Traduction de «Use information operations in peacetime » (Anglais → Français) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 286 Mr. Alex Atamanenko: With regard to the horse slaughter industry in Canada: (a) does the government know whether third party monitoring of video footage is occurring at Viandes Richelieu and Bouvry Exports and, if so, (i) what is the monitoring criteria, (ii) who is monitoring the footage, (iii) what actions, if any, have been taken as a result of observations, (iv) is footage monitoring to be a daily practice at this and other Canadian horse slaughter plants, (v) how many hours ha ...[+++]ve been monitored, (vi) is footage archived and for how long, (vii) does the recording continuously loop over previous footage; (b) which tissue types and/or bodily fluids are targeted by the government when testing for phenylbutazone and other drugs in horsemeat, (i) what percentage of drug testing is performed on equine organs (particularly kidney and liver) as opposed to other tissues, such as muscle, (ii) what is the exact methodology and what are the specific testing mechanisms used to detect phenylbutazone and other drugs in horsemeat; (c) what surveys or studies has the government undertaken or relied on to determine the number of overall horse owners and keepers that have administered to horses under their care, even once in the horse's lifetime, substances that are banned for human consumption, in (i) Canada, (ii) the United States (US); (d) what surveys or studies encompassing the overall horse population has the government undertaken or relied on to determine the percentage of veterinarians who routinely administer to horse patients under their care, at any time in the horse's lifetime, substances that are banned for use in food animals, in (i) Canada, (ii) the US; (e) what was the ratio between the number of horses and the number of prescriptions of substances banned for use in food animals at any time in their lifetime, issued by veterinarians to the overall horse population in (i) Canada, (ii) the US; (f) what were the results of European ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 849 Hon. Stéphane Dion: With regard to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, since the beginning of Canada's participation: (a) what are the criteria (operational requirements, contractual conditions, etc) on which the government is selecting the F-35s as a replacement for the CF-18s; (b) when and by whom were those criteria determined; (c) what are the relevant studies which were conducted prior to determining those criteria, specifying the (i) dates, (ii) names of the studies, (iii) names of individuals requesting the studies, (iv) authors of the studies, (v) names of the individuals presented with the ...[+++]results; (d) before those criteria were determined, on the basis of what information did the government evaluate that the F-35 could satisfy Canada's needs; (e) since the beginning of Canada's participation in the JSF program, what were all the studies conducted that evaluated different fighter planes in relation to Canada's needs, specifying the (i) dates, (ii) names of the studies, (iii) names of individuals requesting the studies, (iv) authors of the studies, (v) studies which were used to evaluate the planes, (vi) names of the individuals who determined those criteria, (vii) planes which were considered in the study, (viii) names of the individuals presented with the results; (f) what is the operational availability of a fleet of 65 fighter jets; (g) what effect will a reduction in Canada's fleet of fighter jets have on operational capability, on Canada's ability to play its role within the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and on the distribution of fighter jets across Canada's military bases; (h) how did the government determine that Canadian Forces needed 65 planes; (i) what is the formula used to determine the number of planes Canada should buy and who is the author of that formula; (j) for each of the variables in that formula, how was the value of that variable determined, specifying by whom, based on ...

The second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) was established by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (2) and by Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) ( ...[+++]3).

The second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) was established by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (1) and by Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) ( ...[+++]2).

The second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) was established by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (1) and by Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) ( ...[+++]2).

With regard to the arrangement between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the sport fishing lodges in 1995 to provide daily catch data to the department through the offices of the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia (SFI): (a) catch by anglers from sport fishing lodges accounted for approximately what part or portion of the total chinook sport catch; (b) what was the nature of this arrangement; (c) when was this arrangement negotiated; (d) When did the arrangement become operational; (e) why was it necessary (the Fisheries Act requires the lodges to provide the data to the DFO directly); (f) were there problems in the fishery in 1995 that made it important to have accurate catch data on a daily or weekly basis; (g) wha ...[+++]t were the nature of these problems; (h) what management actions were undertaken to deal with these problems; (i) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO fisheries scientists find the catch data provided through SFI to be accurate, timely and useful; (j) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO fisheries managers find the catch data provided through SFI accurate, timely and useful; (k) when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge M.V. Marabell; (l) was the catch data in (k) received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries Act; (m) was the catch data in (k) received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department to use it to effectively manage the fishery; (n) how did the data in (k) compare to what would have been received if it had been given on-the-grounds to the department as originally requested and as required by the Fisheries Act; (o) when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge King Salmon Resort; (p) was the catch data in (o) received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries Act; (q) was the catch data in (l) received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department to ...