(Return tabled) Question No. 611 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to the government’s plans for resource development, as described in the section entitled “Responsible Resource Development” in Chapter 3.2 of Budget 2012: (a) what are all examples of federal environmental laws that are stronger than provincial laws and how will the proposed legislative changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) affect the assessment of environmental impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders; (b) what research, action ...[+++], or investment has the government undertaken to study impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) risk mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (c) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (d) will the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA give any consideration to (i) measuring negative impacts of development, (ii) managing negative impacts of development; (e) by what date will the government bring forth new “legislation to streamline the review process for major economic projects” (Budget 2012, p. 89); (f) what are the projected costs of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory; (g) what assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory have been conducted, (i) what were the dates of any such assessments, (ii) what wer ...

27. Notes that the former Executive Director of the Agency wrote to the Agency on 28 December 2010 outlining the activities which he was intending to take up at the end of his term of office; considers the first decision of 11 January 2011, taken by the Chairman of the Agency Management Board, to authorise the new activities of the former Executive Director of the Agency to be a breach of Union rules relating to conflicts of interest, in particular with regard to Title II, Artic ...[+++]le 16, of the Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Communities; recalls that according to Title II, Article 11, and title IV, Article 91, of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, this provision applies by analogy to temporary agents and to contract employees; considers the fact that the Management Board adopted limitations on the future activities of the former Executive Director on 17 March 2011 - only after strong public protest - to be clear proof that the Agency did initially not apply the Staff Regulations properly, which in turn raises serious questions about their application of the rules in general; asks the Executive Director to present a detailed report on the implementation of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations within the Agency;

27. Notes that the former Executive Director of the Agency wrote to the Agency on 28 December 2010 outlining the activities which he was intending to take up at the end of his term of office; considers the first decision of 11 January 2011, taken by the Chairman of the Agency Management Board, to authorise the new activities of the former Executive Director of the Agency to be a breach of Union rules relating to conflicts of interest, in particular with regard to Title II, Artic ...[+++]le 16, of the Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Communities; recalls that according to Title II, Article 11, and title IV, Article 91, of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, this provision applies by analogy to temporary agents and to contract employees; considers the fact that the Management Board adopted limitations on the future activities of the former Executive Director on 17 March 2011 - only after strong public protest - to be clear proof that the Agency did initially not apply the Staff Regulations properly, which in turn raises serious questions about their application of the rules in general; asks the Executive Director to present a detailed report on the implementation of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations within the Agency;

6. Is convinced that a definition of who is eligible to invest is crucial; suggests that existing investor categories in MiFID and the Prospectus Directive should be taken into account; supports a broad definition of a sophisticated investor; highlights, however, that, despite existing legislation, several issues remain to be addressed, such as the criteria of annual income as well as the need to establish transfer restrictions forbidding the sophisticated investor, eligible for investment under such a PPR, to sell the product to retail investors directly or indirectly, for example by bundling it with other retail products;

6. Is convinced that a definition of who is eligible to invest is crucial; suggests that existing investor categories in MiFID and the Prospectus Directive should be taken into account; supports a broad definition of a sophisticated investor; highlights, however, that, despite existing legislation, several issues remain to be addressed, such as the criteria of annual income as well as the need to establish transfer restrictions forbidding the sophisticated investor, eligible for investment under such a PPR, to sell the product to retail investors directly or indirectly, for example by bundling it with other retail products;

10. Welcomes the statement made to a delegation of Parliament by the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations that certified copies of all documents related to projects and programmes financed from funds of the Agency will be available for verification upon request by the Court of Auditors; calls on the Court to discuss and agree with the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) the detailed arrangeme ...[+++]nts for such verifications;