal government should play Mr. Ford's game. To quote Mr. Pelletier once again, "But the AFO's offer is quite unusual." The idea here is that the federal government would fund the university's first four years for a total of $39 million to ensure it doesn't disappear in a month or two.
To continue the quotation, "That's why, if the federal government is really interested, it would be a good idea for it to let everyone know because we would be looking at a unique proposal." Mr. Pelletier added, "If it wants to make a special funding offer in connection with the Université de l'Ontario français, then it's normally up to Ottawa to make that offer."
Even if Ms. Joly and the Prime Minister are right in saying it would normally be up to Ontario to make a request, I think that responding that way in the exceptional situation we find ourselves in is tantamount to playing Mr. Ford's game.
As commissioner, are you going to invite the federal government to take an unusual action and offer Ontario the $39 million for the first four years of the university's life?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Carrier and Mr. Boileau, I'm very pleased that you're with us this morning.
Mr. Boileau, I believe the last two weeks have been very busy for you, but I'm pleased you seem to be in good form, cheery and ready for a fight.
I wanted to tell you that language rights are very important for us in the Conservative Party of Canada. We're very happy that there was a meeting at the summit that ourleader and the Prime Minister attended and that what emerged was a will to work together on language rights in Ontario.
That being said, this morning we are focusing on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. I have a few direct questions for you, and you have, in a way, addressed them this morning.
Would you be more in favour of establishing an administrative tribunal or giving coercive powers to the federal government's Commissioner of Official Languages?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair; you're right.
My question was for both commissioners.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Carrier.
Mr. Boileau, do you want to add anything?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Would you choose an administrative tribunal or coercive powers?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
I'm surprised to hear that, since all the evidence we've heard thus far leans more toward an administrative tribunal, but I'll take note of what you've said.
Mr. Boileau, you mentioned that there was an official languages secretariat in the Privy Council during Mr. Dion's time. However, you concluded your presentation by saying you would prefer that the Treasury Board be the central agency that enforces the act within government.
Why do you lean toward the Treasury Board rather than a new official languages secretariat within the Privy Council?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Commissioners, there are two aspects to our great crusade to modernize the Official Languages Act. I think "crusade" is the right word.
First, there's the act as such, and we'll want to change a lot of words and sentences to strengthen it, regardless of the government that's in power in 2019. Second, there are more general issues, such as whether a tribunal should be established, how governance should be centralized and so on.
We've addressed these more general issues during the question period, but I'd like to hear you talk more about the act as such, about the minor details that change matters every day for the minority linguistic communities. For example, representatives from Power Law came and presented a lot of very specific recommendations, such as replacing the word "may" with the word "shall" in part VII of the act. Do you have similarly specific recommendations for amendments to the present act?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
That's why we must change certain words. Thank you, Mr. Boileau.
Mr. Carrier, do you have any specific legislative amendments in mind?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
If I correctly understood, you seemed to be saying in the presentation you made earlier that you wanted to see some recognition of the special status of New Brunswick's bilingualism in the Official Languages Act. Is that correct?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm always honoured to start the rounds of questions.
Mr. Doucet, we are pleased to have you here with the committee. On behalf of the members, I would like to thank you for your lifelong commitment to official languages.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Precisely. I've heard good things about you, of course.
Getting right to it, would you prefer to have an administrative language rights tribunal established or coercive powers granted to the Commissioner of Official Languages?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
I'd like to take a closer look at the tribunal issue with you. I'm very pleased to see that you sat on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Excellent.
How does it work when a tribunal decides to order a department or central government organization—not an individual—to pay a monetary penalty or pay back funding? Several people have told me it makes no sense to compel a department to pay penalties to the government.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
I see.
As regards governance, would you prefer that the act be the responsibility of the Treasury Board or the Privy Council?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
But that's done in a haphazard way.
What institution would you prefer if a government were less interested in the issue?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
What institution would you prefer regardless of the situation? Canadian Heritage has no power.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Thompson, thank you for being here.
Last spring, I read your memoir concerning your proposal for the modernization of the law. I thought it was very good and very comprehensive. You touch upon every aspect of the law.
I would like to know precisely this morning, in terms of making sure that people respect the law—we need to be able to enforce it sometimes—whether you would prefer to do an administrative tribunal or whether you would prefer that the commissioner have coercive powers.
Which option would you prefer?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
For sure, but is there anything you would like to see changed in the commissioner's office?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
As a last quick question, would you prefer to see all the laws of governance under the auspices of the Treasury Board or the Privy Council?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis. I want to thank you for the unrelenting work you do for Canada's official languages, and particularly for the francophonie.
You are more in favour of the creation of an administrative tribunal, rather than granting coercive powers to the commissioner, such as the power to impose binding measures, correct?
Results: 301 - 330 of 1638 | Page: 11 of 55

|<
<
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
>
>|