Translation of "2-way cross-over study " (English → French) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 334 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to bijuralism and harmonization: (a) what measures are in place to ensure legislative bijuralism across all departments; (b) since the adoption of the “Policy on Legislative Bijuralism”, how has the Department of Justice (i) ensured that all legal counsel in the Department are made aware of the requirements of legislative bijuralism in order for them to be able to take it into account when advising client departments on legislative reforms, (ii) enhanced the capacity of the Legislative Services Branch to draft bijural legislative texts, (iii) undertook, in drafting both versions of every bill and proposed regulation that touches on provincial or territorial private law, to tak ...[+++]e care to reflect the terminology, concepts, notions and institutions of both of Canada’s private law systems; (c) since the adoption of the “Policy for Applying the Civil Code of Quebec to Federal Government Activities”, what measures are in place to ensure (i) changes to Quebec’s Civil Code are known and monitored by the government, (ii) assessment of federal legislation relative to changes to Quebec’s Civil Code, (iii) federal legislation is introduced to reflect, where necessary, changes to the Civil Code of Quebec; (d) with respect to the “Index of Bijuralism and Harmonization Caselaw” found online and indicating its most recent update was June 12, 2012, (i) how often is this page updated, (ii) given that some cases thereupon are from 2013, when was this page last updated, (iii) whose responsibility is it to update this page, (iv) what cases are currently being monitored for potential addition to this page; (e) with respect to cases involving bijuralism and harmonization, (i) in what ways are these made known to the Department, (ii) whose responsibility it is to monitor these cases, (iii), what role does the Federal government play in these cases if a party, (iv) what role does the government play if not a party, (v) who m ...

Building upon the findings of these two studies, the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry, or C-CARE, is a study currently under way.

(Return tabled) Question No. 1007 Mr. Craig Scott: With regard to the announcement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on May 28, 2012, that “new funding totaling $17.5 million will be allocated over the next five years to four key activities: prevention, early warning, rapid response, and management and control” to protect Canada’s Great Lakes from the threat of Asian carp: (a) in what specific ways will emphasis be placed on initiatives to educate people about the danger of Asian carp; (b) in what specific ways will human beings be prevented from bringing Asian carp into Canadian waters; (c) will public hearings be held in Canada to allow Canadians to provide input to key U.S. decision-makers on combating Asian carp migration; ...[+++] (d) what specific efforts will be made to raise the awareness of Canadians of the potential harm that Asian carp could cause in the Great Lakes; (e) what efforts will the government make to facilitate or mobilize public participation in decision-making concerning Asian carp; (f) what discussions or arrangements have been made by the government to work with American counterparts to develop an extensive early warning and monitoring system to alert officials of signs of any potential problems, along with rapid response protocols for both countries to be able to react quickly should there be signs that they are spreading; (g) when will the extensive early warning and monitoring system be put in place; (h) how does the government envision the extensive early warning and monitoring system working; (i) what discussions or arrangements have been made by the government to work with enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with regulations relating to the transport of Asian carp; (j) what tools will be used to ensure compliance with regulations relating to the transport of Asian carp; (k) what resources will be allocated to compliance efforts relating to the transport of Asian carp; (l) is the government aware of any plans, intent ...

− Mr President, also as an acknowledgement of the frantic search by EU Member States to rescue the banking system, but not in a sufficiently coordinated way, we have thought that it makes sense to introduce this amendment. It reads: ‘whereas the increasing cross-border nature of banking in Europe and the need to respond in a coordinated way to adverse shocks, as well as the need to deal with systemic risks effectively, require divergences between the national regimes of Member States to be reduced to the greatest extent possible; whereas there is a need to move beyond the studies ...[+++] that the European Commission has already carried out in this regard and to amend Directive 94/19/EC as soon as possible to provide the same level of protection for bank deposits across the whole European Union in order to preserve financial stability and depositors’ confidence and avoid distortions of competition’.

Secondly, in some cases where cross-border entry has taken place by means of a producer from a Member State taking over or merging with a company in another Member State, national energy regulators have intervened arguing that an authorisation procedure was necessary to guarantee public security and general interest objectives, in a way that is not justified under the free movement of capital principle[11].

These include: - discussions with its two consultative groups (the Payments Systems Technical Development Group and the Payment Systems Users Liaison Group) on the ways in which the payment systems can best be prepared for the introduction of the Ecu - rapid progress, in the framework of an existing Task Force of government experts, on harmonising procedures for reporting cross- border credit transfers for the purposes of compiling balance of payments statistics (the Commission wants transactions below 10,000 Ecus exempted) - continuing discussions with Member State legal experts, central bank representatives and the EMI on harmonising the legal framework for cross-border payments, ...[+++] in particular settlement finality for credit transfers (a Directive on settlement finality could be proposed in 1995) - maintaining contact with interested parties on the establishment of linkages between automatic clearing houses (ACHs, which process payments transfers at the national level) to assess how best to contribute to progress in this area - consulting with the Commission's two consultative groups on the results of an independent study to be completed in June 1995 on the information given to customers when using payment cards for cross-border payments (so-called face-to-face payments), and assessing the appropriate follow-up measures - launching a study on the regulatory implications for the EU of the use of pre-paid payment cards, particularly as regards the stability of the banking system, consumer protection and the promotion of interoperable cross-border banking services.