Translation of "élargissement des critères d'admission " (French → English) :

Question No. 281 Mrs. Michelle Simson: With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs and, more specifically, the Veterans Independence Program (VIP) and VIP expansion: (a) how many individuals received benefits from the VIP during the 2008-2009 fiscal year; (b) how many individuals received benefits from the VIP expansion during the 2008-2009 fiscal year; (c) why is the VIP expansion limited to survivors of those who had accessed the program prior to passing away; (d) how many individuals are currently excluded from the VIP expansion; and (e) what is the cost associated with allowing all survivors of Canadian veterans to access t ...[+++]he program expansion?

However, with the 2008 expansion, veterans independence program housekeeping and grounds maintenance benefits were extended to a specific group of survivors of individuals who were income qualified civilians, income qualified veterans, veteran pensioners, or civilian pensioners who were not in receipt of these benefits at the time of their death.

One of the other substantive issues which is addressed in Bill C-33 is expanding the eligibility criteria to include Canadians who are not currently eligible for transfers, such as young persons on probation, children and mentally disordered persons.

If the waste is hazardous (according to Directive 91/689/EC and the current waste list), the treatment may have enabled the waste to meet the criteria for placement of stable, non-reactive hazardous waste in non-hazardous waste landfills within cells for inorganic waste with low organic/biodegradable content that meet the criteria in section 2.2.2 (class B1b).

If the hazardous waste does not meet the criteria for placement in a class B1b landfill or cell for non-hazardous waste, the next question could be whether or not it meets the criteria for acceptance at a landfill for hazardous waste (class C).

Difficulties arise because of prevailing uncertainty as regards the way in which "regulated markets" should fulfil their obligations to ensure that all securities comply with the requirements for "official listing" (as specified in Directive 79/279 [10] In essence, the practice to date has been that the regulated market should provide listing functions in respect of all securities which are dealt in on that market. This practice for "regulated markets" officially to list securities prior to trading can add significantly to costs and limit the scope for competing markets and exchanges to admit the same security to trading. admission to listing and admi ...[+++]ssion to trading must therefore be decoupled if more active competition between trading systems is to be facilitated. Furthermore, structural changes such as the demutualisation of exchanges call for a redefinition of how listing and public disclosure objectives are realised. However, before such far-reaching adjustments can be envisaged, an equitable basis must be found for sharing the regulatory overheads of listing and fulfilling related requirements such as dissemination of price-sensitive information. Without appropriate arrangements, profit-driven exchanges may seek to divest costly listing functions, particularly if they perceive competitors as "free-riding" on their listing services. This would jeopardise the important "public good" functions served by listing. Implementation of this approach should be foreshadowed in an updated definition of "regulated markets". It also calls for a re-examination of the provisions of Directive 79/279 [11].