Traduction de «cumulative current cost depreciation » (Anglais → Français) :

(i) is in respect of the taxpayer’s undepreciated capital cost of depreciable property of a prescribed class, cumulative eligible capital in respect of a business, cumulative Canadian exploration expense (within the meaning assigned by subsection 66.1(6)), cumulative Canadian development expense (within the meaning assigned by subsection 66.2(5)), cumulative foreign resource expense in respect of a country other than Canada (within the meaning assigned by subsection 66.21(1)) or cumulative Canadian oil and gas property expense (within ...[+++] the meaning assigned by subsection 66.4(5)) (each of which is referred to in this paragraph as a “pool amount”), and

Fixed assets shall be depreciated in accordance with their expected operating life, using the straight-line method applied to the costs of the assets being depreciated. Historic or current cost accounting may be applied for the calculation of the depreciation.

Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic costs or current costs.

(Return tabled) Question No. 611 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to the government’s plans for resource development, as described in the section entitled “Responsible Resource Development” in Chapter 3.2 of Budget 2012: (a) what are all examples of federal environmental laws that are stronger than provincial laws and how will the proposed legislative changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) affect the assessment of environmental impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders; (b) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken to study impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and ...[+++]cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) risk mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (c) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (d) will the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA give any consideration to (i) measuring negative impacts of development, (ii) managing negative impacts of development; (e) by what date will the government bring forth new “legislation to streamline the review process for major economic projects” (Budget 2012, p. 89); (f) what are the projected costs of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory; (g) what assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory have been conducted, (i) what were the dates of any such assessments, (ii) what wer ...

description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic costs or current costs.

The key deliverables of the initiative include an assessment of the TPP cost-recovery initiative as it relates to the Treasury Board cost-recovery policy, and the public and private benefits that have derived from it; a thorough assessment of the current cost-recovery initiative costing model used by the TPP, including a comparison of other regulatory regimes and justifications, identification of any gaps in the current cost-recov ...[+++]ery initiative, and the contribution of fees to the delivery of an efficient service; an evaluation of whether the cost-recovery initiative has had an impact on the TPP's performance, taking into consideration previous performance commitments, other jurisdictions' experience, options for improving feedback and/or communication mechanisms for stakeholders to foster transparency and accountability, and constraints that might limit my program's ability to manage the cost-recovery initiative and thereby the efficient operations of its programs; an assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the cost-recovery initiative on therapeutic products industries, on consumers and the health care system, and on the TPP itself, and the development of a rigorous methodology and relevant data sources for a follow-up assessment of the impact of planned fees on the medical devices regulation area; and finally, a systematic review of lessons learned from other jurisdictions and options for operational and/or organizational alternatives and/or modifications to improve the management of the TPP cost recovery initiative.