Traduction de «Country opinion » (Anglais → Français) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 127 Hon. Scott Brison: With regard to the United States (U.S). Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) when was the government first made aware of this legislation and how; (b) what steps has Canada taken since the legislation's introduction in the U.S., broken down by year; (c) during the consideration of this legislation in the U.S., did Canada make any representations to the U.S. government and if so, (i) when, (ii) by whom, (iii) to whom, (iv) on what dates, (v) by what authority (vi) with what desired effect (vii) and with what outcome; (d) how many individuals in Canada will be affected; (e) how was the figure in (d) calculated; (f) how many Canadian citizens residing in Canada are U.S. person ...[+++]s under FATCA; (g) how many Canadian permanent residents are U.S. persons under FATCA; (h) how many applications for permanent residency is Canada currently processing from persons who are or will be treated as U.S. persons under FATCA; (i) broken down by province and territory and status, how many persons in Canada are projected to be affected by FATCA; (j) how was the figure in (l) calculated; (k) how many Canadian financial institutions will be impacted by FATCA; (l) how was the figure in (k) calculated; (m) how many non-financial Canadian entities will be impacted by FATCA; (n) how was the figure in (m) calculated; (o) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on persons resident in Canada; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on financial institutions; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on non-financial entities; (q) what estimates and studies have been undertaken with respect to the consequences of a 30% withholding of U.S. sourced income to financial institutions; (r) when did the studies in (q) occur and what were their conclusions; (s) how much has been spent evaluating FATCA' ...

In my country, opinion polls show that some 75% of the British people want a referendum and two thirds of them would vote ‘no’.

Secondly, it is a great pity that only a few of those reporting on individual countries for the Committee on Foreign Affairs have taken note of the opinions of the other committees and that the draftsmen of these opinions were not automatically allocated speaking time during the debate, as is our custom in the House.

Although enlargement on a purely legal plane is feasible without ratification of the Treaty by all the Member States, it must nevertheless be underlined that non-ratification of the Treaty would send an entirely wrong political signal to the candidate countries at a time when a segment of public opinion in those countries is starting to question the merits of this process, which is perceived as a restriction on their newly regained sovereignty.

– (DE) Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy.

– (EL) Madam President, whatever one’s personal opinion may be of events in Yugoslavia over the past 10 years, bombings, holding governments to ransom, endeavouring to stigmatise and humiliate an entire nation and its leaders for resisting NATO policy; whatever one’s personal opinion of how this country was governed by a president and his advisers repeatedly elected in democratic elections, one must, I think, agree that the unprincipled manner in which he was abducted from his own country, despite categorical opposition from the uppe ...[+++]r and lower houses of parliament and the supreme constitutional court, and handed over to a court which, as we now know, was set up on the orders of the USA in order to serve political interests and help terrorise anyone who opposes the new order, are unacceptable methods, to put it mildly; some of us think this is the work of hoodlums and deserves to be roundly condemned.