Translation of "Tension de recouvrement en direct " (French → English) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 170 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to the victims' surcharge: (a) for each of the last ten years, broken down by province and year; how much was collected; (b) broken down by program and service, how was the money in (a) spent; (c) broken down by province and year, in what percent of cases was a surcharge imposed; (d) since the enactment of the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act (IOAVA), how much, broken down by province and territory, has been collected; (e) for the ten years prior ...[+++]to the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government given to victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (f) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government transferred to provinces for victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (g) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, in how many cases did a judge provide more than 20 years for surcharge repayment; (h) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, what were the mean, median, mode, and value of surcharges collected; (i) since the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, what were the mean, median, and mode, and value of surcharges collected; (j) since the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government given to victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (k) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what specific cases, broken down by province, has a surcharge not been imposed; (l) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what specific cases, broken down by province, has the collection of a surcharge been delayed more than 20 years; (m) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases was the constitutionality of the surcharge challenged; (n) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases did the Crown appeal on a matte ...

It applies to consumer products covered by New Approach directives, such as toys and low voltage electrical equipment, for which the directives do not provide an equivalent procedure.

As to recovery procedures, the directive admits the retention of title as a legal notion: Member States shall provide in conformity with the applicable national provisions designated by Private International Law that the seller retains title to goods until they are fully paid for if a retention of title has been explicitly agreed between the buyer and the seller before the delivery of the goods.

Whereas Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits(8) and Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(9), as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC(10), are applicable, inter alia, to the fields of telecommunications and information technology;

Communication of the Commission within the framework of Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits, as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC [Official Journal C 202 of 27.08.2003].

The key deliverables of the initiative include an assessment of the TPP cost-recovery initiative as it relates to the Treasury Board cost-recovery policy, and the public and private benefits that have derived from it; a thorough assessment of the current cost-recovery initiative costing model used by the TPP, including a comparison of other regulatory regimes and justifications, identification of any gaps in the current cost-recovery initiative, and the contribution of fees to the delivery of an efficient service; an evaluation of whether the cost-recovery initiative has had an impact on the TPP's performance, taking into consideration ...[+++] previous performance commitments, other jurisdictions' experience, options for improving feedback and/or communication mechanisms for stakeholders to foster transparency and accountability, and constraints that might limit my program's ability to manage the cost-recovery initiative and thereby the efficient operations of its programs; an assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the cost-recovery initiative on therapeutic products industries, on consumers and the health care system, and on the TPP itself, and the development of a rigorous methodology and relevant data sources for a follow-up assessment of the impact of planned fees on the medical devices regulation area; and finally, a systematic review of lessons learned from other jurisdictions and options for operational and/or organizational alternatives and/or modifications to improve the management of the TPP cost recovery initiative.