Traduction de «review construction projects » (Anglais → Français) :

54. Calls on the Commission to conduct a fresh review of existing plans for energy projects, especially for the construction of new liquefied natural gas terminals scheduled to take more than ten years to complete, to assess their economic benefit – taking account of the liquefied natural gas terminals which are already under construction or at the planning stage in individual Member States and which, in the near future, will contribute to energy supply security in Member States classed as ‘energy islands’ – and t ...[+++]o contribute to the financing of such projects;

54. Calls on the Commission to conduct a fresh review of existing plans for energy projects, especially for the construction of new liquefied natural gas terminals scheduled to take more than ten years to complete, to assess their economic benefit – taking account of the liquefied natural gas terminals which are already under construction or at the planning stage in individual Member States and which, in the near future, will contribute to energy supply security in Member States classed as ‘energy islands’ – and t ...[+++]o contribute to the financing of such projects;

(Return tabled) Question No. 861 Mr. Mathieu Ravignat: With regard to the Enabling Accessibility Fund Mid-Sized Project Component: (a) what was the score given to each of the projects at (i) the initial screening stage, (ii) the external construction expert stage, (iii) the internal review committee stage; (b) what projects were recommended to the Minister by (i) the external construction experts, (ii) the internal review committe ...[+++]e; and (c) what was missing from the project proposal for the Centre Jean-Bosco in Maniwaki according to (i) the external construction experts, (ii) the internal review committee?

(Return tabled) Question No. 469 Mr. Mark Holland: With regard to the government’s August 2010 announcements that new units would be constructed on the grounds of existing federal penitentiaries administered by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as part of its implementation of the Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody): (a) how many new units are being built as part of this accommodation plan; (b) at which institutions will these new units be constructed; (c) what is the timeline, broken down annually, for the building of these new units at existing facilities; (d) how many offenders per unit are the new units designed to house; (e) what were the criteria for selecting the locati ...[+++]ons of the new units; (f) were the communities in which the facilities chosen for expansion are housed consulted about the planned expansion and, if so, when; (g) has a review of the impacts on host communities of expanding existing facilities been undertaken by CSC and, if so, what were the results; (h) what evidence does CSC have to support their claim that the prison expansion plan will ensure " tangible economic growth”; (i) what are the costs associated with the construction of the new units per year and over their projected life-cycle; (j) what are the costs associated with operating and maintaining the new units per year and over their projected life-cycle; and (k) over the next 20 years, is CSC considering the closure of any facility at which new units are being constructed and, if so, which facilities and what is the timeline for their closure?

(Return tabled) Question No. 68 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative (CHVI) and the Level 5 Laboratory (L5L): (a) what are the details of the initial request for proposals for the CHVI; (b) what amount were the government and the Gates Foundation planning to invest in the CHVI and what were the scheduled dates for investment; (c) how many bids for the CHVI were submitted and by which organizations; (d) what are the details of the CHVI process for determining suitable award winners; (e) what were the selection criteria ...[+++]for awarding the CHVI bid and who was responsible for identifying the criteria; (f) how many people made up the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids, how were they selected, and from which disciplines and geographic areas were they drawn; (g) were representatives from the pharmaceutical industry invited to be part of the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what date did each representative serve and, if not, why not; (h) what were the results for each of the selection criterion for each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI and how were the bids ranked; (i) did the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids reach a recommendation, and, if so, on what date, and to whom was the information conveyed in the government; (j) was there a steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, who were the members, who was the chair and what was its mandate; (k) were there changes to the steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what dates and for what reasons; (l) was any organization bidding on the CHVI informed, formally or otherwise, that it had been chosen to host the facility and, if so, how and on what date; (m) did the federal government put up a notice on its Web site to announce that the CHVI project had been cancelled or would not proceed and, if so, on what date; (n) was the notice in (m) removed from the Web site and, if so, on what date and fo ...

‘planned investment projects’ mean investment projects before construction starts and capital costs are incurred or before decommissioning is effective, including investment projects for which an initial request for authorisation has been received by the relevant authorities, but for which the major features (location, contractor, undertaking, certain basic technical and operational features, etc.) may, in whole or in part, be subject to further review or to fin ...[+++]al authorisation;