(Return tabled) Question No. 1007 Mr. Craig Scott: With regard to the announcement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on May 28, 2012, that “new funding totaling $17.5 million will be allocated over the next five years to four key activities: prevention, early warning, rapid response, and management and control” to protect Canada’s Great Lakes from the threat of Asian carp: (a) in what specific ways will emphasis be placed on initiatives to educate people about the danger of Asian carp; (b) in what specific ways will human beings be prevented from bringing Asian carp into Canadian waters; (c) will public hearings be held in Canada to allow Canadians to provide input to key U.S. decision-makers on combating Asian carp migration; ...[+++] (d) what specific efforts will be made to raise the awareness of Canadians of the potential harm that Asian carp could cause in the Great Lakes; (e) what efforts will the government make to facilitate or mobilize public participation in decision-making concerning Asian carp; (f) what discussions or arrangements have been made by the government to work with American counterparts to develop an extensive early warning and monitoring system to alert officials of signs of any potential problems, along with rapid response protocols for both countries to be able to react quickly should there be signs that they are spreading; (g) when will the extensive early warning and monitoring system be put in place; (h) how does the government envision the extensive early warning and monitoring system working; (i) what discussions or arrangements have been made by the government to work with enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with regulations relating to the transport of Asian carp; (j) what tools will be used to ensure compliance with regulations relating to the transport of Asian carp; (k) what resources will be allocated to compliance efforts relating to the transport of Asian carp; (l) is the government aware of any plans, intent ...

− (CS) It is obvious that such a directive which is far-reaching and which protects the fundamental values of the European Union is often viewed differently and is often exposed, for various reasons, to pressure for its effectiveness to be limited.

There is the high angle shot which highlights, maybe even exaggerates, the neutral zone between the government side and the opposition side.

On behalf of our group, I have tabled a final amendment, which I would like to put before you now. It reads thus: ‘The European Parliament refers to the report commissioned by it and supports its common conclusions, namely that the presidential decrees do not pose an obstacle to Czech accession to the EU, meaning that all Union citizens will enjoy the same rights on Czech territory after accession, that all judgments handed down in absentia have been quashed, and that Law No. 115 of 8 May 1946 has no justification for its existence from the point of view of modern ...[+++] jurisprudence’ – let me repeat – ‘that Law No. 115 of 8 May 1946 has no justification for its existence from the point of view of modern jurisprudence; regards the statements of principle made in the German/Czech Declaration of 21 January 1997 as a sound basis for reconciliation, which represents the moral foundation for European integration; considers a political gesture by the Czechs to this effect as desirable’.

On behalf of our group, I have tabled a final amendment, which I would like to put before you now. It reads thus: ‘The European Parliament refers to the report commissioned by it and supports its common conclusions, namely that the presidential decrees do not pose an obstacle to Czech accession to the EU, meaning that all Union citizens will enjoy the same rights on Czech territory after accession, that all judgments handed down in absentia have been quashed, and that Law No. 115 of 8 May 1946 has no justification for its existence from the point of view of modern ...[+++] jurisprudence’ – let me repeat – ‘that Law No. 115 of 8 May 1946 has no justification for its existence from the point of view of modern jurisprudence; regards the statements of principle made in the German/Czech Declaration of 21 January 1997 as a sound basis for reconciliation, which represents the moral foundation for European integration; considers a political gesture by the Czechs to this effect as desirable ’.

58. Bases its assumptions on the conclusions of the report commissioned by Parliament, namely that the presidential decrees do not pose, from the point of view of Community law, an obstacle to Czech accession to the EU, meaning that all Union citizens will enjoy the same rights on Czech territory after accession, that judgments handed down in absentia have been quashed, and that, from the perspective of modern law and justice, Law No 115 of 8 May 1946 has no raison d'être; regards the statements of principle made in the German/Czech Declaration of 21 January 1997 as a sound ...[+++]basis for reconciliation, which represents the moral foundation for European integration; considers a political gesture from the Czech Republic to this effect as desirable;