Traduction de «problème d'évaluation » (Français → Anglais) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 361 Hon. Bob Rae: With regard to the projected impacts of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, on the number of inmates and their conditions of incarceration: (a) does the government have an estimate of how many new inmates this Bill is likely to create, and, if so, what is it; (b) how many new federal inmates does the government expect will result from this Bill; (c) how many new provincial inmates does the government expect will result from this Bil ...[+++]l, and has the government shared this estimate with the provinces; (d) how many new young offenders does the government expect will result from this Bill and has the government shared this estimate with the provinces; (e) how many new inmates is CSC planning for as a direct result of this bill; (f) how will this Bill affect the federal incarceration rate of aboriginals, broken down geographically and by sex; (g) how will this Bill affect the provincial incarceration rate of aboriginals, broken down geographically and by sex; (h) how will this Bill affect the youth incarceration rate of aboriginals, broken down geographically and by sex; (i) what resources will be allocated to meet the unique needs of the aboriginal offenders, broken down geographically and by sex; (j) what resources will be allocated to meet the needs of the increased aboriginal offender population, broken down geographically and by sex; (k) how many new staff does CSC anticipate will need to be hired as a result of this Bill, broken down by job type; (l) has CSC planned for additional programming to accommodate the influx of new inmates resulting from this Bill, and, if so, how many new programming spaces will be created, broken down by type; (m) how is ...

Question No. 397 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to initiatives and programs run by the Department of National Defence (DND) and Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) in relation to veterans’ health and welfare: (a) what are the issues affecting (i) Canada’s traditional war veteran population, (ii) Canadian Forces (CF) veterans; (b) for each group of veterans in (a), how many cases were there per identified issue, per year, over the last five years; (c) for each group of veterans in (a), what changes have occurred in the issues over the last five years; (d) for CF veterans, what key issues are anticipated following the withdrawal from Afghani ...[+++]stan in 2011, and for each anticipated issue, what are the (i) challenges, (ii) changes necessary to VAC, (iii) actions taken to date; (e) what recommendations, if any, have been made to improve the quality of life for veterans identified in (a) and what steps, if any, have been taken to address these recommendations; (f) what specific measures are being taken to ensure that VAC (i) responds quickly to emerging research, such as the possible link between combat and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and combat and dementia, (ii) implements research recommendations in a timely manner; (g) what are the categories of injuries sustained by the Canadian troops in Afghanistan; (h) what specific rehabilitation is provided for each injury category, by region; (i) what reviews of rehabilitation procedures have been undertaken, by date and region; (j) for each injury category identified in (g), what percentage of veterans are able to return to civilian work; (k) what specific measures are undertaken by region to help veterans normalize to civilian life; (l) what specific measures are used to ensure veterans returning from Afghanistan are informed of veterans' benefits; (m) what is the process for acquiring the help of a case manager; (n) what are the specific steps a veteran needs to take following a release or a medical release in order ...

(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 ...

IS ENCOURAGED by the positive, forward-looking contributions made in discussions on future action to tackle climate change at the UNFCCC Seminar of Governmental Experts in May 2005; WELCOMES the commitment of the G8 countries to moving forward the global discussion on long-term co-operative action to address climate change at the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal in December 2005. RECOGNISES that Article 3(9) of the Kyoto Protocol provides that the first Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol shall initiate the consideration of further commitments to be undertaken by developed countries at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period; and STRESSES that the COP/MOP should t ...[+++]herefore initiate such considerations at its first meeting in December 2005 in Montreal; RECALLS also that Article 9 provides for a first review of the Kyoto Protocol at the second session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, and that this review is to be coordinated with pertinent reviews under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In preparing for COP 11 - COP/MOP 1, LOOKS FORWARD to initiating a process among all Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to explore how further to implement this Convention to achieve its ultimate objective by developing a post 2012 arrangement, building on the experiences to date in tackling climate change, including inter alia market-based instruments, focusing in particular on environmental effectiveness, improving cost-efficiency, broadening participation in line with common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, advancing development goals in a sustainable manner, building a global carbon market, exploiting the full potential of existing technologies and exploring new ones as well as tackling adaptation; and STRESSES the need for a clear timetable for such a process, ...

Comparable problems with timing have occurred in relation to previous evaluations of IDA programmes, which as such makes production or use of evaluation results sub-optimal, the evaluation notes.

It has prepared a report for the Council of Ministers analysing the problem and it presents a series of conclusions: - emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (cfcs) should be virtually eliminated by the year 2000 through revision of the Montreal protocol; - discussions should begin on an international agreement for protection of the atmosphere; - the Community should launch a major study programme to evaluate the feasibility, costs and likely results of measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions; - the policy decisions of the Community a ...[+++]nd its member countries should take into account the problem of potential climate changes linked to the greenhouse effect; - there should be urgent action to reinforce energy saving, improve energy efficiency, develop new energy sources and the use of safe nuclear technology; - the Community should sustain vigorous research programmes and promote new energy technologies with the potential to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and to assess the impact of the greenhouse effect on European regions; - aid should be provided for developing countries to work out measures of prevention and adaptation - for instance mapping vulnerable areas such as low-lying coastal areas, assessing the long-term sensitivity of development projects and being prepared for increasingly severe natural disasters ./ (*) COM(88) 656 - 2 - A need to respond Mr Stanley Clinton Davis, member of the Commission responsible for environment policy, stressed that the Community should respond to the challenge: "The greenhouse effect will become increasingly apparent during our own lifetimes, building to a major crisis within a generation.