Traduction de «mucopolysaccharidose de type iii » (Français → Anglais) :

mucopolysaccharidosis type I | mucopolysaccharidosis type I S | Scheie syndrome | MPS I S [Abbr.]

Hurler-Scheie syndrome | mucopolysaccharidosis type I | mucopolysaccharidosis type I H/S | MPS I-H/S [Abbr.]

mucopolysaccharidosis type VII | Sly disease | Sly syndrome | MPS VII [Abbr.]

Beta-glucuronidase deficiency Mucopolysaccharidosis, types III, IV, VI, VII Syndrome:Maroteaux-Lamy (mild)(severe) | Morquio(-like)(classic) | Sanfilippo (type B)(type C)(type D)

mucopolysaccharidosis IH [ Hurler's syndrome | Hurler-Pfaundler syndrome ]

type III hypersensitivity reaction [ soluble immune-complex reaction | immune complex mediated hypersensitivity | toxic precipitin reaction ]

type III hypersensitivity reaction | soluble immune-complex reaction | immune complex mediated hypersensitivity | toxic precipitating reaction

Mucopolysaccharidosis, type II

oil show analyzer

Glutaraldehyde has been evaluated in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) for use in product-type 2, private area and public health area disinfectants and other biocidal products, product-type 3, veterinary hygiene biocidal products, product-type 4, food and feed area disinfectants, product-type 6, in-can preservatives, product-type 11, preservatives for liquid-cooling and processing systems, and product-type 12, slimicides, as defined in Annex V to that Directive, which correspond respectively to product-types 2, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12 as defined in Annex V to Regulation (EU) N ...[+++]o 528/2012.

Question No. 723 Scott Simms: With respect to boat operator licenses issued in the Atlantic provinces by Transport Canada: (a) for each license issued since 2009, (i) on what date was each license issued, (ii) who were the owners or operators, (iii) under what conditions, if any, for the use, retention, or renewal of the license was it issued; (b) for each vessel whose license was suspended, rejected, or for which a renewal was denied, (i) on what date was the license suspended, rejected, or the renewal denied, (ii) for what reason(s), (iii) on whose authority, (iv) what are the file numbers of all relevant ministerial briefings or depa ...[+++]rtmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, broken down by minister or department, relevant file number, correspondence or file type, date, purpose, origin, intended destination, other officials copied or involved; (c) what are the specific rules for the retention or renewal of any such license; (d) what are all rules, files, and correspondence related to observer and dockside monitoring of these license-holders and users, broken down by (i) all relevant file numbers, (ii) entities, companies, contractors, or individuals, (iii) minister or department, (iv) correspondence or file type, (v) date, (vi) purpose, (vii) origin, (viii) intended destination, (ix) other officials copied or involved, (x) military base, asset, or facility, (xi) type of activity or contract; (e) what differences exist in the conditions for licenses between different regions, zones, or provinces; and (f) what are the rules specific to keeping as opposed to releasing fish caught on boats used for recreational or touristic purposes, broken down by province and number of applicable licensees?

(Return tabled) Question No. 4 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to international treaties and conventions dealing in whole or in part with human rights and with Canada’s international obligations in this regard: (a) does the government have any formal or informal procedures for regular review of those international human rights treaties that Canada has not yet signed, ratified, or otherwise accepted; (b) does the government have any formal or informal guidelines according to which it determines whether the specific obligations contained in a treaty or other international undertaking conflicts with the Constitution Act, 1867, and if so where can these guidelines be accessed; (c) do the guidelines referred to in (b) specify the standard accor ...[+++]ding to which the government determines if any obligation contained in a treaty or other international undertaking violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867; (d) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD); (e) does the government have any formal or informal guidelines according to which it determines whether the specific obligations contained in a treaty or other international undertaking require implementing legislation in order for Canada to be able to ratify or otherwise accept it, and if so where can these guidelines be accessed; (f) does the government have a position as to whether international agreements that establish a complaints mechanism or communications procedure for enforcement of the rights and obligations contained therein are necessarily unconstitutional; (g) does the government have a policy as to whether Canada will accept such agreements referred to in (f); (h) does the government undergo review of proposed international human rights agreements that would establish such a mechanism or procedure referred to in (f) on a case by case basis, (i) who is involved in this review, (ii) are the provinces and other inte ...

That number must also make it possible to determine whether the transmission relates to a request for taking charge (type 1), a request for taking back (type 2), a request for information (type 3), an exchange of information on the child, sibling or parent of an applicant in a situation of dependency (type 4), an exchange of information on the family, sibling or relative of an unaccompanied minor (type 5), the transmission of information prior to a transfer (type 6) or the transmission of the common health certificate (type 7)’.