Question No. 149 Mr. Claude Gravelle: With respect to funds allocated to the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor): (a) what is the global budget of FedNor and its programs from 2006 to the present; (b) how much of FedNor's economic development funding and other funding it administers has gone to projects and initiatives in Northern Ontario from 2006 to the present; (c) how does FedNor define “Northern Ontario” in terms of boundaries, and when and how has that ...[+++]definition changed since 1993; (d) what is the number of jobs directly created in Northern Ontario as well as other regions from FedNor programs and other programs it administers from 2006 to the present; (e) listed by location, what is the number of full time employees and equivalents that have worked for FedNor, on an annual basis since 2006; (f) what are the ten electoral ridings which received the most FedNor funding from 2006 to the present, broken down by year; and (g) listed by electoral riding, who were the recipients of FedNor funding, broken down by year from 2006 to the present?

Research has been cut back, as have the funds for supporting other projects within the framework of the Lisbon process that EU Heads of State no doubt still want to keep going.

In contrast, the subsequent provisions make it clear that the objectives and purpose of the Joint Undertaking are to ensure the coordinated management of the funds assigned to the SESAR project during the implementation phase (recital (12)), to manage a public research programme of European interest (recital (13)), to enable progress to be made in the development of air traffic control technologies (recital (15)) and to organise and coordinate the SESAR project by combining public and private sector funding and using external technical resources, provided ...[+++] by its members, and in particular Eurocontrol’s experience (recital (16), which is described as the Joint Undertaking's "main task".

64. Takes note that a large proportion (50,9 %) of the total EIDHR funding for projects contracted in 2005 went to large projects organised by theme and only a small proportion (27,68%) went to micro-projects implemented by Commission Delegations; reiterates that a significant proportion should be devoted to smaller, grassroots projects; calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to those NGOs which play a key role in the promotion of human rights in their countries but which are not legally recognised by the authorities in those countries; regards it as crucial that the Commission should propose, in this regard, a review of ...[+++]the Financial Regulation including the financing of such NGOs;

Mr Papayannakis, the term ‘major projects’ has a very precise meaning in the rules on the Structural Funds, since it refers to a project which is granted a budget of more than EUR 50 million.

Creation at the earliest of a single, definitive management structure with an investment budget combining all the funds earmarked for the project.