Based on the Canadian exposures that I read in the report, all the exposures were level III, which means they're well below safety standards.

39. Points out, furthermore, that Member States are still failing to forward data on time or are supplying inaccurate data; recalls, moreover that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria, thereby making it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level, thus impeding comparison and objective country-by-country evaluation of the scale of fraud; reiterates its regret that as a consequence, Parliament, the Commission and OLAF cannot properly fulfil their task of assessing the actual overall scale of irre ...[+++]gularities and fraud in individual Member States and formulating recommendations; regrets that this situation prevents the identification and discipline of those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud, as has been repeatedly requested by Parliament; notes that the Commission invited Member States to improve upon their fraud statistics and committed itself to placing greater emphasis on the issue; stresses how important it is that the Commission establish uniform reporting principles in all Member States in order to ensure that the data collected are comparable, reliable and sufficient; calls, therefore, on the Commission to inform Parliament on the measures initiated to introduce a higher degree of uniformity and comparability between the statistical data gathered at national level; urges the Member States to submit in a timely manner exhaustive information which adequately reflects the actual level of fraud; asks the Court of Auditors to follow up on its previous special reports on the performance of OLAF in order to determine the effects of the reorganisation;

39. Points out, furthermore, that Member States are still failing to forward data on time or are supplying inaccurate data; recalls, moreover that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria, thereby making it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level, thus impeding comparison and objective country-by-country evaluation of the scale of fraud; reiterates its regret that as a consequence, Parliament, the Commission and OLAF cannot properly fulfil their task of assessing the actual overall scale of irre ...[+++]gularities and fraud in individual Member States and formulating recommendations; regrets that this situation prevents the identification and discipline of those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud, as has been repeatedly requested by Parliament; notes that the Commission invited Member States to improve upon their fraud statistics and committed itself to placing greater emphasis on the issue; stresses how important it is that the Commission establish uniform reporting principles in all Member States in order to ensure that the data collected are comparable, reliable and sufficient; calls, therefore, on the Commission to inform Parliament on the measures initiated to introduce a higher degree of uniformity and comparability between the statistical data gathered at national level; urges the Member States to submit in a timely manner exhaustive information which adequately reflects the actual level of fraud; asks the Court of Auditors to follow up on its previous special reports on the performance of OLAF in order to determine the effects of the reorganisation;

The standard data package consists of tier I data. Tier II data may need to be submitted depending on the characteristics and intended use of the active substance or on the conclusions of the assessment of the tier I data, in particular if a danger for health or the environment has been identified.

After deadlock had been reached within the Council on this framework decision, the European Parliament adopted, on 14 December 2006, a recommendation to the Council in which it stated that it was 'extremely concerned at the direction being taken by the debate in the Council, with Member States appearing to be moving towards a data protection agreement based on the lowest common denominator,' and feared, 'moreover, that the level of data protection will be lower than that provided by Directive 95/46/EC and Council of Europe Convention No 108 and that implementation of such an agreement might have a negative impact on the general principle ...[+++] of data protection in each Member State without establishing a satisfactory level of protection at European level'.

F. extremely concerned at the direction being taken by the debate in the Council, with Member States appearing to be moving towards a data protection agreement based on the lowest common denominator; fearing, moreover, that the level of data protection will be lower than that provided by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and by Council of Europe Convention No 108 and that implementation of such an agreement might have a negative impact on the general principle of data pr ...[+++]otection in each Member State without establishing a satisfactory level of protection at European level,