Traduction de «Consultation on the allocation the funds » (Anglais → Français) :

This has to do with whether members of Parliament should be consulted about the allocation of funds.

In order to provide for a degree of flexibility in the allocation of funds, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments to the indicative allocation of those funds.

In order to provide for a degree of flexibility in the allocation of funds, the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the indicative allocation of those funds.

Question No. 123 Mr. Don Davies: With respect to federal funding for agencies and organizations providing immigrant settlement services: (a) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total amount of federal funding allocated (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by municipality, (iv) by electoral district; (b) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what is the total number of agencies and organizations that applied for federal funding (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by provin ...[+++]ce and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (c) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies and organizations to which federal funding was allocated (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (d) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies and organizations whose applications for federal funding were rejected, (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (e) of those agencies receiving funding per the parameters in (c), what are all agencies that received funding in any fiscal year which was less than the total funding received by that agency in the previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, (i) the name of the agency, (ii) the provincial, municipal and electoral disctrict location of the agency, (iii) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency in each fiscal year from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012; (f) of those agencies whose applications for funding were rejected per the parameters in (d), what are all agencies that had received funding in a previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, (i) the name of the agency, (ii) ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 92 Mr. Scott Andrews: With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and, more specifically, the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program administered by ACOA in Atlantic Canada: (a) what was the allocation of funding available for projects under RInC for the time period between January 27, 2009 and March 31, 2010 in Atlantic Canada; (b) how much of this allocated funding has been committed as of March 3, 2010; (c) how much of the allocated funding has actually been expended to the applicants as of March 3, 2010; (d) what were the names, addresses and submission dates of the applic ...[+++]ants submitting an application between January 27, 2009 and March 3, 2010 from the constituency of Avalon, (i) how much funding did each applicant apply for, (ii) how much funding was approved, (iii) what percentage of the overall project was funded through RInC; and (e) what is the allocation of funding for RInC in Atlantic Canada for fiscal year 2010-2011?

Question No. 64 Mr. John Cummins: With regard to the fishing organizations or groups of fishing licence holders who, excluding fees for commercial fishing licenses as set under the regulation, provide monies, fish quotas or allocations to fund Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) activities on an annual basis for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007: (a) in each year, what fishing organization ...[+++]s or groups of license holders have paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by an allocation of quota from their fishery; (b) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by way of a cash contribution to the department or its contractor; (c) in each year, what is the total value by fishing organization or groups of license holders of the cash contributions or quota allocations aforementioned; (d) what science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities carried out in 2005 and 2006 and not paid directly from the department’s ‘A’ base budget will be undertaken and paid for by an allocation from the department’s ‘A’ base budget for 2007; (e) how much did each fishing organization or groups of license holders pay DFO, by way of an allocation of quota or cash contribution, for activities such as science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities for 2005 and 2006; (f) which fishing organizations or groups of license holders has the department agreed to reimburse wholly or in part for their cash contribution or quota allocations to cover the department’s science administration, enforcement costs or other activities from previous years, indicate how much or what portion of what was collected by year will be returned to the fishing organization or groups of licence holders; (g) did the department indicate that it would need to curtail fishing opportunities unless fishermen agreed to contribute mone ...