(Return tabled) Question No. 164 Mr. Peter Julian: With regard to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) working groups: (a) what are the regulatory changes, regulatory harmonization, procedural changes, and new programming initiatives proposed by each SPP working group; (b) what are the proposal and the proposals that have led, or are leading to regulatory changes, regulatory harmonization, procedural changes, and new programming initiatives, in every area covered by each working group; (c) what are the names of any and all sub-working groups along with a description of their tasks and issues to cover; (d) what is the lead cou ...[+++]ntry, the agency and the department responsible for each sub-working group; (e) who are the lead officials and the members for each sub-working group; (f) how many person-hours each division with responsibility for a part of the SPP has dedicated to SPP-related tasks, by year for 2005, 2006 and 2007; (g) what share, by division, do SPP-related tasks account by year for 2005, 2006 and 2007; (h) in which working group and sub-working group are copyright-related issues covered; (i) what role have the ongoing SPP negotiations in this area played in the formulation of the government’s copyright-reform legislation; (j) at which SPP meetings was Canadian copyright reform discussed, and who were the participants; (k) how much coordination is there among SPP working groups and their sub-working groups; (l) what is the nature of this coordination, for which the government has indicated it has hired several individuals in the Public Safety and Industry Departments; (m) what are the duties and responsibilities of these individuals; (n) at what level are tradeoffs among the various working groups discussed; (o) how does the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) interact with the sub-working groups; (p) how often do NACC members interact with officials working on SPP-related projects; (q) who are the lead NACC contacts for eac ...

Similarly to the arrangements for Objective 1 programmes, the mid-term review of the Objective 2 SPDs is carried out by the technical evaluation groups, the technical evaluation coordination group and the thematic working groups.

Created in 2001, the technical evaluation groups for each SPD, supported by the technical evaluation coordination group (part of the National Coordination Office), carried out the following tasks in 2002:

WHEREAS in addition to the most commonly used resources, the school institution should continuously renew, research, become familiar with and incorporate the latest social education and communication tools available, and it is therefore advisable to appoint an academic working group to supervise and monitor this permanent renewal process, which would work with groups of communications experts to become familiar with, evaluate and analyse the incorporation of new techniques and resou ...[+++]rces,

OTHER DECISIONS ON LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS (adopted without discussion) Disabled people: continuation of the HANDYNET system The Council adopted the Decision on the continuation of the HANDYNET system in the framework of the activities undertaken to date on the first technical aids module.

The administrative bodies concerned are the HELIOS Team of Experts and the Creativity and Sport Team, whilst the consultative bodies are the HELIOS Advisory Committee and the HELIOS Liaison Group, plus the more specialized Working Party on School Integration of Handicapped Children, the Working Party on Employment of Disabled People, the HELIOS- NGO Dialogue Group, the HANDYNET Working Party, and the Mobility and Transport Working Party.