Traduction de «conducting » (Anglais → Français) :

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 32013R0883 - EN - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 // REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL // of 11 September 2013 // concerning investigations conducted by the European Ant ...[+++]i-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 // Commission statement // Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission

...ccur for the purposes of conducting such a review and, if so, what kinds of individuals or groups can be consulted; (l) how many drafts exist for each review report; (m) when were the memos in this regard presented to the Minister of Justice or any other member of the cabinet; (n) what was the cost of preparing each of these reports; (o) what is the budget allotted for the preparation of each report; (p) for each year since 2006, how much money has been allotted for undertaking each review; (q) for each year since 2006, how much money has been used to conduct each review; (r) how will the positions involved in the review proces ...[+++]s be affected by budget cuts at the department; (s) to whom will this work fall if these positions are cut; (t) what measures are in place to ensure the quality of the reviews; (u) what measures are in place to ensure the accuracy of the reviews; (v) are there any circumstances in which the government would make the content of such reviews public and, if so, what are they; and (w) has the government assessed litigation risk with respect to non-compliance with s. 4.1(1) and, if so, when, and who conducted the assessment? ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 358 Hon. Bob Rae: With regard to internal studies and reports conducted or commissioned by the Department of Justice and Public Safety Canada that discuss the effectiveness of harsher sentences: (a) how many internal studies and reports have been conducted or commissioned by the Department of Justice since 2006 that discuss this subject; (b) how many internal studies and reports that discuss this subject had been conducted or commissioned by the Department of Justice prior to 2006; (c) what is the title and who are the authors of each internal study or report commissioned since 2006 by the Department of Jus ...[+++]tice that discuss or mention this subject; (d) by whom and for whom were each of these internal studies or reports requested; (e) what conclusions did each report conducted prior to 2006 reach about the effectiveness of harsher sentences as a deterrent to crime; (f) what conclusions has each report conducted since 2006 reached about the effectiveness of harsher sentences as a deterrent to crime; (g) did these internal reports and studies put forward alternative crime prevention solutions deemed more effective, and, if so what were they; (h) were these internal reports and studies shared with the Minister of Justice or Minister of Public Safety prior to 2006 and, if so, when and how; and (i) have these internal reports and studies been shared with the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Safety since 2006 and, if so, when and how?

(Return tabled) Question No. 152 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to the development of unconventional gas resources, including shale, tight and coal bed methane, and its possible impacts on the environment: (a) what, if any, research has the government undertaken regarding the development of unconventional gas resources, (i) what was the scope of this research in the areas of, but not limited to, air quality, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem impacts, economic impacts, occupational risks, public safety concerns, and seismic risks, (ii) what, if any, resources did the government provide for this research, (iii) what, if any, process was e ...[+++]stablished to ensure the independence of the researchers, their research, and their findings, (iv) what, if any, case studies were considered as a part of this research, (v) what, if any, scenarios regarding the development of unconventional gas resources were developed as frameworks for the research, (vi) what economic, environmental and social impacts were identified by this research, (vii) what, if any, priority research areas were identified for further study as a result of this research, (viii) what, if any, departments were involved in this research, (ix) what, if any, action was undertaken to ensure inter-departmental cooperation throughout the research process, (x) what, if any, gaps or weaknesses in the regulatory framework did the research identify; (b) what, if any, research has the government undertaken regarding balancing shale gas' potential contribution to energy security with environmental risks; (c) what are the sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with unconventional gas; (d) has the government developed a process to determine the overall carbon footprint of shale gas throughout the life cycle of natural gas use, if not, why not, and, if so, (i) what federal departments are involved in this process, (ii) how does the government ensure inter-departmental collaboration on this process, (iii) what is the p ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 91 Mr. Ted Hsu: With regard to oil spill clean-ups in Northern Arctic waters: (a) what dispersants does the government use or have plans to use in this process; (b) what is the quantity of the government’s stocks of these dispersants; (c) what tests has the government conducted concerning the use of these dispersants in the clean-up of an Arctic oil spill; (d) what tests has the government conducted concerning the effects of these dispersants on (i) the Arctic environment, (ii) Arctic wildlife; (e) when and by whom were the tests in (c) and (d) conducted; (f) what were the costs of the tests in (c) and ( ...[+++]d); (g) does the government have a regimen in place for the ongoing evaluation of dispersants to be used in Arctic spills; (h) how are the dispersants which the government evaluates graded in terms of effectiveness for use in the Arctic; (i) in the event of such an occurrence, does the government have plans to use a dispersant to break up a spill at the source of the leak in Arctic waters; (j) what is the government’s assessment of the effectiveness of the use of dispersants at the source of a spill in the clean-up process; and (k) what, if any, tests has the government conducted to develop a strategy for using dispersants to break up spills at the source, and what are the costs for these tests?

The question is as follows: With respect to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act: (a) how was this Bill developed; (b) did the government request any specific studies for this Bill and, if so, (i) what was the subject of these studies, (ii) what conclusions did they reach, (iii) what recommendations did they put forward, (iv) what methodology was followed in the studies, (v) on what date were the studies requested, (vi) on what date were the studies submitted, (vii) do the studies contain quantitative analyses (are they supported by data), (viii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (c) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact on creators’ income and, if so, (i) what op ...[+++]tions did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is ...