Translation of "Rapport sur la vérification après mise en œuvre " (French → English) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 127 Hon. Scott Brison: With regard to the United States (U.S). Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) when was the government first made aware of this legislation and how; (b) what steps has Canada taken since the legislation's introduction in the U.S., broken down by year; (c) during the consideration of this legislation in the U.S., did Canada make any representations to the U.S. government and if so, (i) when, (ii) by whom, (iii) to whom, (iv) on what dates, (v) by what authority (vi) with what desired effect (vi ...[+++]i) and with what outcome; (d) how many individuals in Canada will be affected; (e) how was the figure in (d) calculated; (f) how many Canadian citizens residing in Canada are U.S. persons under FATCA; (g) how many Canadian permanent residents are U.S. persons under FATCA; (h) how many applications for permanent residency is Canada currently processing from persons who are or will be treated as U.S. persons under FATCA; (i) broken down by province and territory and status, how many persons in Canada are projected to be affected by FATCA; (j) how was the figure in (l) calculated; (k) how many Canadian financial institutions will be impacted by FATCA; (l) how was the figure in (k) calculated; (m) how many non-financial Canadian entities will be impacted by FATCA; (n) how was the figure in (m) calculated; (o) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on persons resident in Canada; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on financial institutions; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on non-financial entities; (q) what estimates and studies have been undertaken with respect to the consequences of a 30% withholding of U.S. sourced income to financial institutions; (r) when did the studies in (q) occur and what were their conclusions; (s) how much has been spent evaluating FATCA' ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 20 Mr. Alex Atamanenko: With regard to the horse slaughter industry in Canada: (a) what was the reason for the temporary halt, initiated by European Union (EU) officials, to horse meat imports from Canada on October 12, 2012; (b) has Canada participated in talks with EU officials regarding the safety of horse meat from Canada since that time, (i) if so, what topics were discussed, (ii) what conclusions were reached; (c) what restrictions effective in 2013 will be imposed upon the Canadian horse meat industry by the EU, (i) what is the anticipated impact of these restrictions on the frequency and type of dru ...[+++]g residue testing on horse meat in Canada as well as on the data required on Equine Information Documents (EIDs), (ii) will the restrictions on prohibited/non-permitted drugs be further tightened; (d) is there any oversight by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on transport drivers and horse meat dealers listed on EIDs as current owners to check for a history of violations of the United States Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Transport, or CFIA transport regulations, (i) does the CFIA enhance its scrutiny of such violators or conduct follow-up investigations on those who have been flagged for violations, (ii) is this information shared with any other inter-connected government agency either in Canada or in the United States; (e) how often do CFIA inspectors do a visual inspection of the transports that arrive at the slaughter plants to ensure that the horses have been transported safely; (f) how many transport violations concerning horse slaughter transportation have been issued to transport drivers within the last five years, (i) how many warnings of violations have been issued, (ii) if the warnings have been ignored, how does the CFIA restrict or prohibit those transport drivers from conducting business in Canada; (g) how often does the CFIA conduct inspections of feedlots and how many warnings or violations were ...

[5] Compliance with Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1), Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23), Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22) and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 ...[+++] establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16) has not been monitored in this report.

The Commission shall ensure that the ETSC define, within a reasonable time frame and after consulting the CCEG, the technical specifications for the detection test, and other practical implementation provisions, such as training practices, the period of validity of the detection test report summary, the information to be included in the list referred to in Article 5(2), the guidelines related to controls, checks and auditing by Member States, the rule ...[+++]s for the rectification of non-compliance, and the relevant thresholds for accepting genuine coins.

This third report and the accompanying Staff Working Document draw on a number of sources: the previous reports of the Commission pursuant to Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision in 2006[8] and 2007[9]; the final report and recommendations of the fourth round of mutual evaluations carried out by the Council of the European Union (hereinafter ‘Council recommendations’)[10] and adopted by the Council in June 2010[11]; the outcome of an experts meeting on 5 November 2009; answers provided by the Member States to requests for updated information from the Commission on 30 June 2009 and 25 June 2010; and case ...[+++] law where applicable.

issuing guidance to verifiers in order to ensure that they understand the culture of SMEs and thus ensure that their checks are proportional to the requirements of SMEs whilst fulfilling the objectives of EMAS, (to be developed by the Commission). encouraging Member States to take the measures falling under their competence, such as reducing or waiving any registration fees they levy on participating SMEs (Article 10.1); encouraging Member States to use the potential of EMAS participation in the implementation and control of environmental legislation (Article 10.2); adopting a visible and recognisable logo in order to assist the prom ...[+++]otion of EMAS and to provide organisations with a means to easily advertise their participation (Article 8); developing a promotional strategy shared between Member States and the Commission (Article 11); increasing the follow-up of the improvements of the environmental performance carried out by organisations through more regular verification and reporting (Annex V); ensuring compliance with the requirements of EMAS by increased verification frequency and strengthened supervision of the work performed by verifiers (Annex V); enhancing the added value of EMAS compared to other EMSs (Annex I B); ensuring the consistency of implementation of the Regulation across Member States by setting up a forum of accreditation bodies and a forum of competent bodies in order to provide for a common understanding and application of the requirements of the Regulation.