Vertaling van "paid to nigel " (Engels → Frans) :

TERMINOLOGIE

not fully paid share | partly paid | partly paid share | partly paid stock | partly paid-up share | share which is not fully paid up
action non entièrement libérée | action partiellement libérée

fully paid share [ full-paid share | fully paid-up share | fully paid up share | paid-up share ]
action entièrement libérée [ action libérée ]

paid-up capital | fully paid capital | fully paid share capital | paid-up share capital
capital libéré | capital versé

paid holiday | paid legal holiday | paid statutory holiday | designated paid holiday
jour férié payé | jour férié, chômé et payé | jour férié et chômé | jour férié rémunéré | congé férié payé

partly paid share [ non-fully paid share | partly paid-up share | part-paid share ]
action partiellement libérée [ action non entièrement libérée ]

paid-up capital [ fully paid capital | fully paid share capital | paid-up share capital ]
capital libéré [ capital versé ]

fully paid share | fully-paid share | fully paid stock | paid-up share | non-assessable share
action entièrement libérée | action libérée | action entièrement payée | action intégralement libérée

fully paid stock | paid-in share | paid-up stock
action libérée

Convention concerning Paid Educational Leave | Paid Educational Leave Convention | Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974
Convention concernant le congé-éducation payé | Convention sur le congé-éducation payé, 1974

share not fully paid in | not fully paid-up share | not fully covered share
action non entièrement libéré | action non intégralement libérée

IN-CONTEXT TRANSLATIONS

Conservative ministers claim that the $90,000 that was paid by Nigel Wright was his own personal money, but how do they know?
Les ministres conservateurs prétendent que c'est Nigel Wright qui a payé de sa poche la somme de 90 000 $, mais comment le savent-ils?

Question No. 253 Mr. Tyrone Benskin: With regard to contracts and costs associated with the Prime Minister’s office (PMO) and ministerial exempt staff: (a) how much is paid to Nigel Wright or any company of which he was a proprietor or partner; (b) did the PMO hold an open tender for Dimitri Soudas’ job or was the contract untendered; (c) how much did the PMO spend on (i) Canada’s Economic Action Plan, (ii) the G8 and G20 summits, (iii) Canadian television productions; (d) what contracts has the PMO signed with Ezra Levant or any registered lobbyist, government relations or public opinion firm in the last five years, if any, (i) for how much money (individually and in total), (ii) what was provided in return, (iii) which of these contracts were put out for open competition and which were not; and (e) how many untendered contracts have been signed in the last five years, and, if the PMO or Minister’s office has signed any such contract, (i) with whom, (ii) for how much money (individually and in total), (iii) what was obtained for each of these contracts?
Pour ce qui est de la partie b), cela ne s’applique pas; voir la partie a). Pour ce qui est de la partie c), l’information sur le programme de cession des ports est disponible sur le site internet suivant: [http ...]

That, given the recent sworn statements by RCMP Corporal Greg Horton, which revealed that: (i) on February 21, 2013, the Prime Minister’s Office had agreed that, with regard to Mike Duffy’s controversial expenses, the Conservative Party of Canada would “keep him whole on the repayment”; (ii) on February 22, 2013, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff wanted to “speak to the PM before everything is considered final”; (iii) later on February 22, 2013, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff confirmed “We are good to go from the PM once Ben has his confirmation from Payne”; (iv) an agreement was reached between Benjamin Perrin and Janice Payne, counsels for the Prime Minister and Mike Duffy; (v) the amount to keep Mike Duffy whole was calculated to be higher than first determined, requiring a changed source of funds from Conservative Party funds to Nigel Wright’s personal funds, after which the arrangement proceeded and Duffy’s expenses were re-paid; and (vi) subsequently, the Prime Minister's Office engaged in the obstruction of a Deloitte audit and a whitewash of a Senate report; the House condemn the deeply disappointing actions of the Prime Minister's Office in devising, organizing and participating in an arrangement that the RCMP believes violated sections 119, 121 and 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and remind the Prime Minister of his own Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State, which states on page 28 that “Ministers and Ministers of State are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their offices and the exempt staff in their employ,” and the House call upon the Prime Minister to explain in detail to Canadians, under oath, what Nigel Wright or any other member of his staff or any other Conservative told him at any time about any aspect of any possible arrangement pertaining to Mike Duffy, what he did about it, and when.
Que, compte tenu des déclarations faites sous serment par le caporal Greg Horton de la GRC, qui ont révélé que: (i) le 21 février 2013, le Bureau du premier ministre s'est mis d'accord, en ce qui a trait aux dépenses controversées de Mike Duffy, que le Parti Conservateur du Canada le « soulagerait du remboursement »; (ii) le 22 février 2013, le chef de cabinet du premier ministre voulait « parler au PM avant que tout soit considéré final »; (iii) plus tard dans la journée du 22 février 2013, le chef de cabinet du premier ministre a confirmé que « Nous avons le feu vert du premier ministre une fois que Ben aura reçu confirmation de Payne »; (iv) une entente a été conclue entre Benjamin Perrin et Janice Payne, avocats du premier ministre et de Mike Duffy; (v) le montant nécessaire pour garder Mike Duffy entier devenant plus grand que prévu suite à une révision, requérant un ajustement de la source des fonds du Parti conservateur aux fonds de Nigel Wright, après lequel l'entente a procédé et les dépenses de Duffy ont été remboursées, et (vi) que, subséquemment, le Bureau du premier ministre s'est impliqué dans l'obstruction d'une vérification de Deloitte et le blanchiment d'un rapport du Sénat; cette Chambre condamne les actions du Bureau du premier ministre en ce qui a trait au développement, l'organisation et à leur participation à une entente qui, selon la GRC, a violé les articles 119, 121 et 122 du Code criminel du Canada, et rappelle au premier ministre que son propre Guide pour ministres et ministres d'État énonce, à la page 28, que les « Ministres et ministres d'État sont personnellement responsables du comportement et des activités de leur bureau et de leur personnel exonéré », et que la Chambre demande au premier ministre d'expliquer en détails aux Canadiens, sous serment, ce que Nigel Wright ou tous autres membres de son personnel ou tous autres Conservateurs lui ont dit à n'importe quel moment au sujet de n'importe quel aspect de toutes ententes relati ...

Mike Duffy, the man they now claim is a cheat, had more than $13,000 in legal expenses paid by Arthur Hamilton, the Conservative Party's lawyer from Cassels Brock, this on top of the $90,000 which they say came from Nigel Wright.
Mike Duffy, cet homme que les conservateurs présentent maintenant comme un tricheur, a vu ses frais juridiques de plus de 13 000 $ payés par Arthur Hamilton, l'avocat du Parti conservateur, qui est rattaché à la firme Cassels Brock. Cette somme s'ajoute aux 90 000 $ qui, selon leurs dires, auraient été versés par Nigel Wright.

Mike Duffy did not even have to worry about paying the money, because he just called up Nigel Wright and asked him to give me $90,000 or he would not pay, so Nigel Wright paid him the $90,000.
Mike Duffy n'a même pas eu à s'inquiéter de payer ce qu'il devait. Il a simplement appelé Nigel Wright pour lui demander de lui verser 90 000 $, sinon, il n'allait pas payer.