Translation of "position vérifiée au toucher " (French → English) :

5. Member States with a negative limit, or a positive limit of at most 5 %, as set out in Annex II, which are listed in Annex III, shall, in addition to credits used pursuant to paragraph 4, be allowed to use additional credits amounting to 1 % of their verified emissions in 2005 from projects in LDCs and SIDS each year, subject to compliance with one of the following four conditions:

Subject to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this Article and Article 5, each Member State with a positive limit under Annex II shall ensure, including by making use of the flexibilities provided for in this Decision, that its greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 do not exceed a level defined by a linear trajectory, starting in 2009, on its average annual greenhouse gas emissions during 2008, 2009 and 2010, as reported and verified pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision No 280/2004/EC, ending in 2020 on the limit for that Member State as specified in Annex II.

[Text] Question No. 184 Mr. Bill Casey: With regard to the government’s position and actions regarding employment insurance (EI) benefits for spouses of employees of the government or private sector employees who have been posted overseas and who are unable to receive unemployment insurance benefits, even though these citizens are still registered in constituencies across Canada: (a) how many spouses of Canadian diplomats, Canadian foreign-service employees or private sector employees have filed complaints with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), or Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) with regard to the their inability to ...[+++]receive EI benefits, even though they are still Canadian citizens who are registered in federal constituencies across Canada and still pay taxes to the government; (b) does the CRA collect the payment of EI premiums from the spouses of Canada’s diplomats, foreign-service employees and those from the private sector, and, if so, why is it that these individuals cannot receive the EI benefits for which they have paid through their salaries, and earned from Canadian employers either just prior to, or while living overseas; (c) is there a conflict between the CRA and HRSDC definitions of residency of a Canadian citizen and, if so, why; (d) has any action taken place between officials of CRA, HRSDC, Foreign Affairs Canada or Elections Canada to update or correct conflicts in the definition process for determining an individual’s residency; (e) has any action taken place within the CRA to update the NR-73 Determination of Residency Status form and resulting process to correct any determination conflicts with those of other federal departments for Canadians living and working overseas; (f) have HRSDC, CRA, Elections Canada or Foreign Affairs Canada ever discussed using a standardized or shared definition for determining who is a “spouse”, in cases of spouses of government (including diplomatic and foreign-service staff) or private secto ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 184 Mr. Bill Casey: With regard to the government’s position and actions regarding employment insurance (EI) benefits for spouses of employees of the government or private sector employees who have been posted overseas and who are unable to receive unemployment insurance benefits, even though these citizens are still registered in constituencies across Canada: (a) how many spouses of Canadian diplomats, Canadian foreign-service employees or private sector employees have filed complaints with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), or Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) with regard to the their inab ...[+++]ility to receive EI benefits, even though they are still Canadian citizens who are registered in federal constituencies across Canada and still pay taxes to the government; (b) does the CRA collect the payment of EI premiums from the spouses of Canada’s diplomats, foreign-service employees and those from the private sector, and, if so, why is it that these individuals cannot receive the EI benefits for which they have paid through their salaries, and earned from Canadian employers either just prior to, or while living overseas; (c) is there a conflict between the CRA and HRSDC definitions of residency of a Canadian citizen and, if so, why; (d) has any action taken place between officials of CRA, HRSDC, Foreign Affairs Canada or Elections Canada to update or correct conflicts in the definition process for determining an individual’s residency; (e) has any action taken place within the CRA to update the NR-73 Determination of Residency Status form and resulting process to correct any determination conflicts with those of other federal departments for Canadians living and working overseas; (f) have HRSDC, CRA, Elections Canada or Foreign Affairs Canada ever discussed using a standardized or shared definition for determining who is a “spouse”, in cases of spouses of government (including diplomatic and foreign-service staff) or priv ...

In light of his answer, I must say that, for the moment, the Bloc Québécois has not determined what position it will take, because this motion could affect a number of other statutes.

It can be audited by the auditor general, unlike agencies in other pieces of legislation which the auditor general does not seem to be able to touch such as the infamous and protected Canadian Wheat Board.