(Return tabled) Question No. 159 Mr. Sean Casey: With respect to the considered cuts to Environment Canada: (a) which specific departments and programs are affected, and what was the process taken to determine whether or not to make cuts to a specific department and program, (i) what, if any, Environment Canada Research Scientists were consulted regarding the considered cuts, (ii) what scientists outside of Environment Canada were consulted, (iii) for each department and program specified in (a), what is the number of current full-time, part-time, and contract scientific positions, (iv) the number of full-time, part-time, and contract scientists who have been given “workforce adjustment” letters, (v) the number of full-time, part-time, and ...[+++]contract scientists who are going to be moved out of their current “job function”, (vi) what, if any, consideration has been given to shutting-down the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), and, if so, has the United States been consulted, as Canada has commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, (vii) specify all programs run by a single scientist who has been given a “workforce adjustment” letter, and for each program identified, what, if any, concern was expressed regarding the ability of the program to continue, (viii) the process that will be taken to place scientists in appropriate research areas, (ix) what, if any, consideration has been given to the fact that many scientists are highly trained in very specialized fields, and that an appropriate replacement position may not be possible; (b) specify all national and international environmental commitments to which Canada is subject, including, but not limited to the Global Climate Observing System, the World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme Scientific Assessments of Ozone Depletion, which are mandated by the Montreal Protocol to occur at least every four years, and hosting the World Ozone and UV Data Centre, (i) wha ...

In 1996, three level crossings were inspected, and it was found that constant warning time devices and barriers would have to be installed.

before the 2001 crisis the Commission did not subject the arrangements for prevention and control of the disease to adequate evaluation that took account of the changes in the risk factors; as the Commission did not carry out comprehensive evaluations and inspections in time, a number of weaknesses in the prevention and control arrangements concerning protective measures at borders, animal feed, animal movements and notification of the disease were not corrected before the outbreak of the epidemic; during the crisis the Commission rapidly took the necessary emergency measures, such as notification of the disease to the Member States, surveillance and slaughter of sheep which had been imported from the United Kingdom before the crisis beg ...[+++]an, and the closure of markets; the shortcomings in the system and in its application in the Member States in respect of the number of vets, notification of the disease and the speed at which culling was carried out were identified by the Commission during the crisis but it was too late to remedy them; the way in which the Community financing system was applied during the crisis led to inconsistencies: the reimbursement rates for the various animal diseases have been aligned only for the pig sector; there were delays in reimbursements to Member States; during the crisis, in the absence of a more clearly defined Community framework, the Member States were able to introduce a variety of systems to compensate farmers, based on varying methods of assessing the value of the animals before slaughter; after the crisis many shortcomings were remedied; nevertheless, the financial framework has not been revised and a number of Community measures are still inadequate with regard to the supervision of farms, notification of disease and speed in culling; these could compromise the effectiveness of the prevention and control arrangements in containing a future epidemic, while the Community would be obliged to reimburse the expenditure ...

requests, as a complement to the Bureau recommendations and to the measures contained in the COPEC Action Plan 2001-2005, the introduction of mentoring systems, as part of career guidance, based on the principle of equal opportunities, and a study analysing career progression of female staff in all categories compared with men and of part-time staff compared with full-time staff;

requests, as a complement to the Bureau recommendations and to the measures contained in the COPEC Action Plan 2001-2005, the introduction of mentoring systems, as part of career guidance, based on the principle of equal opportunities, and a study analysing career progression of female staff in all categories compared with men and of part-time staff compared with full-time staff;

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 the fishery in 1995 that made it important to have accurate catch data on a daily or weekly basis; (g) wha ...[+++]t 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 ...