Researches into the action of mercury, podophyllin, and taraxacum on the biliary secretion : being the report of the Edinburgh committee of the British Medical Association /

Mode of access: Internet.

Report to the Science and Art Department of the Committee of Council on Education on the action of light on water colours : presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty.

"First report by Dr. W.J. Russell, F.R.S., and Capt. W. de W. Abney ..."--P. [3].

National action plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session ....

"October 28, 1993"--Pt. 2.

2012 ANNUAL REPORT JOINT CITIZENS AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The South Carolina Joint Citizens and Legislative Committee on Children publishes an annual report for the governor and the General Assembly with information on topics of concern about the well-being of children in the state and policy recommendations. The Annual Report contains selected data which present a compelling overview of those children in need and more specifically focuses on the children who have been placed in the custody of the State. Central to this theme are services for child protection and welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health.

An analysis of the effectiveness of parliamentary questions in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly (India)

Parliamentary questions are the most popular and visible tool for making the executive accountable to the legislature. However, their use, purpose and effectiveness vary in different countries. In this study, 4023 parliamentary questions asked in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly were analysed. The results show that half of the total members of the Assembly used this device. Contrary to findings in the Australian parliamentary system, there was no evidence of ‘Dorothy Dix’ and party influence on parliamentary questions. Furthermore, 30% of the questions were aimed at seeking information and 70% pressed for action. The government provided the required information in 95% of the questions in the former category but only took action in 37% in the latter category. The study concludes that parliamentary questions serve as an effective legislative tool in the Uttar Pradesh Legislature

Early childhood education for sustainability : why it matters, what it is, and how whole centre action research and systems thinking can help

The global financial crisis, global pandemics, global warming and peak oil are indicative of a world facing major environmental, social and economic problems. At the same time, world population continues to rise and global inequalities deepen. Children are the most vulnerable to the impacts of unsustainable living with specific harms arising because of their physical and cognitive vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, children do not have to be victims in the face of these challenges. Education, including early childhood education, has an important role to in building resilience and capabilities in children that equip them as active and informed citizens now and in the future and who are capable of contributing to healthy and sustainable ways of living. Drawing on educational change literature, action research, education for sustainability, health promotion and systems theory, this paper outlines three strategies that can help reorient early childhood education towards sustainability. One strategy is the adoption of whole centre approaches to sustainability and education for sustainability. This means working across the whole of a centre’s operations – curriculum and pedagogy, physical and social environments, its partnerships and community connections. The second strategy – applied in conjunction with the first – is the use of action research to investigate the early childhood setting and to create the desired changes. The third strategy is the adoption of systems thinking as a way of leveraging support and momentum for change so that education for sustainability goes beyond the initiatives of individual teachers and centres, and becomes a systems-wide imperative.

An analysis of parliamentary questions raised by Opposition in the Uttar Pradesh (India) State Legislative Assembly

The use of parliamentary questions is the most popular and visible tool in the hands of the Opposition as a means to make government accountable. Their main purpose is to seek information or press for action. Contemporary parliamentary literature from the UK, Canada, and Australia, however, suggests that parliamentary questions have lost their effectiveness. The literature points out that Question Time in parliaments has become a battle ground between Ruling and Opposition parties in their fight to gain maximum political advantage. In this context, the effectiveness of parliamentary questions in the Indian state legislatures has not been investigated. The aim of this study, therefore, is to analyse the use, purpose and effectiveness of parliamentary questions in the State Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh (India) to explore differences, if any, between Ruling and Opposition parties. In this study, 4023 parliamentary questions asked in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly were analysed. The effectiveness of answers was also analysed qualitatively. The results show that half of the total members of the Assembly used this device, out of which 60% of the questions were asked by the Opposition party members. 31% of the questions from the Opposition were seeking information and 69% were pressing for action. The government provided the required information in 96% of the questions in the former category and took action in only 35% of the latter category. Furthermore, 60% of the questions raised by the Opposition were related to constituency matters and the remaining 40% were related to policy issues or public welfare. Comparing the data with the ruling party, the results indicate that the use,purpose and effectiveness of parliamentary questions were similar to that of the Opposition except some minor differences. Surprisingly, there was no evidence of any ‘Dorothy Dix’ questions. The study concludes parliamentary question is an effective device in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.

Trends in the Australian gender wage differential over the 1980s : some evidence on the effectiveness of legislative reform

The article examines the legislative reforms incorporating the Sex Discrimination Act and the Affirmative Action Act introduced during the 1980s. We utilise the Australian Bureau of Statistics Income Distribution Surveys 1981–82 and 1989–90 to reflect pre- and post-legislative reform. The article adopts the Brown, Moon and Zoloth (1980) methodology which treats both the wage and occupational status of the individual as endogenously determined. In the current context this is a particularly flexible framework allowing one to capture both the direct and indirect effects of the legislative reforms. The indirect effect refers to the narrowing of the gender wage gap associated with legislative manipulation of the male-female occupational distributions. The results contrast the slow convergence in the gender wage gap during the 1980s with the much faster pace of the 1970s. The article concludes that despite the focus of the 1980s legislation on employment equity, changes in the male-female occupational distribution over the period are small and the associated impact on gender wage convergence is also small.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Action learning in partnership with Landcare and catchment management groups to support increased pasture sowings in southern inland Queensland

The incorporation of sown pastures as short-term rotations into the cropping systems of northern Australia has been slow. The inherent chemical fertility and physical stability of the predominant vertisol soils across the region enabled farmers to grow crops for decades without nitrogen fertiliser, and precluded the evolution of a crop–pasture rotation culture. However, as less fertile and less physically stable soils were cropped for extended periods, farmers began to use contemporary farming and sown pasture technologies to rebuild and maintain their soils. This has typically involved sowing long-term grass and grass–legume pastures on the more marginal cropping soils of the region. In partnership with the catchment management authority, the Queensland Murray–Darling Committee (QMDC) and Landcare, a pasture extension process using the LeyGrain™ package was implemented in 2006 within two Grain & Graze projects in the Maranoa-Balonne and Border Rivers catchments in southern inland Queensland. The specific objectives were to increase the area sown to high quality pasture and to gain production and environmental benefits (particularly groundcover) through improving the skills of producers in pasture species selection, their understanding and management of risk during pasture establishment, and in managing pastures and the feed base better. The catalyst for increasing pasture sowings was a QMDC subsidy scheme for increasing groundcover on old cropping land. In recognising a need to enhance pasture knowledge and skills to implement this scheme, the QMDC and Landcare producer groups sought the involvement of, and set specific targets for, the LeyGrain workshop process. This is a highly interactive action learning process that built on the existing knowledge and skills of the producers. Thirty-four workshops were held with more than 200 producers in 26 existing groups and with private agronomists. An evaluation process assessed the impact of the workshops on the learning and skill development by participants, their commitment to practice change, and their future intent to sow pastures. The results across both project catchments were highly correlated. There was strong agreement by producers (>90%) that the workshops had improved knowledge and skills regarding the adaptation of pasture species to soils and climates, enabling a better selection at the paddock level. Additional strong impacts were in changing the attitudes of producers to all aspects of pasture establishment, and the relative species composition of mixtures. Producers made a strong commitment to practice change, particularly in managing pasture as a specialist crop at establishment to minimise risk, and in the better selection and management of improved pasture species (particularly legumes and the use of fertiliser). Producers have made a commitment to increase pasture sowings by 80% in the next 5 years, with fourteen producers in one group alone having committed to sow an additional 4893 ha of pasture in 2007–08 under the QMDC subsidy scheme. The success of the project was attributed to the partnership between QMDC and Landcare groups who set individual workshop targets with LeyGrain presenters, the interactive engagement processes within the workshops themselves, and the follow-up provided by the LeyGrain team for on-farm activities.

Due North? Do American Theories of Legislative Committees Apply to Canada?

Several theories of legislative organisation have been proposed to explain committee selection in American legislatures, but do these theories travel outside the United States? This paper tests whether these theories apply to data from the Canadian House of Commons. It was found that the distributive and partisan models of legislative organisation explain committee composition in Canada. In many cases, committees in the House of Commons are made up of preference outliers. As predicted by partisan models, it was also found that the governing party stacks committees with its members, but this is conditional upon the strength of the governing party.

La parole en action : dissensus sur les accommodements raisonnables lors des auditions en commission parlementaire au Québec (2010-2011)

La question du pluralisme religieux est au Québec, l’objet de désaccords et de variations dans son mode de régulation et ses instruments d’action publique. La consultation publique sur le projet loi n° 94, Loi établissant les balises encadrant les demandes d’accommodement dans l’Administration gouvernementale et dans certains établissements, est au cœur de ceux-ci. En se basant sur l’analyse des séances d’auditions publiques en commission parlementaire qui ont eu lieu au Québec entre mai 2010 et janvier 2011 sur le projet de loi n° 94, cette thèse vise à interroger les enjeux liés à la publicisation des prises de positions et de l’échange d’arguments entre différents acteurs. À partir d’une méthodologie par théorisation enracinée et d’un cadre conceptuel qui se rattache à la communication publique, cette thèse cherche à mettre en évidence quelques-unes des propriétés des interactions verbales et non verbales qui composent et incarnent cette activité délibérative. Elle approche ces interactions du point de vue de leur publicisation en s’appuyant sur deux principes : la participation publique en tant qu’un instant de la construction du problème public et l’audition publique en commission parlementaire comme maillon d’un réseau dialogique qui participe à la publicisation du désaccord sur les accommodements raisonnables. Mettant l’accent sur l’usage du langage (verbal, non verbal et para verbal), l’objectif de cette thèse est de mieux comprendre comment des groupes minoritaires et majoritaires, engagés dans une arène publique où les points de vue par rapport aux accommodements raisonnables sont confrontés et mis en visibilité, gèrent leur situation de parole publique. La démarche de recherche a combiné deux stratégies d’analyse : la première stratégie d’inspiration conversationnelle, qui observe chaque séquence comme objet indépendant, a permis de saisir le déroulement des séances d’audition en respectant le caractère séquentiel des tours de parole La deuxième stratégie reviens sur les principaux résultats de l’analyse des séances d’auditions pour valider les résultats et parvenir à la saturation théorique pour élaborer une modélisation. L’exploitation des données selon cette approche qualitative a abouti au repérage de trois dynamiques. La première fait état des contraintes discursives. La seconde met en évidence le rôle des dimensions motivationnelles et socioculturelles dans la construction des positionnements et dans l’adoption d’un registre polémique. La troisième souligne la portée de la parole publique en termes d’actualisation des rapports de pouvoir et de confirmation de son caractère polémique. La modélisation proposée par cette thèse représente le registre polémique comme un élément constitutif de l’engagement argumentatif des acteurs sociaux mais qui est considérablement enchâssé dans d’autres éléments contextuels et motivationnels qui vont orienter sa portée. En tant qu’elle est exprimée dans un site dialogique, la parole publique en situation d’audition publique en commission parlementaire est en mesure de créer de nouvelles intrigues et d’une possibilité de coexister dans le dissensus. Le principal apport de cette thèse est qu’elle propose une articulation, concrète et originale entre une approche de la parole publique en tant que révélatrice d’autre chose que d’elle-même (nécessaire à tout éclaircissement des points de vue dans cette controverse) et une approche de la parole publique en tant que performance conduisant à la transformation du monde social. D’où, le titre de la thèse : la parole en action. Mots clefs : parole publique, discours, arène publique, pluralisme religieux, accommodements raisonnables, controverses, dissensus, théorisation enracinée

Niagara River (Ontario) Remedial Action Plan fonds, 1984-1997, n.d.

The Niagara River Remedial Action Plan was part of an initiative to restore the integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. In 1972, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed by both Canada and the United States to demonstrate their commitment to protecting this valuable resource. An amendment in 1987 stipulated that Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) be implemented in 43 ecologically compromised areas known as Areas of Concern. The Niagara River was designated as one of these areas by federal and provincial governments and the International Joint Commission, an independent and binational organization that deals with issues concerning the use and quality of boundary waters between Canada and the United States. Although the affected area included parts of both the Canadian and American side of the river, Remedial Action Plans were developed separately in both Canada and the United States. The Niagara River (Ontario) RAP is a three-stage process requiring collaboration between numerous government agencies and the public. Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority are the agencies guiding the development and implementation of the Niagara River (Ontario) RAP. The first stage is to determine the severity and causes of the environmental degradation that resulted in the location being designated an Area of Concern; the second stage is to identify and implement actions that will restore and protect the health of the ecosystem; and the third stage is to monitor the area to ensure that the ecosystem’s health has been restored. Stage one of the RAP commenced in January 1989 when a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) was established. This committee was comprised of concerned citizens and representatives from various community groups, associations, industries and municipalities. After several years of consultation, the Niagara River (Ontario) Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 Report was released in 1995. It contained 16 goals and 37 recommendations. Among them was the need for Canadians and Americans to work more collaboratively in order to successfully restore the water quality in the Niagara River. Stage three of the Niagara River (Ontario) RAP is currently ongoing, but it is estimated that it will be completed by 2015. At that point, the Niagara River Area of Concern will be delisted, although monitoring of the area will continue to ensure it remains healthy.