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
It's the Société canadienne d'hypothèques et de logement, or SCHL.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
That's really important for the committee.
So does priority go back to the party that responds first?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
Yes and no, because I'm not entirely certain I clearly understand.
If the determination as to whether it's a routine or strategic disposal is made before the aboriginal consultation, what's the point of the aboriginal consultation?
For example, let's say the disposal is routine or strategic and that a lot of people have expressed interest.
You're at the disposal determination step, and everyone is interested, whether it be crown corporations, provinces or municipalities. Two weeks later, you get a call from an aboriginal community.
Will it have priority over all the other parties that have already expressed interest?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
Yes, but Mrs. Levesque said there was a kind of immediate synergy between step 3 and step 5.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
Which of the two takes precedence?
Is it interest-based or rights-based?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
Dear colleagues and citizens, here's the notice I submitted last Thursday:
That the Committee call on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to reverse its decision, effective April 1, 2019, to end unilingual francophone training at its academy, Depot Division in Saskatchewan.
I would like to say that there's no particular intent behind this motion. I was somewhat troubled when I saw it. In fact, it really made me angry. I thought that, if the committee unanimously agreed to this motion, that would send a strong signal. I even hoped that the present Government of Canada would find this decision clearly made no sense. I think it's a non-partisan issue.
I sought an outside professional opinion on Canadian law. Those people told me that the RCMP probably had budget considerations. In its own view, it may feel they are legitimate—I know that budget issues are not always easy for the RCMP—but our duty isn't to consider the RCMP's concerns regarding budgets or other matters. Our duty is to determine whether this decision contradicts the spirit or letter of the Official Languages Act, which, according to the opinion I have received, is the case.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fraser, thank you for being here today and meeting with the committee on your own personal time.
We all know how deep your knowledge of the Official Languages Act runs, on both a theoretical and a practical level.
Since you talked about the Gascon decision and the fact that the federal government is appealing the decision, I'd like to keep that momentum going.
You know as well as we do that the FCFA—
View Alupa Clarke Profile
Yes, of course. Thank you.
You're aware that the FCFA is calling for stronger language in the modernized act, mainly, that the word “may” be replaced by the word “shall”—in English—and that the word “peut” be replaced by the word “doit”—in French.
Do you think that change in terminology should be applied to part VII as well?
If so, how would it impact the division of powers under the Constitution?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
You're talking about regulations to enforce part VII, just as part IV has regulations, are you not?
Results: 16 - 30 of 242 | Page: 2 of 17