Traduction de «for the management » (Anglais → Français) :

Question No. 621 Ms. Hélène Laverdière: With regard to the planned reductions in departmental spending for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) announced in Budget 2012, for fiscal years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015: (a) what is the total dollar amount of reductions for each of the program activities, specifically, (i) International Policy Advice and Integration, (ii) Diplomacy and Advocacy, (iii) International Commerce, (iv) Consular Services and Emergency Management, (v) Passport Canada, (vi) Governance, Strategic Direction and Common Service Delivery; (b) what are the total reductions for full-time ...[+++]equivalents (FTEs) for each of the program activities, specifically, (i) International Policy Advice and Integration, (ii) Diplomacy and Advocacy, (iii) International Commerce, (iv) Consular Services and Emergency Management, (v) Passport Canada, (vi) Governance, Strategic Direction and Common Service Delivery; (c) what is the total dollar amount of reductions to the Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor for the Extractive Sector; (d) what is the total dollar amount of reductions to the Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister, Afghanistan, Middle East and Maghreb, broken down by (i) Afghanistan Inter-Departmental Communications and Information Services Bureau, (ii) Director General, Afghanistan Task Force, (iii) Middle East and Maghreb Bureau; (e) what is the total dollar amount of reductions to the Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister, Americas, broken down by (i) Director General, Latin America and Caribbean, (ii) Hemispheric Policy Bureau, (iii) North American Platform Program, Executive Coordinator and Senior Advisor, (iv) North America Policy Bureau, (v) North America Programs and Operations Bureau, (vi) North American Leaders' Summit Division; (f) what is the total dollar amount of reductions to the Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister for Europe, Eurasia and Africa, broken down by (i) Africa Bureau, Director Gen ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 488 Mr. Charlie Angus: With respect to the third-party management (TPM) of First Nations by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) over the last 12 years: (a) how many First Nations reserves have been operating under co-management or TPM, (i) for how long, (ii) which reserves have been so designated; (b) for each of the reserves under co-management or TPM, (i) who acts as their third-party manager, (ii) under what authority have they been placed under TPM, (iii) on what date did each co-management or third-party management agreement come into force ...[+++], (iv) what was the amount of debt they held at the time, (v) what debt repayment plan was put into effect for each, (vi) what was the debt when the co-management or TPM ended, (vii) what is the current amount of outstanding debt held by each band council; (c) what requirements must be met by a band council to get out of TPM, (i) who determines those requirements, (ii) how many bands have met those requirements and when; (d) how many audits has AANDC, or its designated proxies, undertaken with respect to third-party managers and their direction of First Nations bands, (i) on what date were such audits prepared, (ii) by whom, (iii) with respect to the management of which bands, (iv) what were the key findings of each audit, (v) what recommendations were implemented, (vi) has any audit resulted in the termination or non-renewal of the contract between the TPM and AANDC, and, if so, which ones and why, (vii) has any audit warranted a police investigation, and, if so, which ones and what was the outcome; (e) according to each community operating under TPM, (i) what management or other fees were charged, on a monthly and annual basis, (ii) what were the fees charged for, (iii) have any third-party managers received extra commissions, bonuses or any other financial reward for their work, and, if so, when was the money awarded, for what, and to which third party managers, (iv) ...

(27) The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in order to determine the procedures under which AIFM managing portfolios of AIF whose assets under management do not exceed the threshold set out in this Directive may exercise their right to be treated as AIFM covered by this Directive. These delegated acts may also specify the criteria to be used by competent authorities to assess whether AIFM comply with their obligations as regards their conduct of business, the type of conflicts of interests AIFM have to identify, as well as the reas ...[+++]onable steps AIFM are expected to take in terms of internal and organizational procedures in order to identify, prevent, manage and disclose conflicts of interest. They may specify the risk management requirements to be employed by AIFM as a function of the risks which the AIFM incurs on behalf of the AIF that it manages as well as any arrangements needed to enable AIFM to manage the particular risks associated with short selling transactions, including any relevant restrictions that might be needed to protect the AIF from undue risk exposures. They may specify the liquidity management requirements of this Directive and in particular the minimum liquidity requirements for AIF, they may specify the requirements that originators of securitisation instruments have to meet in order for an AIFM to be allowed to invest in such instruments issued after 1 January 2011. They may as well specify the requirements that AIFM have to comply with when investing in such securitisation instruments. They may specify the criteria under which a valuator can be considered independent in the meaning of this Directive. They may specify the conditions under which the delegation of AIFM functions should be approved and the conditions under which the manager could no longer be considered to be the manager of the AIF in case of excessive delegation. They may s ...

In this respect, the Commission should be able to adopt measures determining the procedures under which AIFM managing portfolios of AIF whose assets under management do not exceed the threshold set out in this Directive may exercise their right to be treated as AIFM covered by this Directive. These measures are also designed to specify the criteria to be used by competent authorities to assess whether AIFM comply with their obligations as regards their conduct of business, the type of conflicts of interests AIFM have to identify, as well as the reasonable steps AIFM are expected to take in terms of internal and organizational procedures ...[+++]in order to identify, prevent, manage and disclose conflicts of interest. They are designed to specify the risk management requirements to be employed by AIFM as a function of the risks which the AIFM incurs on behalf of the AIF that it manages as well as any arrangements needed to enable AIFM to manage the particular risks associated with short selling transactions, including any relevant restrictions that might be needed to protect the AIF from undue risk exposures. They are designed to specify the liquidity management requirements of this Directive and in particular the minimum liquidity requirements for AIF. They are designed to specify the requirements that originators of securitisation instruments have to meet in order for an AIFM to be allowed to invest in such instruments issued after 1 January 2011. They are as well designed to specify the requirements that AIFM have to comply with when investing in such securitisation instruments. They are designed to specify the criteria under which a valuator can be considered independent in the meaning of this Directive. They are designed to specify the conditions under which the delegation of AIFM functions should be approved and the conditions under which the manager could no longer be considered to be the manager of the AIF in case of excessive delegation. They are designed to specify ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 182 Ms. Chris Charlton: With respect to mental health support in prisons and other detention facilities operated by Correctional Services Canada (CSC): (a) what progress has been made since 2004 in the implementation of the CSC Mental Health Strategy; (b) what plans are in place for the operation of the Community Mental Health and Institutional Mental Health initiatives over the next five years; (c) what plans are in place to act on the recommendations in the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator; (d) what is the total amount of funds allocated to all types of mental health support by CSC for the upcoming fiscal year, broken down by program type; (e) what percentage of overal ...[+++]l CSC funds are allocated to mental health support for the upcoming fiscal year; (f) what percentage of overall CSC funds are allocated to security, risk management and control for the upcoming fiscal year; (g) how many offenders have access to intermediate mental healthcare units in the region in which they are incarcerated; (h) what processes are in place to review the effectiveness of existing mental health programs and identify gaps in services; (i) what recommendations have arisen from such reviews in the last two years; (j) what progress has been made in conducting an independent review of long-term segregation cases; (k) what progress has been made in the creation of a measurable set of performance indicators to evaluate CSC’s response to offender mental health concerns; (l) what guidelines does CSC provide to operational staff on the use of segregation placements with offenders who have mental health concerns; (m) what progress has the National Population Management Committee made in reviewing specific cases of the use of lengthy periods in segregation and treatment alternatives for offenders with mental health concerns; (n) what progress has been made on the creation of a national strategy for managing chronic se ...

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 ...