(51) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission relating to: the content of the file which shall accompany the request of non-application of one or more TSIs or parts of them, the details, the format and the transmission modalities of that file; the scope and the content of the EC declaration of conformity and suitability for use of interoperability constituents, its format and the details of the information included in it; the classification of the notified national rules in diff ...[+++]erent groups with the aim of facilitating the compatibility checks between fixed and mobile equipment; the verification procedures for subsystems, including the general principles, the content, procedure and documents related to the ‘EC’ verification procedure, and to the verification procedure in the case of national rules; the templates for the ‘EC’ declaration of verification and for the declaration of verification in the case of national rules and templates for documents of the technical file that has to accompany the declaration of verification; the common specifications relating to content, data format, functional and technical architecture, operating mode and rules for data input and consultation for the register of infrastructure.

The question is as follows: With respect to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act: (a) how was this Bill developed; (b) did the government request any specific studies for this Bill and, if so, (i) what was the subject of these studies, (ii) what conclusions did they reach, (iii) what recommendations did they put forward, (iv) what methodology was followed in the studies, (v) on what date were the studies requested, (vi) on what date were the studies submitted, (vii) do the studies contain quantitative analyses (are they supported by data), (viii) ...[+++]what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (c) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact on creators’ income and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is ...

'Where the competent authority who made the request does not carry out the verification itself, it will participate on request in the verification'.

Where the competent authority who made the request does not carry out the verification itself, it (3 words deleted) will participate on request in the verification.

Senator Chaput: My first question is a request for a verification.

With regard to the arrangement between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the sport fishing lodges in 1995 to provide daily catch data to the department through the offices of the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia (SFI): (a) catch by anglers from sport fishing lodges accounted for approximately what part or portion of the total chinook sport catch; (b) what was the nature of this arrangement; (c) when was this arrangement negotiated; (d) When did the arrangement become operational; (e) why was it necessary (the Fisheries Act requires the lodges to provide the data to the DFO directly); (f) were there problems in th ...[+++]e fishery in 1995 that made it important to have accurate catch data on a daily or weekly basis; (g) what were the nature of these problems; (h) what management actions were undertaken to deal with these problems; (i) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO fisheries scientists find the catch data provided through SFI to be accurate, timely and useful; (j) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO fisheries managers find the catch data provided through SFI accurate, timely and useful; (k) when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge M.V. Marabell; (l) was the catch data in (k) received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries Act; (m) was the catch data in (k) received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department to use it to effectively manage the fishery; (n) how did the data in (k) compare to what would have been received if it had been given on-the-grounds to the department as originally requested and as required by the Fisheries Act; (o) when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge King Salmon Resort; (p) was the catch data in (o) received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries Act; (q) was the catch data in (l) received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department to ...