Traduction de «Plan factoriel à deux niveaux » (Français → Anglais) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 611 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to the government’s plans for resource development, as described in the section entitled “Responsible Resource Development” in Chapter 3.2 of Budget 2012: (a) what are all examples of federal environmental laws that are stronger than provincial laws and how will the proposed legislative changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) affect the assessment of environmental impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders; (b) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken to study impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the ...[+++] CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) risk mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (c) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (d) will the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA give any consideration to (i) measuring negative impacts of development, (ii) managing negative impacts of development; (e) by what date will the government bring forth new “legislation to streamline the review process for major economic projects” (Budget 2012, p. 89); (f) what are the projected costs of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory; (g) what assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory have been conducted, (i) what were the dates of any such assessments, (ii) what wer ...

4. HOLDS the view that both processes should be guided by the ultimate objective of the Convention: stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner; REITERATES its view that in order to meet this objective, overall global mean surface temperature increase should not exceed 2°C above pre-industrial levels and that significant global emission reductions will be necessary in accordance with the principle of common but differentiate ...[+++]d responsibilities and respective capabilities; NOTES that this will require global greenhouse gas emissions to peak within two decades, followed by substantial reductions in the order of at least 15% and perhaps by as much as 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels; NOTES that failure to achieve such reductions urgently would lead to an increased risk of abrupt climate change; IS CONFIDENT that the Montreal Action Plan provides the appropriate means to discuss with all parties ways and means to achieve this objective;

Both parties meet regularly at various levels to ensure that the Plan of Action is being followed up.

Most important, both levels of government must be guided by a mutually acceptable course of action or strategic plan.

(iii) send to the Commission the plans or programmes referred to in Article 8 (3) no later than two years after the end of the year during which the levels were observed;

In Quebec we have two departments of agriculture, each with its own farm income stabilization scheme; we have federal and provincial involvement in marketing board systems; and we have two levels of government involved in agricultural research and farm credit.