Traduction de «propagation non-aléatoire des risques » (Français → Anglais) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 223 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to Lyme disease-carrying ticks and Lyme disease in Canada: (a) what percentage of Lyme disease cases are thought to be reported, (i) what percentage of people who receive treatment for Lyme disease develop post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, (ii) what percentage of people with untreated Lyme disease infections experience intermittent bouts of arthritis, (iii) what percentage of untreated Lyme disease patients are at risk of developing chronic neurological complaints months to years after infection; (b) based on all epidemiological data collected since Lyme disease became a nationally-reportable disease, what is the most recent data available about Lyme disease cases, broken ...[+++] down (i) by province, (ii) by month, (iii) by symptom, (iv) incidence by age and sex; (c) how does the government define a “Lyme-endemic area”, (i) in what specific areas of Canada are ticks endemic and highly endemic, (ii) what areas of Canada have the highest numbers of human infections; (d) what is Lyme disease’s (i) ranking among vector-borne diseases in Canada, (ii) ranking among nationally notifiable diseases; (e) is it possible to have more than one tick-borne infection, and, if so, (i) are possible co-infections being investigated and tracked, (ii) does one’s chance of having multiple tick-borne infections depend on geographic location, and, if so, what areas are particularly at risk, (iii) what is the rate of co-infection by province; (f) broken down by province, over the last 20 years, how has a warming climate impacted Lyme disease, in particular, (i) how has warming impacted tick distribution by province, (ii) how has warming impacted the distribution of Lyme disease by province; (g) what does the government project will be the effect of climate change on (i) the geographical range of ticks in 2020 and 2050, (ii) the distribution of ticks across Canada, (iii) human Lyme disease infections, (iv) the distribution o ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 141 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to climate change and international and national security: (a) what does the government project are the potential impacts on currently stable regions of the world of such climate change-related phenomena as, but not limited to, (i) rises in sea level, (ii) increases in extreme weather events, (iii) increases in the spread of infectious disease, (iv) increases in environmental refugees; (b) what does the government project will be (i) the consequences of the impacts iden ...[+++]tified in (a)(ii), (a)(iii), and (a)(iv) on domestic military missions, (ii) the consequences of (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii), (a)(iv) and (b)(i) in terms of the military’s capacity to respond and the availability of troops for missions not related to conflicts induced by climate change-related phenomena; (c) what does the government project will be the potential impacts on already-weakened states of such climate change-related phenomena as, but not limited to, (i) sea level rise, (ii) extreme weather events, (iii) the spread of infectious diseases; (d) what does the government project will be the extent of the effects climate impacts could have on already-weakened states, including, but not limited to, (i) expanded ungoverned spaces, (ii) further weakened and failed states, (iii) increased conflicts, (iv) increased migrations; (e) what does the government project will be the impact of the effects identified in (d) on Canada’s national security; (f) which nations does the government project will be most affected by climate change, (i) what is the government’s assessment of each such country’s capacity to adapt or cope, (ii) what, if any, action is Canada taking to strengthen the capacity of weak governments to better cope with societal needs projected to arise as a result of climate change-related impacts, (iii) what is the government’s assessment of possible security risks if Canada does contribute to international efforts related to ...

by burning or burial on site, under conditions which prevent the transmission of risks to public and animal health, of animal by-products other than Category 1 material referred to in Article 8(a)(i) in the event of an outbreak of a notifiable disease, if transport to the nearest plant approved for processing or disposal of the animal by-products would increase the danger of propagation of health risks or, in case of a widespread outbreak of an epizootic disease, would mean that the disposal capacities of such plants were exceeded; a ...[+++]nd

The exclusion of SRM's and fallen stock from the feed chain would reduce the risks of propagating the BSE agent amongst cattle, and their exclusion from the human food chain would reduce possible BSE-risk for the consumer.

The risk of BSE contamination of blood by certain slaughter methods is in its view much higher than the much smaller risk that blood itself from BSE infected animals would be a source of spreading infectivity.

The Directive also includes rules for payment systems which are not based on netting but on gross settlement systems (where each payment order is settled individually on a real time basis as it arises during the day): The proposed Directive would also exempt payment systems from national rules giving retroactive effect to the insolvency of a participant in a payment system, such as the zero-hour rule. Such retroactive effect allows the liquidator of an insolvent institution to challenge payment orders which have already been introduce ...[+++]d into the payment system, thus leading to the unwinding of the settlement operation. This unwinding is highly disruptive and can lead to systemic risk. The same is true for revocation of payment orders. Revocation of a large payment order in a payment system during the settlement process, could lead to systemic risk. The Directive would therefore bar revocation of payment orders after the moment contractually fixed by the payment system participants. The insolvency of a participant in a payment system, insofar as it concerned its dealings with the payment system, would be governed by the insolvency law of the country where the payment system was located, according to the proposed Directive. This would avoid conflicts of law and the ensuing legal uncertainty and thus facilitate cross-border participation in payment systems. Collateral security is pledged by the participants in a payment system in order to secure its exposures against the other participants. When collateral security is provided in a cross-border arrangement, its realisation in case of default of the pledging participant can be hindered by conflicts of law which may either weaken the collateral security or even render it unenforceable. In order to ensure collateral security can be realised immediately and in priority over all other creditors (so as not to jeopardise the liquidity of the other participants in the system, i.e. to avoid systemic risk) in the case of a defaul ...