Translation of "Government Expert Group on Health-Related Monitoring " (English → French) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 333 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to the government’s consultations about prostitution-related offences: (a) what goals have been established for the consultations; (b) what goals have been established for the online consultation; (c) whose input did the government seek through online consultation; (d) which individuals wrote the discussion paper for the online consultation; (e) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (f) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the discussion pape ...[+++]r in (d); (g) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (h) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (i) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (j) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (k) which individuals developed the online consultation questions; (l) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (m) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the online consultation questions; (n) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (o) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the online consultation questions; (p) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (q) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the online consultation questions; (r) how many responses did the government receive through the online form; (s) how many responses were sent directly to ...

28. Calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation; calls for a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes; urges the Commissio ...[+++]n to answer its previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process; notes that these stakeholders ay include – but are not necessarily restricted to – the EPC, consumer organisations, merchant organisations and large retail chains, the European Banking Authority (EBA), the Commission, experts in various fields, non-banking payment service providers, and mobile, internet and card commerce and mobile network operators; calls on these stakeholders to arrange their work under a new governance structure where the SEPA Council has a role; considers that the SEPA Council should be assisted by various technical committees, or ‘task forces’ for e-payment, m-payment, cards, cash and other standardisation issues, and by ad hoc working groups; recalls the Commission's commitment, in the declaration on SEPA governance on the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012, to come up with proposal before the end of 2012; calls on European standardisation bodies such as the European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen de Normalisation, CEN) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), in cooperation with the Commission, to play a more active role in standardising card payments;

28. Calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation; calls for a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes; urges the Commissio ...[+++]n to answer its previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process; notes that these stakeholders ay include – but are not necessarily restricted to – the EPC, consumer organisations, merchant organisations and large retail chains, the European Banking Authority (EBA), the Commission, experts in various fields, non-banking payment service providers, and mobile, internet and card commerce and mobile network operators; calls on these stakeholders to arrange their work under a new governance structure where the SEPA Council has a role; considers that the SEPA Council should be assisted by various technical committees, or ‘task forces’ for e-payment, m-payment, cards, cash and other standardisation issues, and by ad hoc working groups; recalls the Commission's commitment, in the declaration on SEPA governance on the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012, to come up with proposal before the end of 2012; calls on European standardisation bodies such as the European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen de Normalisation, CEN) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), in cooperation with the Commission, to play a more active role in standardising card payments;

– (FI) Mr President, last week the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted my amendment relating to the World Trade Organisation in which I propose that government experts should investigate the possibility of imposing trade sanctions at WTO level on those that remain outside the Kyoto Protocol in the future, in phase 2.

The reason we regard the amendment however well intended as unnecessary is it is part and parcel of this government's approach to health care and its responsibilities in that regard to monitor constantly whether the health care system and particularly the transfers for health care and related services are sufficient.

Because rBST was on the docket in 1998, you can imagine that the secretariat of the World Health Organization empanelled a group of men and women on the expert panel who would have particularly outstanding expertise in issues that might be referable to human health related to the use of rBST.