|
Exempt from Pre-Publication
and Approved
|
Statutory Authority
&
Regulatory Plan Listing
|
|
Migratory Birds
Regulations, Annual Amendments
(SOR/97-364,
OIC 1997-1020)
The amendment modifies Schedule I of the Regulations
to establish hunting season dates for 1997, the number of
migratory game birds that may be taken or possessed
during those dates, and to re-define certain hunting
districts.
Declining numbers of migrant Atlantic Population
Canada Geese are being protected by a closed season in
parts of Quebec and southeastern Ontario. Experimental
early and late goose seasons are being expanded in parts
of southern Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia to take
advantage of the rapidly growing populations of temperate
breeding Canada Geese. Restrictive regulations already in
place for Southern James Bay Population Canada Geese are
being maintained. Additional white geese (Snow and Ross)
in the daily bag are being permitted in Quebec and in the
western provinces where those populations have increased
steadily.
Because most western duck populations have responded
well to favourable climatic variables in recent years,
and are at or near their populations goals, restrictions
are being removed where possible. Moderate restrictions
remain in place for northern pintails which are still
below the population goal.
|
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, section
12
EC/97
To be published in Canada Gazette August 6, 1997
|
|
In eastern Canada restrictions remain in place for
scoters and black ducks. New evidence suggesting that
common eiders are declining is being addressed by early
closing of the hunting season in Newfoundland.
By the opening of the 1997 hunting season, the
possession and use of any shot other than non-toxic shot
for migratory game bird hunting will be prohibited in
Canada, except for the hunting of three species of
migratory upland game birds (woodcock, band-tailed
pigeons and mourning doves). Non-toxic shot is defined as
steel shot, tungsten-iron shot, bismuth shot, or
tungsten-polymer shot. This prohibition is being
instituted in response to mounting scientific evidence of
the harmful effects of lead on wildlife.
Contacts: Lisa Quiring, Regulatory Analyst,
Program, Analysis and Coordination Division, Canadian
Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 0H3. Tel: 819-997-1272. Stephen Wendt, Chief,
Migratory Birds Conservation Division, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3.
Tel: 819-953-1422.
|
|
|
Income Tax Regulations
(Parts XI and LXXXII and Schedule II), amendments
(SOR/97-377,
OIC 1997-1033)
These amendments to the Income Tax Regulations concern
changes to accelerated capital cost allowances in respect
of pollution abatement equipment (Classes 24 and 27) and
certain energy conservation equipment (Class 34 and new
Class 43.1). Most of these changes emanate from the
budget of February 22, 1994, and were released in draft
form on September 27, 1994 (Finance Canada Press Release
94-084).
More specifically, these amendments:
- restrict the accelerated CCA rate for pollution
abatement equipment described in Classes 24 and 27 to
such equipment acquired before 1999;
- terminate all additions to Class 34 effective for
property acquired after February 21, 1994, subject to
transitional relief for property that was under
construction by or on behalf of the taxpayer before
February 22, 1994 and property acquired by the
taxpayer pursuant to a written agreement of purchase
and sale entered into by the taxpayer before February
22, 1994;
- provide a 30% declining balance CCA rate for all
acquisitions after February 21, 1994 of certain types
of energy conservation equipment used in Canada,
generally, to generate electricity (new Class 43.1);
- extend the 30% declining balance CCA rate to the
following types of property acquired for use in Canada
after February 21, 1994 (new Class 43.1);
- enhanced combined cycle equipment at compressor
stations located on a natural gas pipeline,
- photovoltaic equipment and geothermal energy
equipment, used primarily for the purpose of
generating electricity;
- equipment used primarily for the purpose of
collecting landfill gas from an eligible landfill site
or digester gas from an eligible sewage treatment
facility.
- amend Class 8 to clarify that it does not apply to
property included in Class 1. Class 1 was amended as a
consequence of the 1987 tax reform to apply to certain
property previously included in Class 2 to which Class
8 also cannot apply.
|
Income Tax Act, section 221
FIN/96-31-M; FIN/96-35-L
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
- revise paragraph (b) of Class 43 (30% CCA rate) to
eliminate an election in respect of property used to
process foreign ore in Canada and included in Class
41. Given that such property is not eligible for the
additional capital cost allowance that applies to
Class 41 property (25% CCA rate), there is no reason
to elect to include property in Class 41.
- amend subsection 1100(26) of the Regulations to
include corporations whose principal business is
manufacturing or processing or mining in the list of
taxpayers exempted from the application of subsection
1100(24) of the Regulations. Subsection 1100(24)
limits the amount that may be deducted in respect of
specified energy property to the amount of a
taxpayer's income from specified energy property.
Subsection 1100(24) prevents taxpayers to whom it
applies from sheltering income from other sources
using the accelerated capital cost allowance available
for specified energy property. This change emanates
from the budget of March 6, 1996.
The budget of February 1994 estimated that the
amendments enacting new class 43.1 would result in
additional revenues of $80 million during the period
encompassing fiscal period 1994-95 to fiscal period
1996-97. The budget of March 1996 estimated that the
amendments to the specified energy property rules would
have no revenue impact in fiscal period 1996-97, and
would reduce revenue raised through business taxation by
$5 million during fiscal period 1997-98 and $10 million
during 1998-99.
Contact: Kerry Harnish, Tax Legislation Division,
Department of Finance, 140 O'Connor Street, 17th Floor,
East Tower Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0G5. Tel:
613-992-4385.
|
|
|
Technical Amendments Order (Customs Tariff), No. 8
(SOR/97-378,
OIC 1997-1034; Technical Amendments Remission Order
(SOR/97-379,
OIC 1997-1035)
The Technical Amendments Order (Customs Tariff),
No. 8 amends Schedules I and II of the Customs
Tariff. The amendments correct minor technical errors
(i.e. numerical or typographical errors) identified by
the Department of Finance and the Department of National
Revenue. In addition, the Order would re-instate the
Australia/New Zealand treatment associated with six
tariff items since these were inadvertently deleted
effective January 1, 1997.
The Technical Amendments Remission Order grants
the remission of customs duties on certain tariff items
which are amended in the Technical Amendments Order
(Customs Tariff), No. 8 in order to meet Canada's
international obligations. Specifically, the
Australia/New Zealand rates are amended retroactive to
Jan. 1, 1997 and the tariff treatment for video camera
lenses is being made retroactive to Jan. 1, 1996.
Contact: Deborah Hoeg, International Trade Policy
Division, Department of Finance, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A
0G5. Tel: 613-996-7099.
|
Customs Tariff, section 12.1; Customs
Tariff, section 101
FIN/97-15; FIN/97-13
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Prohibition of Entry on Certain Lands in the Yukon
Order (1977 - No. 3, Dawson First Nation, Y.T.)
(SOR/97-380, OIC 1997-1036); Order Respecting the
Withdrawal from Disposal of Certain Lands in the Yukon
Territory (Dawson First Nation, Y.T.)
(SI/97-93, OIC
1997-1063)
The Orders repeal the existing Prohibition of Entry on
Certain Lands Order, No. 6 of 1995, made by Order in
Council P.C. 1995-712 of May 2, 1995 and substitutes a
new Order. The changes follow the selection of new lands
by the Dawson First Nation.
|
Yukon Placer Mining Act, section 98; Yukon
Quartz Mining Act, section 14.1
INAC/R-1-I
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
The new Prohibition of Entry on Certain Lands Order
will be effective on the date it comes into force and
will end on December 31, 2001.
Contact: Ian Sneddon, Chief, Land Management
Division, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 10
Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H4; Tel:
819-997-9090; Fax: 819-953-2590.
|
|
|
Statutory Instruments Regulations (Miscellaneous
Program), amendment
(SOR/97-381,
OIC 1997-1037)
This amendment repeals a provision that exempted
standing orders made by the Commissioner of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police from the registration
requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act. As
a result of the amendment, all future Commissioner's
standing orders will be subject to the examination,
registration and publication requirements of that Act.
The amendment is being made in response to concerns
raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny
of Regulations. It has been determined that
Commissioner's standing orders are no longer so numerous
as to warrant continued exemption from the above-noted
requirements.
Contact: Jacques Desjardins, General Counsel,
Regulations Section, Department of Justice, 222 Queen
Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8. Tel: 613-957-0087; Fax:
613-941-1193.
|
Statutory Instruments Act
Not included in Regulatory Plan
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Application of Provincial
Laws Regulations, amendment
(SOR/97-382,
OIC 1997-1038)
This amendment deems all contraventions in respect of
any unlawful parking, standing or stopping of a vehicle
on a federal property to have been committed in a
municipality designated by regulations under Part II of
the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario. It
provides for further modifications to that statute to
allay concerns of possible terminological ambiguities and
eliminates an inconsistency in the French version.
While federal properties are spread throughout
Ontario, the bulk of contraventions relating to parking
are committed at federal airports, on federal properties
situated in the National Capital Region and on National
Defence bases.
The Contraventions Act, passed in October 1992,
provides for the establishment of a contravention scheme
as an alternative procedure to the Criminal Code process.
In response to provincial and territorial concerns about
being faced with a new set of procedures that would
differ from their respective offence schemes, and in
order to avoid unnecessary duplication, Parliament
amended the Act in May 1996.
Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario and the
City of Ottawa were consulted extensively during the
development of this amendment to the regulations.
Contact: Michel Gagnon, Director, Contraventions
Project, Department of Justice, 344 Wellington Street,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8. Tel: 613-998-5669; Fax:
613-998-1175.
|
Contraventions Act
JUS/97-2-I
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Insurable Earnings and Collection of Premium
Regulations, amendment
(SOR/97-383,
OIC 1997-1039)
The amendments to section 3 of the Regulations provide
the ranges of insurable earnings used in preparing the
tables to reflect the revised premium rate for 1997 as
established by the Employment Insurance Act. For
employees, there will be a decrease in premiums due to a
reduction in the premium rate from $2.95 to $2.90 per
$100 of insurable earnings.
|
Employment Insurance Act, sections 82 and 108
RC/R-22-L
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
The changes will permit employers to determine the
amounts of employee premiums required to be remitted to
Revenue Canada in accordance with the tables prepared
under the rules.
Contact: Richard Montroy, Legislative Policy
Division, Revenue Canada, 875 Heron Road, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A 0L5. Tel: 613-952-6479.
|
|
|
Canada Pension Plan Regulations (1997 tables),
amendment
(SOR/97-384,
OIC 1997-1040)
These amendments change the amount of the employee's
contribution required under the Canada Pension Plan for a
specific pay period.
They prescribe an "employee's maximum contribution"
for 1997 to be $944.78 due to the increases in the
employees' contribution rate from 2.8% to 2.925% for
1997, and the year's maximum pensionable earnings from
$35,400 to $35,800. The revisions to the employee's basic
exemption are required by section 20 of the Plan which
sets an exemption of 10% of the year's maximum
pensionable earnings.
Employers are required to match employee
contributions, and affected self-employed persons are
required to contribute $1,889.55 in 1997 as compared with
$1,786.40 for 1996.
In addition, the amounts in Schedule I to the
Regulations are revised to reflect the 1997 increases in
the employees' contribution rate to 2.925% and in the
year's maximum pensionable earnings to $35,800. Annual
increases in the employees' contribution rate are
provided for in the schedule to subsection 11.1(2) of the
Plan.
Contact: Richard Montroy, Legislative Policy
Division, Revenue Canada, 875 Heron Road, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A 0L5. Tel: 613-952-6479.
|
Canada Pension Plan, subsection 21(1) and
section 40
RC/R-19-L
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Income Tax Regulations (1997 tables), amendment
(SOR/97-385,
OIC 1997-1041)
Schedule VIII to the Income Tax Regulations
lists universities outside Canada, the student body of
which ordinarily includes students from Canada. Donations
to these universities qualify as charitable donations for
income tax purposes. These amendments add to that list
the names of additional universities which have been
found to qualify and deletes those that no longer
qualify.
The amendments will permit corporate taxpayers who
make donations to the universities added to the list by
the amendments to deduct the donations in calculating
their taxable income. Donations by an individual will be
eligible for a tax credit which will reduce the
individual's tax liability.
Contact: Richard Montroy, Legislative Policy
Division, Revenue Canada, 875 Heron Road, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A 0L5. Tel: 613-952-6479.
|
Canada Pension Plan, subsection 21(1) and
section 40
RC/R-19-L
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Certain Department of Transport Regulations
(Miscellaneous Program), No. 1, amendment
(SOR/97-386,
OIC 1997-1042)
This amendments involve non-substantive changes to the
regulations listed below; they also deal with issues
raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny
of Regulations (SJC).
More specifically:
- Under the General Pilotage Regulations,
changes the incorrect reference in subsection 4(1)
of the regulations to paragraph 22(1)(b) of the
Pilotage Act. (editorial)
|
Aeronautics Act, Canada Shipping Act, Hamilton
Harbour Commissioners Act, Department of Transport Act,
Pilotage Act
Not included in Regulatory Plan
To be published in Canada Gazette Aug. 20, 1997
|
- Under the Ships Registration Forms Regulations,
as a result of the transfer of the Canadian Coast
Guard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the
forms have been replaced to reflect Marine Safety,
Department of Transport, to incorporate the new design
for the Canadian Coat of Arms and to deal with issues
raised by the SJC.
- Under the Fort Resolution Airport Zoning
Regulations, corrects a discrepancy between the
French and English versions of paragraph (b) of Part
II of the Schedule by adding the word "associé"
(SJC)
- Under the Crew Accommodation Regulations,
adds subsection 13(1.1) and amends the table by
deleting the words "per inspection" from the heading
in Column III to clarify the intention of the fees
charged relative to the hours worked. (SJC)
- Under the Dangerous Bulk Materials
Regulations, adds subsection 11(2.1) and amends
the table by deleting the words "per inspection" from
the heading in Column III to clarify the intention of
the fees charged relative to the hours worked. (SJC)
- Under the Dangerous Goods Shipping
Regulations, adds subsection 19(2.1) and amends
the table by deleting the words "per inspection" from
the heading in Column III to clarify the intention of
the fees charged relative to the hours worked. (SJC)
- Under the Hamilton Harbour Cargo Rates Tariff
By-Law, corrects an error in the French version of
paragraph 4 (1) (a); (editorial); amends paragraphs
4(1)(b) and 5(1) (b) by adding the words "or secure
all such rates to the satisfaction of the Corporation"
(SJC); and amends subsection 7 (2) by adding the words
"in writing" before "within seven days" and by
replacing the words "report and manifest referred to
in section 5" with "manifest or report referred to in
paragraph 5(1)(a)" (SJC).
Contact: Sherill Besser, Senior Counsel, Transport
Canada, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5. Tel:
613-993-4554.
|
|
|
Canadian Wheat Board
Regulations, amendment
(SOR/97-361,
OIC 1997-987)
The amendment establishes a higher initial payment for
the base grades of wheat (an increase of $10 per metric
tonne), amber durum wheat (an increase of $30) and
designated barley (an increase of $25 per metric tonne)
for the 1996-97 crop year.
If producers deliver to the pool accounts 18.8 million
tonnes of wheat, 4.1 million tonnes of amber durum wheat
and 2.3 million tonnes of designated barley during the
1996-97 crop year, the initial payment adjustments would
represent about $350 million in additional grain receipts
for wheat and barley producers.
Contact: Craig Fulton,
Commerce Office, Grains and Oilseeds Division,
International and Industry Services Branch, Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Sir John Carling Building, 930
Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C5. Tel:
613-759-7698; Fax: 613-759-7499.
|
Canadian Wheat Board Act,
sections 32, 47 and 61; Canadian Wheat Board
Regulations, section 9
Not included in Regulatory Plan
To be published in Canada Gazette August 6, 1997
|
|
Boat Restriction
Regulations, amendment
(SOR/97-393,
OIC 1997-1081)
These amendments are required to allow boating on two
lakes in Quebec and to correct or clarify other
provisions. The Quebec lakes were inadvertently included
with a schedule of lakes upon which boating is
prohibited. The other amendments are of a minor,
housekeeping nature.
Contact: Jean Pontbriand, Office of Boating Safety,
Canadian Coast Guard, 9th floor, 344 Slater Street,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N7. Tel: 613-998-1433; Fax:
613-996-8902.
|
Canada Shipping Act, subsections 562(2) - (4)
F&O/R-3-L
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Protection of the Income
of Milk Producers Regulations (1996)
(SOR/97-394,
OIC 1997-1088)
The regulations established a phase-out of the dairy
subsidy over five years, as announced in the March 1996
federal budget.
More specifically, the regulation provides for the
authority by which to establish the rate according to
following schedule:
- August 1, 1996 to January 31, 1998, $1.05525 per
kg of butterfat;
- February 1, 1998 to January 31, 1999, $0.84420 per
kg of butterfat;
- February 1, 1999 to January 31, 2000, $0.63315 per
kg of butterfat;
- February 1, 2000 to January 31, 2001, $0.42210 per
kg of butterfat;
- February 1, 2001 to January 31, 2002, $0.21105 per
kg of butterfat.
The regulation shifts the subsidy reduction schedule
back by six months, something that both producers and
processors agreed to. They indicated that it is much
easier to pass on price changes in February than in
August. This delay would also create needed price
stability in the dairy sector until early 1999.
Postponing the schedule is estimated to cost the
department $15.6 million toward the end of the five year
phase-out of the subsidy.
The most recent regulations for the dairy program were
made under SOR/96-295.
Contact: Léo Curtin, Marketing Policy
Division, Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Sir John Carling Building, 930 Carling Avenue,
Room 621, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C5. Tel: 613-759-7362;
Fax: 613-759-7239.
|
Farm Income Protection Act
Agr/96/R-13-I
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Pre-Published and Approved
With comments or changes
|
Statutory Authority
&
Regulatory Plan Listing
|
|
Ruminant Ingredient Feed
Ban (I.D. No. 96024)
(SOR/97-362,
OIC 1997-1018)
This amendment, designed to protect Canadians from
bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE), prohibits anyone from feeding to
ruminant animals, mammalian material with the exception
of material from swine and equines.
The amendment also requires that imported cooked,
canned meat and cooked, canned meat by-products originate
from countries that are free of BSE, or when standards
are agreed to, that they have been treated to destroy the
disease agent.
More specifically, the importation of canned bovine
(beef) meat products is prohibited from the U.K.,
Ireland, France, Portugal, and Switzerland. During the
past two years, only a small volume of such product has
been imported into Canada with a value of approximately
$340,000.00.
The amendment also bans the use of ingredients of
ruminant and mink origin, with the exception of milk,
blood, gelatin, rendered fats and their products (the
exempted products pose no known risk for the transmission
of BSE).The amendment also revokes section 41.1(1)(b).
This means that canned meat will
no longer be exempted from the import requirements of the
Health of Animals Regulations. Canned meat will
not be allowed to enter Canada from countries that are
not recognized as being free of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE).
The regulation requires renderers, feed manufacturers,
and importers to state on the labels of livestock and
poultry feed whether it contains material of ruminant
origin and whether it can be fed to ruminants. It
includes specific requirements for rendering plant
operators and importers of rendered material, as well as
those involved in the manufacture, importation and sale
of livestock feed and feed ingredients.
More specifically, the proposed amendment requires
rendering plants in Canada to operate under the
conditions of a permit issued under the Health of Animals
Regulations and stipulates that labels must identify if
rendered products contain prohibited material from
ruminants or mink. Similar controls are placed on the
importation of rendered material.
Manufacturers must state on the labels of livestock
and poultry feed whether or not it contains material of
ruminant origin. Renderers and feed manufacturers will
also be required to keep records of both the content of
feeds and the purchasers.
Specific regulatory requirements are outlined for
rendering plant operators and importers of rendered
material as well as those involved in the manufacture,
importation, and sale of livestock feed and feed
ingredients.
The Government intends to discuss, at a later date,
the issue of cost recovery fee relating to the above
regulatory activities.
The incorporation of rendered
ruminant protein from BSE-infected cattle into cattle
feed is considered the means by which the BSE epidemic
spread in the United Kingdom (U.K.). The export of
infected cattle feed from the U.K. to Europe is also
thought to have been responsible for the introduction of
BSE to other European countries such as Switzerland,
which has reported 225 cases, none of which are in
imported cattle.
The proposals are in response to steps being taken by
Canada's major trading partners implementing similar
legislation, in particular the issue of a proposed rule
by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration on January 3, 1997. This rule proposes to
ban the feeding of animal protein derived from ruminant
and mink tissues to ruminants and could be implemented by
spring 1997.
|
Health of Animals Act,
S. C. 1 990, c. 21
Not included in Regulatory Plan
To be published in Canada Gazette August 6, 1997
|
|
The Government is concerned that if Canada does not
have similar legislation in place, major trade
disruptions in the movement of commodities of ruminant
origin could result.
The U.S. accounts for virtually all Canadian exports
of slaughter animals and beef. Exports to the rest of the
world, mostly high-quality beef, averaged only about
6,000 tonnes over this period. Canada's imports of
low-quality beef used mainly in manufacturing originated
in Oceania (96,000 tonnes). High-quality beef imported
into eastern Canada came largely from the U.S. (85,000
tonnes). On average, Canadian imports of beef have been
slightly higher than its beef exports. The expansion in
slaughter capacity in Alberta is expected to further
reduce exports of slaughter animals and substantially
increase exports of beef.
The proposed regulations were prepublished in the
Canada Gazette, Part I on March 29, 1997 (see
Regulatory Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 1-2, March
29, 1997).
As a result of a change in the U.S. final rule and
comments from industry, the proposed regulation was
amended to extend the feeding ban to mammalian material
with the exception of swine and equines. Porcine and
equines have been exempted from the definition of
prohibited material because neither species has been
documented to be affected by a naturally occurring
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy(TSE). Dedicated
slaughtering facilities do exist for these two species
making it possible to produce rendered material that is
purely sourced.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency received many
comments pertaining to the wording of the labeling
required on both ruminant and non-ruminant livestock
feeds. Industry expressed a strong desire not to have
'negative' labeling. A common concern was that the word
'ruminant' would not be understood by everyone. After
further discussions with representatives of the rendering
and feed manufacturing industries the Agency removed the
requirement.to label feed or rendered material which does
not contain prohibited material.
A new requirement (subsection 170) has been added to
the regulation requiring prevention of contamination of
animal feed for ruminants with prohibited material during
mixing and storage.
The Agency was asked to clarify the implementation of
requirements relating to labelling, record keeping
requirements and permit issuance. The Feed manufacturing
and Rendering industries will be permitted to modify
labels by means of stickers or other methods provided the
additional information provided is legible and indelible.
Stickers will be allowed to apply the required labelling.
Feed mills will be required to maintain records of direct
distribution and sales. Records of further distribution
and sales are the responsibility of the recipient of the
first transaction and so on. The system for issuance of
permits for rendering operations will take into
consideration any existing systems, duplication will be
avoided where-ever possible.
Contact: Dr. G. Clarke,
Meat and Poultry Products Division, Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Court, Nepean, Ontario, K1A
0Y9.Tel: 613-225-2342.
|
|
|
Livestock and Poultry
Carcass Grading Regulations, amendment (Beef standards;
96014)
(SOR/97-368,
OIC 1997-1024)
The amendment updates the national grade standards for
beef carcasses graded in
Canada.
|
Canada Agricultural
Products Act
1997 - Future Initiatives
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
More specifically, the amendment:
- establishes a Canada Prime grade;
- provides the option to knife-rib carcasses on both
sides; and
- provides the option for grading to be performed at
a federally registered processing establishment.
The new Canada Prime grade,
which differs from the Canada AAA grade in that the
required marbling level is at least "slightly abundant"
or more, is equivalent to the USDA Prime grade. All other
grading criteria are the same as for the Canada A/AA/AAA
grades. The new Canada Prime grade will respond primarily
to the needs of the export market and the hotel,
restaurant and institutional (HRI) sector (and help
reduce the need for imports of Prime grade beef from the
U.S.).
Packers will have the option of having those carcasses
eligible for the Canada Prime grade, grade-stamped with
the new grade name or as Canada AAA.
Knife-ribbing is the cutting of the carcass side
between the twelfth and thirteenth ribs to expose the
ribeye muscle so that it can be evaluated by the grader
for colour, marbling and fat thickness. In Canada, the
Regulations specify that the left side of the carcass is
to be knife-ribbed. In the United States, however,
packers are allowed to knife-rib both carcass sides so
that the grader may select the side which results in the
highest grade. This amendment achieves the same effect by
requiring that the left side continue to be knife-ribbed,
as well as permitting packers the option of also
knife-ribbing the right side so that the grader may
evaluate both sides and determine the final grade based
on the best side.
At present, beef carcasses must be graded in the
establishment where the animals were slaughtered. The
establishment may be registered under either the federal
or a provincial meat inspection service. In certain cases
such as where there is inadequate cooler space at the
slaughter establishment, it would be more convenient to
perform the grading at the establishment where the
carcasses are subsequently processed. This amendment
allows beef carcasses from cattle slaughtered in
federally-registered establishments to be graded either
at the establishment of slaughter or in a
federally-registered processing establishment. Grading in
provincially-registered establishments will continue to
be at the establishment of slaughter.
Following prepublication in Part I of the Canada
Gazette on February 15, 1997 (see Regulatory
Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 6, p. 3, February 22, 1997),
only two submissions were received, one from the Canadian
Meat Council and one from the Canadian Beef Grading
Agency. Both submissions supported the Canada Prime grade
and both requested that the necessary changes to
accommodate the industry resolution regarding Canada
Choice be made prior to final publication. In light of
the strong support to allow containers of Canada AAA beef
destined for the export trade to be identified as either
Canada AAA or Canada Choice, the appropriate changes to
section 13 of the Regulations were made.
Contact: Richard
Robinson, Chief, Livestock Identification and
Legislation, Meat and Poultry Products Division, Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0Y9. Tel:
613-952-8000; Fax: 998-0958.
|
|
|
Dairy Products Regulations, amendment (Light
Cheese; 95927)
(SOR/97-369,
OIC 1997-1025)
These amendments revoke a provision of the Dairy
Products Regulations that required the word "style"
to be shown on labels of light cheese after the variety
name, i.e. "Light Cheddar Cheese" instead of "Light
Cheddar Style Cheese". This requirement was introduced
into the Regulations in 1994 to facilitate the marketing
of "light" versions of popular varieties of cheese which
were being promoted by dairy processors. It was felt at
the time that consumers would benefit from this type of
labelling to differentiate between the traditional named
cheese varieties and their "light" versions at a time
when numerous new lifestyle products commonly labelled
"light" or "lite" were coming onto the market.
Food products labelled as "light" or "lite" are
required to have at least a 25% reduction in the
component claimed to be less than that in the regular
form of the food. In the case of light cheese, there is
at least a 25% reduction in fat content.
The National Dairy Council, on behalf of Canadian
dairy processors, proposed the revocation of the
requirement in order to simplify light cheese labelling
and eliminate the misconception the term "style" may give
consumers.
Dairy Farmers of Canada does not support the labelling
change. However, the department consulted the Consumers
Association of Canada (CAC) on November 30, 1995, and the
CAC indicated that the term "style" did not really help
the consumer to make an informed choice and supported its
revocation. The government decided to proceed with the
change.
Contact: Don Crosby, Chief of Legislation, Daily,
Fruit and Vegetable Division, Food Production and
Inspection Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59
Camelot Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0Y9. Tel:
613-952-8000, ext. 4724; Fax: 613-993-8511; e-mail:
dcrosby@em.agr.ca.
|
Canada Agricultural
Products Act
1997 - Future Initiatives
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Livestock and Poultry Carcass Grading Regulations,
amendment (Veal standards; 95009)
(SOR/97-370,
OIC 1997-1026)
Based on the recommendations of an Industry/Government
Veal Grading Committee, the following amendments are
being made to the veal standards in the Regulations:
- to amend the definition of "veal" to increase the
maximum weight from 150 to 190 kg (hide-off), or 165
to 205 kg (hide on);
- to introduce a maximum carcass weight of 167 kg
(hide off) or 182 kg (hide-on) for graded veal
carcasses;
- to maintain the current mandatory carcass marking
requirements for graded carcasses weighing less than
150 kg (hide-off) or 165 kg (hide-on), and permit
optional carcass grade stamping for the heavier graded
carcasses; and
- to modify slightly the carcass muscling
requirements for the Canada A and Canada B grades by
deleting the shoulder assessment.
The change allows the Ontario veal industry to market
heavier graded veal carcasses; under the previous
regulations, all carcasses over 150 kg must be labelled
as beef.
The proposed regulations were prepublished in the
Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 3, 1996. As a result,
several changes have been reflected in the final approved
regulations.
|
Canada Agricultural
Products Act, R.S., c. 20 (4th Supp.)
Agr/96-6-L
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
For example, a sunset date of January 1, 2001 has been
established for the maximum weight in the definition of
veal. Another change is the removal of the option to
grade stamp veal carcasses between 165 and 182 kg
(hide-on). The maximum grade stamping weight remains at
165 kg which is the status quo. As well, the maximum
hide-off weight in the definition of veal has been
reduced from 190 to 180 kg and from 167 to 165 kg for
graded veal carcasses.
Contact: Richard Robinson, Chief, Livestock
Identification and Legislation, Meat and Poultry Products
Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot
Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0Y9. Tel: 613-952-8000, ext.
4724; Fax: 613-998-0958.
|
|
|
Immigration Appeal Division Rules, amendment
(SOR/97-363,
OIC 1997-1019)
These amendments address a number of procedural
shortcomings, and contain a number of minor
clarifications and simplifications, as well as certain
style and terminology changes.
Included are changes to the Rules designed to make
them more comprehensive. Examples include:
- the Appeal Division is to be notified when parties
are going to raise constitutional questions [Rule
27.1]
- the circumstances in which a person is deemed to
be counsel of record for a party, other than the
Minister, have been set out; counsel ceases to be
counsel of record when the party notifies the Appeal
Division, pursuant to Rule 36, that that particular
counsel no longer represents the party; in all other
cases, counsel of record must apply to the Appeal
Division, together with an affidavit setting out the
grounds, in order to be removed as counsel of record
[Rule 30.1]
- the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) may now
order that service be dispensed with, if the Appeal
Division has made reasonable efforts to locate the
party [Rule 35(4.1)]
- the addition of a specific reference in the
hearings role to the Appeal Division's holding of
hearings via electronic means, such as
videoconferencing [Rule 25]
- for both the time limits role and the general role
regarding non-compliance, the Appeal Division may make
an order on its own motion as well as on the
application of a party [Rules 38, 40]
- counsel is to advise the Appeal Division when a
designated representative may be necessary [Rule 11.1]
- service of documents by courier is added [Rule
35(1)]
Other examples of changes designed to streamline the
process include:
- the Rules now require that the material that is
disclosed is also to be filed at the registry; this
allows decision-makers to be more fully prepared in
advance of a hearing [Rules 18,19]
- with regard to both the appeal of a removal order
or conditional removal order made by an adjudicator,
the Rules provide for service of the notice of appeal
on the adjudicator at the conclusion of the inquiry,
or filing at the Adjudication Division registry; this
is a change from the previous role which required
filing at the Appeal Division registry; it is easier
for a person to serve or file a notice of appeal at
the Adjudication Division registry; it also improves
efficiency as the notice of appeal is filed where the
documentation is already located, which reduces delays
in the preparation of a record [Rule 6]
|
Immigration Act, subsection 65(1)
IRB/94-2-L
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
- with regard to the appeal of a refusal to approve
a sponsored application for landing, the Rules provide
for the filing of the notice of appeal at the Appeal
Division registry, with service thereof on the
Minister by the registrar; this is a change from the
previous role which required service of the notice of
appeal on an immigration officer. There is the
addition of the requirement that the sponsor file with
the notice of appeal, a copy of the notice of refusal,
wherever practicable; this will reduce delays in the
processing of appeals [Rule 10]
- an amendment provides for the filing of only one
certified copy of the record at the registry, instead
of the current three copies; this takes into account
the fact that most appeals are now heard by
single-member panels [Rules 7, 9, 11]
- the format of the change of venue rule has been
changed to resemble that of the rule on postponements
and adjournments: the Appeal Division, in determining
whether to grant a change of venue, may take into
consideration certain factors [Rule 12(2)]
- the rules for the provision of a certified true
copy of the record, and the filing at the registry,
specify time frames within which these acts must be
carried out, which time frames can be modified upon
application by a party [Rules 7, 9, 11]
- with regard to appeals of removal orders or
conditional removal orders, or appeals by the
Minister, an amendment clarifies that the record does
not include any proceedings before an adjudicator
which relate to detention, as these proceedings are
not part of the appeal [Rules 7, 9]
- the rule regarding appeals from a refusal to
approve a sponsored application for landing is
clarified to show that the 30-day filing period does
not begin to run until the sponsor has been informed
of the reasons for the refusal in writing by the
Minister [Rule 10(1)]
- the terminology in the summons role has been
changed to clarify that a Rule 26 application is not
required [Rule 23]
- the rule regarding Notices to Appear is clarified
to show that it does not apply to a conference or
hearing that has been postponed [Rule 14(2.1)]
- the description of the material that is disclosed
in advance of a hearing is simplified and enlarged;
the party must disclose the number of witnesses they
intend to call, and the reasons for which each witness
will be called; the reply rule has been changed to
clarify that it applies to replies to documentary
evidence filed by the other party, in the form of
other documentary evidence and not in the form of
submissions [Rule 18]
- the rule setting out the material that is
disclosed at a conference corresponds with the
comparable rule for material that is disclosed in
advance of a hearing [Rule 17]
- the description of the information that is
included in an application is enlarged; the rule is
also clarified to indicate that it only applies to
those applications specifically referenced to in the
rule [Rule 26]
- the general proof of service rule is repealed, and
the motions rule is amended to require proof of
service to be filed at the registry; the general proof
of service rule was not being complied with, and in
most cases, proof of service was not necessary; with
this change,
- those situations where proof of service is
required are clearly set out in the Rules [Rules
35(6),27(3)(b)]
|
|
- the rules regarding motions to reinstate and
motions to reopen are amended to include a requirement
that a party, other than the Minister, if not
represented by counsel, include in the motion the
party's address and telephone number; the party may
have moved since the final decision or withdrawal of
the appeal, and may not have provided the Appeal
Division with a current address [Rules 31, 32]
- the rule regarding an application for
confidentiality is amended to allow for a non-party to
apply to be made an intervenor in that application
[Rule 20(2)]
- the role regarding notification of the Appeal
Division by a party of a change in the information
regarding the party's counsel has been clarified, to
indicate that a party is also required to notify the
Appeal Division when a party ceases to be represented
by counsel [Rule 36]
A suggestion was made by the Canadian Bar Association
to specify that the 30-day filing period after the day on
which a sponsor has been informed of the reasons for a
refusal does not begin to run until the sponsor has been
so notified in writing by the Minister [Rule 10(1)]. This
suggestion has been incorporated into the final approved
regulations. It was also agreed to delete the criterion
of legitimate purpose in the rule regarding applications
for a change of venue [Rule 12(2)].
Contact: Philip Palmer, General Counsel,
Immigration and Refugee Board, 240 Bank Street, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A 0K1. Tel: 613-995-2815; Fax: 613-947-5629;
E-mail:
ppalmer@magi.com.
|
|
|
Minority Investment (Banks) Regulations
(SOR/97-371,
OIC 1997-1027); Minority Investment (Cooperative Credit
Associations) Regulations
(SOR/97-372,
OIC 1997-1028); Minority Investment (Insurance Companies)
Regulations
(SOR/97-373,
OIC 1997-1029); Minority Investment (Trust and Loan
Companies) Regulations
(SOR/97-374,
OIC 1997-1030)
The Regulations are designed to enhance financial
institutions' ability to make less-than-controlling
investments in permitted entities (e.g., joint venture
arrangements), making it easier to enter into alliances,
enter new markets and compete more effectively.
As well, the Regulations will eliminate the limit on
equity investments and increase the aggregate limit on
investments, loans and guarantees to 50% of regulatory
capital. This change will provide additional capacity for
financial institutions to take advantage of new joint
venture opportunities while retaining a prudential limit
on such investments.
These investments would continue to be subject to
regulatory approval and appropriate assurances to the
Superintendent on access to information on the joint
venture where necessary.
The government announced its intention to amend these
regulations as part of the 1997 Review of the Financial
Sector legislation.
Currently, federally regulated financial institutions
(FRFIs) are required to have legal control of certain
entities in which they are permitted to have a
substantial investment. These entities include
investments in Canadian and foreign financial
institutions, financial leasing, factoring, specialized
financing and financial holding corporations.
An exemption from the general requirement to control
entities is provided by the Minority Investment
Regulations.
|
Bank Act, Cooperative Credit Associations Act,
Insurance Companies Act, Trust and Loan Companies Act
OSFI/97-1-L
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
The Regulations allow for such corporate joint venture
equity investments under the following conditions:
- the FRFI controls the joint venture even though it
does not have legal control,
- the investment is in a foreign financial
institution and is regulated under the laws of the
foreign jurisdiction,
- the FRFI's aggregate equity investments in all
such joint ventures do not exceed 10% of its
regulatory capital; and
- the total of the FRFI's equity investments plus
all loans and guarantees extended to such joint
ventures do not exceed 25% of its regulatory capital.
Contact: Normand Bergevin, Senior Officer,
Legislation and Precedents Division, Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions, 255 Albert
Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H2. Tel: 613-990-5986; Fax:
613-998-6716.
|
|
|
Confederation Bridge Area Provincial (P.E.I.) Laws
Application Regulations
(SOR/97-375,
OIC 1997-1031)
The regulations provide for the application of the
laws of Prince Edward Island on and about the portion of
the Confederation Bridge that is outside of any province.
While federal law, including the Criminal Code,
applies to the Bridge because it is located within
Canada, federal law is not sufficiently broad to deal
with all types of situations.
The regulations provide a definition of the
"Confederation Bridge Area".
The Oceans Act provides for Prince Edward
Island court jurisdiction with respect to provincial laws
extended by these Regulations.
Highway traffic rules and their policing are being
dealt with by separate regulations under the
Government Property Traffic Act.
Contact: Jason Reiskind, Counsel, Justice Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8. Tel: 613-957-7464; Fax:
613-941-1971.
|
Oceans Act
Not included in Regulatory Plan
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Motor Vehicle Safety
Regulations, amendment (Vehicle Emissions, Sections 1100
to 1105)
(SOR/97-376,
OIC 1997-1032)
This amendment to the Motor Vehicle Safety
Regulations introduces more stringent
emission standards for
light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, heavy-duty vehicles and motorcycles.
The changes would harmonize Canadian emission
standards with those applicable in the United States
under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) federal emissions program.
The new requirements become effective with the 1998
model year vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
1997, with the exception of diesel-fuelled vehicles which
apply to vehicles produced on or after January 1, 1998.
Companies have the option of certifying 1998 model year
vehicles built before the above dates to the new emission
standards.
The amendments ensure that Canadian emission standards
continued to be in harmony with the U.S. for subsequent
model years.
Recognizing that motor vehicles continue to be a major
source of Canada's air pollution, the
Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment (CCME) established the
"Task Force on Cleaner Vehicles
and Fuels" in November, 1994. As part of its mandate, the
Task Force was asked to develop options and
recommendations for national emission standards for motor
vehicles.
|
Motor Vehicle Safety Act,
S.C., 1993, c. 16
TC/95-66-M
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
On Oct. 23, 1995, the CCME accepted the Task Force's
recommendation that Transport Canada immediately update
its vehicle emission regulations under the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA) to harmonize them with the
U.S. federal standards under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
Current Canadian emission regulations apply only to
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty
vehicles that are fuelled with gasoline or diesel fuel.
The amendment extends the applicability of the emission
standards to include motorcycles and, in addition to
gasoline and diesel fuel, to cover
vehicles designed to operate on
methanol, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas.
Under the changes, companies would continue to be
required to certify that every vehicle complies with the
emission standards as a condition of importation or of
affixing the National Safety
Mark. Each company is now responsible for ensuring that
its vehicles, when properly maintained, comply with
emission standards in-use throughout their defined useful
lives. Generally, the in-use standards would be identical
to the certification standards.
Under the amendment, exhaust emission standards for
new light-duty vehicles are made more stringent and the
period of use for which vehicles are required to comply
with emission standards (i.e. useful life) is extended
from five years or 80,467 km (50,000 miles) to 10 years
or 160,934 km (100,000 mi), whichever occurs first. The
amendment requires that light-duty vehicles meet a set of
specified standards at five years or 80,467 km (50,000
mi) (the new "intermediate useful life") and a less
stringent set of standards at the full useful life of ten
years or 160,934 km (100,000 miles). This accounts for
the normal deterioration in the performance of emission
control systems with mileage accumulation or age.
The new standards are the same as those commonly
referred to as the U.S. federal Tier I exhaust emission
standards.
While the current THC standard is retained, a more
stringent non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standard is
adopted. In the case of methanol-fuelled vehicles, limits
are set for total hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE) and
non-methane hydrocarbon equivalent (NMHCE) emissions.
Gasoline-fuelled light-duty vehicles are also required to
meet a new cold weather CO standard of 6.25 g/km (10.0
g/mi) measured at -7°C (20°F) at the
intermediate useful life.
The emission standards for light-duty trucks are
similar in nature to those adopted for light-duty
vehicles. The intermediate useful life and the full
useful life for light light-duty trucks are identical to
those described for light-duty vehicles.
For heavy light-duty trucks the intermediate useful
life is also five years or 80,467 km (50,000 mi); the
full useful life is 11 years or 193,121 km (120,000 mi).
The emission limits for the light-duty truck
classifications are similar to those for light- duty
vehicles but are adjusted to account for the weight and
duty cycle differences of the vehicle classes.
Prior to the amendment, motorcycles were not subject
to emission regulations under the MVSA. However, in
December of 1995, motorcycle manufacturers and the
Minister of Transport signed an MOU which requires
Canadian motorcycles to comply with U.S. federal emission
standards beginning with the 1997 model year. The new
standards adopted under the amendment are the same as
those that have been agreed to under the terms of the MOU
and require that exhaust emissions of THC and CO from
motorcycles not exceed 5.0 g/km (8.0 g/mi) and 12 g/km
(19 g/mi), respectively.
|
|
|
While the same maximum emission levels apply to all
motorcycles, the extent of the useful life depends on the
motorcycle's engine displacement. Three classes of
motorcycles are defined for this purpose.
The amendment phases-in more stringent evaporative
hydrocarbon (total hydrocarbon equivalent in the case of
methanol-fuelled vehicles) emission standards beginning
with the 1998 model year for vehicles operating on
gasoline, methanol, liquefied petroleum gas and natural
gas. Vehicles that operate exclusively on diesel fuel are
not subject to the new evaporative emission requirements.
By the 1999 model year, all applicable light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles are
required to comply with these new evaporative emission
requirements.
The amendment requires that every light-duty vehicle
and light-duty truck be equipped with a diagnostic system
to monitor emission control equipment for proper
functioning. The system is required to incorporate a
malfunction indicator light to automatically alert the
vehicle's operator of the deterioration or malfunction of
an emission-related component which causes the vehicle's
emissions to increase beyond specified thresholds.
Furthermore, the system is required to store fault codes
in the vehicle's computer to assist service technicians
in the proper diagnosis and repair of vehicles by
identifying the likely cause of malfunction.
The amendment requires that, in the 1998 model year,
companies begin equipping some Canadian light-duty
vehicles with systems to capture emissions which occur
during the vehicle refuelling process. In the 2000 model
year, all light-duty vehicles sold in Canada will be
required to meet the vehicle refuelling emission
standards. The new standards require that hydrocarbon
emissions from gasoline and diesel-fuelled vehicles not
exceed 0.053 g/L (0.20 g/gal) of fuel dispensed when
measured in accordance with the specified test method.
The standard for methanol-fuelled vehicles is the same
but is based on THCE emissions.
The amendment adopts the new Supplemental Federal Test
Procedure (SFTP) emission standards and the corresponding
test procedures adopted in the U.S. after the Canadian
rules were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I.
The amendment revokes the gasoline fuel tank inlet
requirements originally intended to prevent misfuelling
of vehicles designed to operate on unleaded gas with
leaded gasoline, since both the U.S. and Canada have now
banned the sale of leaded gasoline for on-road vehicle
use.
Contact: Lui Hrobelsky,
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Transport
Canada, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5. Tel:
613-998-2534; Fax: 613-998-4831.
|
|
|
Customs Duties
Accelerated Reduction Order No. 9
(SOR/97-389,
OIC 1997-1076)
This Order amends the Customs Tariff by providing for
the accelerated elimination of the tariff on certain
goods of United States and Mexican origin.
A notice was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I,
on January 8, 1994, announcing the first round of the
NAFTA accelerated tariff elimination process and setting
out the procedures for submitting proposals for
accelerating tariff elimination. On May 21, 1994 a
consolidated list of requests being considered by the
Canadian, United States, and Mexican governments was
published in the Canada Gazette. On April 26, 1997, the
Canadian government made public the results of the
trilateral consultations which covered some 36 Canadian,
20 United States, and 42 Mexican tariff items. The agreed
package includes both finished goods and products that
are inputs used in domestic manufacturing.
|
Customs Tariff, sections 12.1 and 62
FIN/97-6
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
The agreement came into effect in all three countries
July 1, 1997. In Canada the agreement is being
implemented through this Order in Council amendment to
the Customs Tariff, based on an Exchange of Letters with
the other two governments.
Given the relatively low volume of trade affected
under this exercise, the tariff reductions will amount to
less than $2 million of duties foregone in fiscal year
1997-1998.
Contact: Dean Beyea, International Trade Policy
Division Department of Finance, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G5.
Tel: 613-992-8790.
|
|
|
Crewing Regulations
(SOR/97-390,
OIC 1997-1077); Non-Canadian Ships Safety Order,
amendment
(SI/97-96, OIC
1997-1080)
The new Crewing Regulations consolidate six
Regulations (Certification of Ships' Cooks
Regulations, Part II; Master and Engineer Dual
Capacity Regulations; Medical Examination of
Seafarers Regulations; Nominal Horsepower
Computing Method Regulations; Safe Manning
Regulations; and Ships' Deck Watch
Regulations), respecting the crewing of Canadian
commercial ships, drilling units, and foreign ships and
units in Canadian waters.
The new regulations also expand an existing
requirement for mandatory medical examinations for
seafarers engaged on foreign-going voyages to all
seafarers serving on ships 25 tons gross tonnage or over
on all but limited voyages.
They establish an appeal board as a new method of case
review in support of human rights violations and
complaints.
They address concerns raised by the Standing Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJC) relating
to the delegated authority of the Engineer Examination
Regulations.
The Non-Canadian Ships Safety Order is amended
to address a concern raised by the SJC relating to the
application of Canadian certificates on foreign ships.
Following consultations, a number of changes were made
to the version of the regulations prepublished on March
23, 1996 and further refinements were made to the version
prepublished again on February 22, 1997 in the Canada
Gazette, Part I.
Contact: M.E. Jenkins, AMBC, Director, Marine
Safety, Department of Transport, Canada Building, 344
Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N7. Tel:
613-998-0656; Fax: 613-991-5670.
|
Canada Shipping Act, paragraphs 110(1)(c), (j)
and (k), section 112, paragraphs 338(1)(o) and
562.1(1)(b) and (c) and subsection 420(1)
TC/92-95-37; TC/92-95-38
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Marine Certification
Regulations
(SOR/97-391,
OIC 1997-1079)
The new Regulations consolidate all provisions
presently found in five different sets of regulations,
respecting the qualifications required for certificates
to be issued to crew members of Canadian commercial
vessels and drilling units, into one document. They
include provisions made necessary in consequence of
Canada's accession, on November 6, 1987, to the
International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978
(STCW), as well as certain other changes to existing
certification standards agreed to by the Canadian Marine
Advisory Council (CMAC).
The changes stemming from STCW Convention provisions
will require additional training of certain groups of
seafarers; they were estimated to cost industry some
$23.5 million, spread over a five-year period. Much of
this training has already been carried out.
|
Canada Shipping Act, section 10
37-TC-95
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|
|
Consequential to the Radiocommunication Regulations
published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, on November
27, 1996, by the Department of Industry (SOR/96-484), the
reference to the Radiotelephone Operator's Restricted
Certificate (Maritime) was replaced by the
Restricted Operator Certificate with Maritime
Qualifications.
Contact: M.E. Jenkins, AMBC, Director, Marine
Safety, Department of Transport, Canada Building, 344
Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N7. Tel:
613-998-0656; Fax: 613-991-5670.
|
|
|
Fish Health Protection
Regulations
(SOR/97-392,
OIC 1997-1080)
The Regulations are being amended to allow local fish
health officers to approve the importation of eggs or
fish from a facility where a disease or disease agent of
concern is present in both the source and receiving
facilities.
Importation or inter-provincial shipment of live eggs
or fish will be allowed if the shipment will not result
in the introduction of a disease or disease agent not
already known to occur in a province. The same principles
will apply to importation of dead uneviscerated fish.
In the absence of data, a local fish health officer
may designate facilities or areas in a province free of
selected pathogens, even though the pathogens have been
detected in other parts of a province. Hence, local fish
health officers may reject applications to import eggs or
fish, from a facility that tested positive for a selected
pathogen, into a facility or area designated free of the
specific pathogen.
Under the current regulations, sources of salmonid
eggs must be inspected for, and demonstrated free of, all
diseases or disease agents set out in Schedule II. As a
result of these amendments, local fish health officers
would be able to approve the importation or
inter-provincial transfer of disinfected salmonid eggs
from sources that have only been inspected for viruses
(i.e. the sources have no history of testing for bacteria
and parasites set out in Schedule II). The reason for
this change is that there is minimal risk that bacterial
and parasite disease agents listed in Schedule II will be
carried on the outer membrane (surface) of disinfected
eggs.
Contact: Ms. Iola M. Price, Director, Aquaculture
and Oceans Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E6. Tel: 613-990-0275; Fax:
613-954-0807.
|
Fisheries Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-14, s. 43
Not included in Regulatory Plan
To be published in Canada Gazette August 20, 1997
|