Canada Gazette
www.gazette.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Vol. 141, No. 41 — October 13, 2007
GOVERNMENT NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of Part 7, Division 3, of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Permit No. 4543-2-03444 is approved. 1. Permittee: Peter Kiewit Sons Co., Vancouver, British Columbia.
2. Type of Permit: To load inert, inorganic geological material for disposal at sea and to dispose of inert, inorganic geological matter at sea.
3. Term of Permit: Permit is valid from November 9, 2007, to November 8, 2008.
4. Loading Site(s):
(a) Various approved sites along the Sea to Sky Highway (No. 99), British Columbia, between approximately 49°23.38' N, 123°15.33' W, and 49°34.90' N, 123°13.32' W; and
(b) Porteau Cove, British Columbia, at approximately 49°33.60' N, 123°14.00' W.
5. Disposal Site(s):
(a) Point Grey Disposal Site, 49°15.40' N, 123°22.10' W, at a depth of not less than 210 m;
(b) Watts Point Disposal Site, 49°38.50' N, 123°14.10' W, at a depth of not less than 230 m.
The following position-fixing procedures must be followed to ensure disposal at the designated disposal site:
(i) The vessel must inform the appropriate Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) Centre upon departure from the loading site that it is heading for a disposal site;
(ii) Upon arrival at a disposal site and prior to disposal, the vessel must again call the appropriate MCTS Centre to confirm its position. Disposal may proceed if the vessel is on the designated site. If the vessel is not within the disposal site boundaries, the MCTS Centre will advise the bearing and distance to the site and when disposal may proceed; and
(iii) The vessel must inform the appropriate MCTS Centre when disposal has been completed prior to leaving the disposal site.
6. Route to Disposal Site(s): Direct.
7. Method of Loading and Disposal: Loading by conveyor belts or trucks and disposal by bottom dump scow or end dumping.
8. Rate of Disposal: As required by normal operations.
9. Total Quantity to Be Disposed of: Not to exceed 20 000 m3.
10. Matter to Be Disposed of: Excavated matter comprised of clay, silt, sand, gravel, rock and/or other approved matter typical to the loading site. All wood, topsoil, asphalt and other debris are to be segregated for disposal by methods other than disposal at sea.
11. Requirements and Restrictions:
11.1. The Permittee must notify the permit-issuing office before commencement of the activity as to the dates on which the loading and disposal at sea will occur.
11.2. The Permittee must ensure that all contractors involved in the loading or disposal activity for which the permit is issued are made aware of the requirement and restrictions, as well as the conditions identified in the permit and of the possible consequences of any violation of these conditions. A copy of the permit and of the letter of transmittal must be carried on all towing vessels and loading platforms or equipment involved in disposal at sea activities. A copy of the written approval for the appropriate loading site must be displayed with each copy of the permit posted at the excavation and loading sites.
11.3. The fee prescribed by the Ocean Dumping Permit Fee Regulations (Site Monitoring) shall be paid by the Permittee in accordance with those Regulations.
11.4. Contact must be made with the Canadian Coast Guard, Regional Marine Information Centre (RMIC), regarding the issuance of a "Notice to Shipping." The RMIC is located at 2380–555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 5G3, 604-666-6012 (telephone), 604-666-8453 (fax), rmic-pacific@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca (email).
11.5. Any enforcement officer designated pursuant to subsection 217(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 shall be permitted to mount an electronic tracking device on any vessel that is engaged in the disposal at sea activities authorized by this permit. The Permittee shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that there is no tampering with the tracking device and no interference with its operation. The tracking device shall be removed only by an enforcement officer or by a person with the written consent of an enforcement officer.
11.6. The Permittee must submit to the Regional Director, Environmental Protection Operations Directorate, Pacific and Yukon Region, within 30 days of the expiry of the permit, a list of all activities completed pursuant to the permit, including the nature and quantity of matter disposed of from the loading site and the dates on which the activities occurred.
M. D. NASSICHUK
Environmental Stewardship
Pacific and Yukon Region
[41-1-o]
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
Ministerial Condition No. 14680a (Variation to Ministerial Condition No. 14680)
Whereas the Minister of the Environment has previously imposed Ministerial Condition No. 14680 pertaining to the substance Acetic acid, reaction products with 1-[[2-[(2-aminoethyl) amino]ethyl]amino]-3-phenoxy-2-propanol, bisphenol A diglycidyl ether-Bu glycidyl ether-2,2'-[1,4-butanediylbis(oxymethylene)] bis [oxirane]-polyethylenepolyamine polymer, formaldehyde, and polyethylenepolyamine, on April 21, 2007;
Whereas the Ministers of Health and of the Environment have assessed additional information pertaining to the substance;
And whereas the Ministers suspect that the substance is toxic;
The Minister of the Environment hereby varies Ministerial Condition No. 14680 under subsection 84(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, in accordance with the following Annex.
JOHN BAIRD
Minister of the Environment
ANNEX
Variation to Ministerial Condition No. 14680
(Section 84 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)
1. Items 1 to 4 of Ministerial Condition No. 14680 are replaced by the following:
Application
1. Items 4(1)(c) and 6, below, do not apply if the substance is sold within consumer water-based paints and coatings intended for use on floors.
Use Restriction
2. The Notifier shall import the substance for use only as an epoxy curing agent for industrial or commercial water-based paints and coatings, or for consumer water-based paints and coatings intended for use on floors where the substance comprises no more than 5% of the final paint or coating formulation.
Labelling
3. A label affixed to the container in which consumer paints and coatings containing the substance are sold shall include, in English and in French, the statement:
"WARNING: This product may cause skin sensitization. Avoid skin contact. Wear gloves when using this product."
« ATTENTION : Ce produit peut causer une sensibilisation de la peau. Éviter le contact avec la peau. Porter des gants lors de l'utilisation du produit. »
Record-keeping Requirements
4. (1) The Notifier shall maintain electronic or paper records, with any documentation supporting the validity of the information contained in these records, indicating:
(a) the use of the substance;
(b) the quantity of the substance being imported, sold, and used; and
(c) the name and address of each customer buying the substance from the Notifier.
4. (2) The Notifier shall maintain electronic or paper records made in item 4(1) at the Notifier's Canadian headquarters.
Information Requirements
5. Should the Notifier intend to manufacture the substance, the Notifier shall inform the Minister of the Environment, in writing, at least 60 days prior to the beginning of manufacturing and shall provide the following information:
(a) items 13 and 14 set out in Schedule 9 of the New Substances Notification Regulations (Chemicals and Polymers); and
(b) the Canadian manufacturing and processing information.
Other Requirements
6. The Notifier shall inform any person who obtains the substance from them, in writing, of the terms of the present Ministerial Condition, and the Notifier shall obtain, prior to any transfer of the substance, written confirmation from them that they will use the substance only as an epoxy curing agent for industrial or commercial water-based paints and coatings or for consumer water-based paints and coatings intended for use on floors where the substance comprises no more than 5% of the final paint or coating formulation, that they will affix the label to the container and that they will meet these terms as if the present Ministerial Condition had been imposed on them. These records shall be maintained at the Notifier's principal place of business in Canada.
[41-1-o]
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONDUCT STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS (FTAS) BETWEEN CANADA AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY COUNTRIES, AND THE CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY
The Government of Canada will be undertaking Strategic Environmental Assessments of proposed Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the Dominican Republic, the Andean Community countries (see footnote 1) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). (see footnote 2) Comments are invited on any likely and significant environmental impacts of these three initiatives on Canada.
Background
In response to today's rapidly evolving global trading environment, the Government of Canada is committed to an aggressive bilateral trade negotiations agenda, as outlined in Budget 2007 and the Government's economic plan, Advantage Canada. In the context of Canada's broader foreign policy of deepening its engagement in the Americas, on June 7, the Government launched formal negotiations with the Dominican Republic and the Andean Community countries of Colombia and Peru. The FTA negotiations with CARICOM were launched on July 19. The decision to move forward with FTA negotiations followed exploratory discussions on the feasibility of negotiating FTAs with these partners. Canada will pursue its practice of establishing environmental and labour cooperation provisions in the context of the proposed FTAs.
To learn more about these FTAs, and about Canada's trade negotiations and agreements generally, you are invited to visit www.international.gc.ca/tna-nac/menu-en.asp.
Additional information on these FTA initiatives is available on the following Web sites:
- Canada-Dominican Republic FTA Negotiations: www.international.gc.ca/tna-nac/dr-en.asp
- Canada-Colombia-Peru FTA Negotiations: www.international.gc.ca/tna-nac/and-en.asp
- Canada-CARICOM FTA Negotiations: www.international.gc.ca/tna-nac/caricom-en.asp
Strategic Environmental Assessments
The Government of Canada is committed to sustainable development. Mutually supportive trade and environmental policies can contribute to this objective. This process is guided by the 2001 Framework for Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade Negotiations with direction from the 1999 Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan, and Program Proposals. For the full text of the Framework, please refer to www.international.gc.ca/tna-nac/env/env-ea-en.asp. The Framework provides a systematic process of identifying and evaluating the likely and significant positive and negative environmental impacts of a proposed agreement on Canada. Public consultations are conducted throughout the process, which generally includes the following steps, in chronological order:
1. Announcement of the intent to conduct an Environmental Assessment, which is the purpose of this Canada Gazette notice;
2. Preparation of an Initial Environmental Assessment report that will include scoping out the main environmental issues that may arise as a result of a free trade agreement being negotiated, identifying elements of the negotiations to undergo initial analysis with respect to environmental impacts, determine the need for more detailed analysis, and identify potential mitigation and enhancement actions that could be taken;
3. Preparation of a Draft Environmental Assessment report, as required, that includes an in-depth analysis of the issues raised in the Initial Environmental Assessment; and
4. Preparation of a Final Environmental Assessment report that will be released after the conclusion of negotiations.
A consistent four-step analytical methodology is applied during the Initial, Draft, and Final Environmental Assessment:
— identify the economic effects in Canada of the Agreements;
— identify the likely environmental impacts in Canada of such effects;
— assess the significance of the likely environmental impacts; and
— identify enhancement/mitigation options to inform the negotiations.
The Framework recognizes that trade liberalization activity could affect the level and pattern of economic activity, the type of products and technologies traded, and could have regulatory and policy implications. The Framework also indicates that the assessment will focus on the most likely and significant impacts of trade negotiations on the Canadian environment. Transboundary, regional and global environment impacts are considered if they have a direct impact on the Canadian environment.
Environmental assessments of FTAs between Canada and the Dominican Republic, the Andean Community countries and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
An Environmental Assessment Committee will be formed to undertake the analysis of the FTAs. Coordinated by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Environmental Assessment Committee includes representatives from various federal government departments and agencies. In keeping with the Framework, the analysis and preparation of the reports will be informed by input received from provincial and territorial governments, industry groups, civil society, and the public.
Submissions by interested parties (see footnote a)
All interested parties are invited to submit by November 20, 2007, their views on the likely and significant environmental impacts on Canada resulting from FTAs with the Dominican Republic, the Andean Community countries and CARICOM.
Submissions should include the following:
1. The contributor's name and address and, if applicable, that of his or her organization, institution or business;
2. The specific proposed FTA initiative to which comments are being directed;
3. The specific issues being addressed; and
4. The rationale for the position taken.
Contributions can be sent by email, fax or mail to the following:
Email: consultations@international.gc.ca
Fax: 613-944-3489
Mail:
Environmental Assessment of the [insert name of FTA]
Consultations and Liaison Division
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Lester B. Pearson Building
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2
All contributions will be documented and circulated to the Environmental Assessment Committee to inform future analysis.
[41-1-o]
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
Appointments
| Name and position | Order in Council |
|---|---|
| Auditor General of Canada | 2007-1384 |
| Auditor | |
| Parc Downsview Park Inc. | |
| Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada | |
| Members of the Board of Directors | |
| Ayoub, Joseph I. G. | 2007-1391 |
| Baylis, Françoise | 2007-1389 |
| Kennedy, Theresa E. | 2007-1390 |
| Ryll, Irene | 2007-1392 |
| Cameron, The Hon. Margaret A. | 2007-1328 |
| Government of Newfoundland and Labrador | |
| Administrator | |
| September 15 to 19, 2007 | |
| Canada Pension Plan | |
| Review Tribunal | |
| Members | |
| Inch, John Alexander — North Bay | 2007-1425 |
| Lafleur, Bruno David — Sudbury | 2007-1428 |
| Matthews, Ruth — Kitchener | 2007-1424 |
| Murphy, Sharon Mary — Peterborough | 2007-1427 |
| Pedersen, Leigh Alexander — Kamloops | 2007-1422 |
| Riverso, Teresa — Etobicoke | 2007-1423 |
| Spencer, Shirley Marie — Owen Sound | 2007-1426 |
| White, Eleanor Frances — Toronto | 2007-1429 |
| Caron, Gaétan | 2007-1402 |
| National Energy Board | |
| Chairman | |
| Chartrand, Raynald | 2007-1357 |
| Competition Tribunal | |
| Commissioner to administer oaths | |
| Cook, Sheila-Marie | 2007-1329 |
| Secretary to the Governor General | |
| Dohm, The Hon. Patrick D. | 2007-1327 |
| Government of British Columbia | |
| Administrator | |
| September 14 to 19, 2007 | |
| Elcock, Ward P. D. | 2007-1335 |
| Privy Council Office | |
| Senior Advisor | |
| Employment Insurance Act | |
| Chairpersons of the Boards of Referees | |
| New Brunswick | |
| Cormier, Jean-Claude — Moncton | 2007-1406 |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | |
| Arseneault, Carol Ann — Happy Valley | 2007-1405 |
| Cholock, Terence (Chick) — Gander | 2007-1403 |
| Hayley, William Edward — Gander | 2007-1404 |
| Ontario | |
| Harron, Gary Arthur — Owen Sound | 2007-1417 |
| Low, Robert Edward — London | 2007-1415 |
| Murphy, Mary Anne — Peterborough | 2007-1418 |
| Richards, Bruce Walter — London | 2007-1416 |
| Thomson, Margaret Julie — Thunder Bay | 2007-1419 |
| Quebec | |
| Bellerose, Michel — Mauricie | 2007-1409 |
| Chartrand, Joseph Leo Adrien Florian — Repentigny | 2007-1411 |
| Durand, Gilles — Richelieu-Yamaska | 2007-1413 |
| Fleury, Joseph Vincent — Jonquière | 2007-1408 |
| Fleury, Serge — Sept-Îles | 2007-1414 |
| Latraverse, Francine — Montréal | 2007-1410 |
| LeBel, Gratien — Richelieu-Yamaska | 2007-1412 |
| Rocque, Pierre — Baie-Comeau | 2007-1407 |
| Fonberg, Robert | 2007-1336 |
| Department of National Defence | |
| Deputy Minister | |
| Gray, Ann L. | 2007-1383 |
| Blue Water Bridge Authority | |
| Director | |
| Immigration and Refugee Board | |
| Full-time members | |
| Collison, Donald E. | 2007-1401 |
| Ellis, Janet | 2007-1400 |
| Kirvan, Myles | 2007-1340 |
| Associate Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to be styled Associate Deputy Minister of Public Safety | |
| Knubley, John | 2007-1337 |
| Associate Deputy Minister of Transport and Associate Deputy Head of the Office of Infrastructure of Canada to be styled Associate Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities | |
| Loomis, Christopher W. | 2007-1393 |
| Canadian Institutes of Health Research | |
| Member of the Governing Council | |
| MacDonald, Anne | 2007-1421 |
| Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation | |
| Director of the Board of Directors | |
| McBride, John | 2007-1339 |
| Canadian International Development Agency | |
| Executive Vice-President | |
| Minto, Shahid | 2007-1325 |
| Minister of Public Works and Government Services | |
| Special Adviser | |
| National Parole Board | |
| Full-time member | |
| Malcolm, P. Bruce | 2007-1394 |
| Part-time members | |
| Barber, G. R. (Randy) | 2007-1395 |
| Fletcher-Dagenais, Carol | 2007-1396 |
| Hillyer, Jan | 2007-1397 |
| Hodgkiss, Pauline B. | 2007-1398 |
| Jarrett, Brian H. | 2007-1399 |
| National Seniors Council | |
| Members | |
| Humenny, Patricia | 2007-1432 |
| Shin, Doo Ho | 2007-1431 |
| Wade, Edward Richard | 2007-1430 |
| O'Neil, Lawrence I., Q.C. | 2007-1382 |
| Supreme Court of Nova Scotia | |
| Judge | |
| Nova Scotia Court of Appeal | |
| Judge ex officio | |
| Piché, André | 2007-1420 |
| Canada Employment Insurance Commission | |
| Commissioner | |
| Port Authority | |
| Directors | |
| Hawkins, Kerry L. — Prince Rupert | 2007-1385 |
| McQueen, Mark R. — Toronto | 2007-1334 |
| Richardson, Stephen | 2007-1341 |
| Department of Finance | |
| Associate Deputy Minister | |
| Stannard, Glenn Michael | 2007-1330 |
| Military Police Complaints Commission | |
| Part-time member | |
| Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada | |
| Part-time members | |
| Laing, Alan | 2007-1388 |
| Lee, Herbert | 2007-1387 |
| Vaughan, Arnold Price | 2007-1386 |
| Vincent, Diane | 2007-1338 |
| Canadian International Trade Tribunal | |
| Vice-Chairperson |
October 4, 2007
JACQUELINE GRAVELLE
Manager
[41-1-o]
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY
RADIOCOMMUNICATION ACT
Notice No. SMSE-007-07 — First issue of RSS-194 and amendment of SRSP-300.953
Notice is hereby given that Industry Canada is introducing a new Radio Standards Specification, RSS-194, which sets out certification requirements for radio transmitters and receivers in the band 953-960 MHz for fixed wireless access (FWA) systems. Industry Canada is also amending Standard Radio System Plan 300.953 (SRSP-300.953), which sets out technical requirements for licensing studio-to-transmitter links (STL) and FWA systems operating in the band 953-960 MHz. The documents are as follow:
Radio Standards Specifications 194, Issue 1, Fixed Wireless Access Equipment Operating in the Band 953-960 MHz; and
Standard Radio System Plan 300.953, Issue 2, Technical Requirements for Radio Systems in the Fixed Service Operating in the Band 953-960 MHz.
General information
The document RSS-194, Issue 1, will come into force as of the date of publication of this notice.
This document has been coordinated with industry through the Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC).
The Radio Equipment Technical Standards Lists will be amended to reflect the above changes.
Any inquiries regarding this notice should be directed to the Manager, Radio Equipment Standards, 613-990-4699 (telephone), 613-991-3961 (fax), res.nmr@ic.gc.ca (email), and inquiries regarding SRSP-300.953 should be directed to the Manager, Fixed Wireless Communications, 613-952-4792 (telephone), 613-952-5108 (fax), srsp.pnrh@ic.gc.ca (email).
Interested parties should submit their comments within 120 days of the date of publication of this notice. Shortly after the close of the comment period, all comments received will be posted on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications Web site at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/spectrum.
Submitting comments
Respondents are requested to provide their comments in electronic format (WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Adobe PDF or ASCII TXT), along with a note specifying the software, version number and operating system used to the following email address: res.nmr@ic.gc.ca.
Written submissions should be addressed to the Director General, Spectrum Engineering, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8.
All submissions should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, the publication date, title, and notice reference number (SMSE-007-07).
Obtaining copies
Copies of this notice and of the documents referred to are available electronically on the Spectrum Management and Telecommunications Web site at http://strategis.gc.ca/spectrum.
Official versions of Canada Gazette notices can be viewed on the Canada Gazette Web site at http://canadagazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/index-eng.html. Printed copies of notices can be ordered by calling the sales counter of Canadian Government Publishing at 613-941-5995 or 1-800-635-7943.
September 27, 2007
R. W. MCCAUGHERN
Director General
Spectrum Engineering Branch
[41-1-o]
NOTICE OF VACANCY
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
Chairperson and Member (full-time position)
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) is a quasi-judicial body reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Finance. The Tribunal acts as an administrative court for dumping, subsidy and safeguard inquiries, appeals from customs and excise decisions, complaints by potential suppliers on any aspect of the federal government procurement process and requests for textile tariff relief. In its advisory capacity, the Tribunal has the power to inquire into and report on a broad range of trade and economic matters.
The Chairperson and the Members of the Tribunal direct Canada's principal quasi-judicial institution in the trade remedy system with the authority to conduct injury inquiries into dumping and subsidy complaints; hear appeals of decisions of the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canada Revenue Agency; inquire into complaints from potential suppliers under various trade agreements concerning all federal government procurement; investigate requests from Canadian producers for tariff relief on imported textile inputs; conduct safeguard inquiries; and provide advice to the Government and/or to the Minister of Finance on economic, trade and tariff issues and, in so doing, support the Government's trade and economic agenda while ensuring that Canada's rights and obligations under various trade agreements are honoured.
Location: National Capital Region
The preferred candidate will have a degree from a recognized university, preferably in business, international relations, economics, finance, law, or a combination of equivalent education, job-related training and experience. The successful candidate must have experience in managing at the senior executive level in a private or public sector organization, including managing human and financial resources. Experience in the operation and conduct of a quasi-judicial tribunal, an agency or the equivalent would be an asset. The chosen candidate will have experience in the interpretation and application of legislation, as well as in the international trading system, the Special Import Measures Act, the World Trade Organization, and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The preferred candidate will have knowledge of the mandate and operations of the Tribunal. Knowledge of the Special Import Measures Act and other relevant domestic legislation and international rules and practices is required. An understanding of the responsibilities of leading and managing a quasi-judicial tribunal is also required. The ideal candidate will have knowledge of administrative law, principles of natural justice and rules and practices followed by administrative tribunals in Canada. An understanding of the general functioning of a business, including accounting and financial management processes, is necessary. The chosen candidate must have knowledge of the international trading system, the World Trade Organization, and the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
The successful candidate must have excellent leadership and managerial skills. The qualified candidate must also have the ability to analyze complex situations and cases for the purpose of rendering decisions, while anticipating their short- and long-term impact. The ideal candidate must have the ability to analyze all aspects of a case, interpret and apply the relevant criteria with a view to making lawful and equitable decisions. The ability to conduct a proactive, fair and efficient quasi-judicial hearing is crucial. Impartiality, sound judgment, high ethical standards, superior interpersonal skills and tact are also required, as well as superior communication skills, both written and oral.
Proficiency in both official languages is preferred.
The successful candidate must be willing to relocate to the National Capital Region or to a location within reasonable commuting distance.
The preferred candidate must not hold any other employment or office in respect of which he/she receives any remuneration.
The Government is committed to ensuring that its appointments are representative of Canada's regions and official languages, as well as of women, Aboriginal peoples, disabled persons and visible minorities.
The preferred candidate must comply with the Ethical Guidelines for Public Office Holders and the Guidelines for the Political Activities of Public Office Holders. The guidelines are available on the Governor in Council Appointments Web site, under Publications, at www.appointments-nominations.gc.ca.
The selected candidate will be subject to the Conflict of Interest Act. Public office holders appointed on a full-time basis must submit to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, within 60 days of appointment, a Confidential Report in which they disclose all of their assets, liabilities and outside activities. For more information please visit the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Web site at www.parl.gc.ca/ciec-ccie.
This notice has been placed in the Canada Gazette to assist the Governor in Council in identifying qualified candidates for this position. It is not, however, intended to be the sole means of recruitment. Applications forwarded through the Internet will not be considered for reasons of confidentiality.
Further details about the organization and its activities can be found on its Web site at www.citt-tcce.gc.ca.
Interested candidates should forward their curriculum vitae by October 29, 2007, to the Acting Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Senior Personnel and Special Projects), Privy Council Office, 59 Sparks Street, 1st Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A3, 613-957-5006 (fax).
Bilingual notices of vacancies will be produced in an alternative format (audio cassette, diskette, braille, large print, etc.) upon request. For further information, please contact Canadian Government Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S5, 613-941-5995 or 1-800-635-7943.
[41-1-o]
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
CRIMINAL CODE
Revocation of fingerprint examiner
Pursuant to subsection 667(5) of the Criminal Code, I hereby revoke the designation of the following persons of the Abbotsford Police Department as fingerprint examiners:
Michael James Olsen
Gerald M. Ennis
Ottawa, September 21, 2007
RICHARD WEX
Assistant Deputy Minister
Policing, Law Enforcement and
Interoperability Branch
[41-1-o]
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
BANK ACT
Designation order
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 522.26(5) of the Bank Act, that the Minister of Finance designated Investec Bank (UK) Limited on August 24, 2007, pursuant to subsection 508(1) of the Bank Act, to be a designated foreign bank for the purposes of Part XII of the Bank Act.
October 3, 2007
JULIE DICKSON
Superintendent of Financial Institutions
[41-1-o]
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
BANK ACT
Designation order
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 522.26(5) of the Bank Act, that the Minister of Finance designated Israel Discount Bank Limited on August 16, 2007, pursuant to subsection 508(1) of the Bank Act, to be a designated foreign bank for the purposes of Part XII of the Bank Act.
October 3, 2007
JULIE DICKSON
Superintendent of Financial Institutions
[41-1-o]
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Limited — Order to insure in Canada risks
Notice is hereby given of the issuance, pursuant to section 574 of the Insurance Companies Act, of an order to insure in Canada risks, effective June 28, 2007, permitting Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Limited to insure risks falling within the following classes of insurance: aircraft insurance, automobile insurance, boiler and machinery insurance, liability insurance, and property insurance.
October 3, 2007
JULIE DICKSON
Superintendent of Financial Institutions
[41-1-o]
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES ACT
GE Money Trust Company — Order to commence and carry on business
Notice is hereby given of the issuance, pursuant to subsection 53(1) of the Trust and Loan Companies Act, of an order to commence and carry on business authorizing GE Money Trust Company to commence and carry on business, effective August 21, 2007.
October 3, 2007
JULIE DICKSON
Superintendent of Financial Institutions
[41-1-o]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
Notice requesting comments on the intention to amend section 215, "Bumpers," of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations
Notice is hereby given that the Department of Transport is considering amending Canada's regulatory requirements governing bumpers and is soliciting written comments from all interested parties on the potential changes.
Summary
The Department of Transport is evaluating the need to amend its current bumper requirements by introducing changes that would either rescind the Canadian bumper standard entirely or align the bumper impact test speeds with those of the United States and require or allow compliance with the lower leg requirements of the future global technical regulation (gtr) on pedestrian safety currently under development. This gtr will come into effect when, and if, it is adopted by the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).
During the review process, the Department will ensure that the current level of safety is maintained. While out of our control, we can, however, give consideration to the effects of regulation on cost and availability benefits to consumers.
Introduction
The Department is seeking comments on various bumper requirement options in order to help determine which requirements governing bumpers would be more beneficial to consumers, rather than those presently in effect. The intent of the review is not to reduce safety in any way, but to investigate harmonization options which will allow manufacturers to continue to meet future bumper requirements, while ultimately reducing costs and possibly increasing vehicle model availability to consumers.
The objective of the Canadian bumper standard, which applies to front and rear bumpers, is to prevent or reduce the damage to safety-related components in systems such as the lighting, fuel, suspension, steering, propulsion, cooling and exhaust systems of passenger cars in low-speed collisions. Ultimately, the standard is aimed at reducing the number of fatalities and injuries associated with motor vehicle collisions, which would occur because of prior damage to those systems. It also establishes a range of bumper heights to reduce the risk of underride and override in the event of a collision.
The present bumper standard applies only to passenger cars, which are one of several prescribed classes of vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA). This is also the case for the similar U.S. and European standards, which are the two other main world requirements for bumpers on motor vehicles. The Canadian bumper standard differs from those of the United States and Europe by having slightly different test procedures but, more importantly, the Canadian standard includes a significantly higher test speed. The Department has observed that U.S. or European market specification vehicles do not necessarily comply with the Canadian bumper standard.
Regulatory diversity between countries can limit the range of vehicle models marketed in any given country and may act as an impediment to the development of vehicle models. Alternatively, it may increase the unit cost of such vehicles, depending on the number of modifications or model variants that the manufacturer needs to produce to market the vehicle platform globally. This is why the Department needs to ensure that there is a demonstrated net benefit to Canadians if pursuing a non-harmonized approach.
In the case of the bumper standard, it has proven difficult to estimate the number of fatalities and injuries associated with motor vehicle collisions which occur because of prior damage to a safety-related component in a low-speed collision, and the extent to which the higher Canadian test speed has yielded safety and economic benefits.
In the intervening years since the introduction of the bumper standard, not only have vehicle designs changed significantly but the classes of vehicles used by Canadians have also changed. When the standard was introduced in 1972, most Canadians drove passenger cars, whereas today, many Canadians drive multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and trucks; thus, the number of vehicles that must meet the bumper standard has continued to decrease each year.
One of the new challenges for bumper designs is to better protect pedestrians during low-speed collisions. There is significant interest around the world in introducing requirements to limit the injuries to pedestrians. Work is nearing completion on a gtr being completed under the auspices of UNECE.
Finally, to improve vehicle fuel efficiencies, manufacturers attempt to design bumper systems that are lighter in mass and offer superior aerodynamic profiles. This objective has resulted in a significant change in bumper designs from the heavier steel designs of the past to lighter more aerodynamic composite designs, which incorporate pedestrian safety features on modern passenger cars.
The Department's purpose in publishing this notice is twofold: first, to summarize the evolution of the Canadian bumper standard since it was first introduced in 1972, including the explanation for why the Canadian bumper standard is currently in disharmony with the U.S. and European requirements; and second, to outline the various options to rectify this and provide an opportunity for the Canadian public and other stakeholders to comment on potential amendments.
Background
The Department introduced its regulation on passenger car bumpers on July 26, 1972. The regulation comprised an 8-km/h frontal impact and a 5-km/h rear impact into a fixed collision barrier, under which damage to specific safety-related components involving structural components as well as principal operating systems were prohibited.
The regulation was amended on September 26, 1973, to add a pendulum-type impact test. In addition, the rear impact test speed into a fixed collision barrier was increased to 8 km/h.
On December 10, 1975, a new amendment to the bumper standard was completed to add a detailed test procedure for the pendulum-type impact test. The test included an impact speed of 4.8 km/h being applied to one corner of each bumper between specific heights. Those heights were later rounded off on April 25, 1979, in order for the Canadian bumper standard to be fully harmonized with those of the United States.
However, in 1979, the United States initiated a rulemaking action to amend its bumper requirements and the U.S. standard began diverging from the Canadian standard. To complement the existing no damage requirement to safety-related parts, the U.S. government added new criteria that prohibited property damage to all exterior vehicle surfaces not involving the bumper system, as well as damage resistant criteria not to be exceeded by the bumper itself. These additional requirements were in effect for 1980 to 1982 models and required barrier and pendulum impact test speeds identical to the Canadian bumper standard. On May 14, 1982, the United States reduced the test impact speeds from 8 km/h to 4 km/h for longitudinal impacts and from 4.8 km/h to 2.4 km/h for corner pendulum impacts. The damage resistance criteria were also dropped from the U.S. regulation. Conversely, the no damage requirement to safety-related parts and to all exterior vehicle surfaces not involving the bumper system remained in effect.
During the same period in Europe, a bumper standard specified by the UNECE was developed (hereinafter referred to as ECE Regulation No. 42). The standard, created in 1980, does not include a barrier impact test but comprises pendulum impact tests using speeds similar to those of the United States. In this test, a profiled pendulum strikes the vehicle with a speed of 4 km/h on the front and rear bumpers and at 2.5 km/h at the bumper corners. Similar to the Canadian bumper standard, ECE Regulation No. 42 ensures the integrity of various safety systems.
The U.S. bumper standard, on the other hand, is not intended to improve the integrity of safety systems but to reduce the costs associated with damage to bumpers involved in low-speed collisions. The reason for this difference is that through the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the U.S. government is empowered to regulate the design of automobiles solely for the purpose of savings in cost to the public at large, whereas Canadian legislation constrains regulations to improvements in safety. In other words, Transport Canada does not have the authority to regulate requirements that would not offer a safety benefit. This is why the requirements of the Canadian bumper standard cannot be fully aligned with those of the United States on the basis employed by U.S. lawmakers.
On May 14, 1983, Transport Canada published in Part I of the Canada Gazette a proposal to partially harmonize its bumper requirements with those of the United States by lowering the velocities of the barrier and pendulum bumper impact tests to the same values as those of the United States. This would have also brought the Canadian speeds for the pendulum tests closer to those of ECE Regulation No. 42. However, the Department received significant opposition from the provinces and territories, the public, the media and the insurance industry with respect to the proposed lowering of bumper impact velocities. This opposition resulted in the Department withdrawing its proposal on August 3, 1985, and the Department not harmonizing its bumper standard impact test speeds with those of the United States and the UNECE. This divergence still exists today.
In the decades that followed, one issue that the Department put effort into addressing was collision compatibility between passenger cars and larger and heavier vehicles. On September 23, 2004, Transport Canada introduced a new regulation aimed at reducing the risk of injury in collisions between passenger cars and large commercial vehicles. This regulation mandated the installation of low mounted rear underride guards on large commercial trailers to reduce the likelihood of passenger vehicles from traveling underneath the rear of the trailer in the event of a collision.
Moreover, Transport Canada signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2006 with the automotive industry aimed at improving compatibility between new passenger cars and light duty trucks in front-to-front and front-to-side vehicle collisions by the effective date of September 2009. In this MOU, vehicle manufacturers have agreed to redesign the bumper energy absorbing structure of larger vehicles to better protect occupants of smaller vehicles in the event of a collision.
Development of a global technical regulation on pedestrian safety
Since September 4, 2002, the Department has been participating in the development of a gtr on pedestrian safety at the UNECE. The intent of the gtr is to establish countermeasures that will help reduce injuries and fatalities sustained by pedestrians when they are struck by automobiles. Once approved, the gtr will comprise a series of tests to replicate collisions involving child and adult pedestrians where impacts occur at 40 km/h. It is expected that these tests will help reduce injuries to the lower legs of pedestrians against front bumpers, and upper legs and heads against hoods. Finalization of this gtr is expected in the near future. It is expected that when and if this gtr is adopted, manufacturers will be facing new challenges to design and manufacture more pedestrian-friendly bumpers, while still being required to meet the existing bumper standards of several jurisdictions. This will be further complicated by the need to maintain or improve fuel economy performance in relation to fuel efficiency regulations and incentive programs.
Ratings from insurance groups
There are several insurance groups worldwide that rate bumper performance during low-severity collisions based on the cost of repairing vehicle damage. These consumer metric tests influence bumper system design with the intent of minimizing vehicle damage. The largest groups are the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in the United States, and the Research Council for Automobile Repairs (RCAR) with members in Europe, Asia and America.
Until very recently, IIHS used four impact tests to rate bumper performance. The four configurations were two full-width front and rear impacts into a flat barrier, a front impact into an angled barrier, and a rear impact into a centered pole. The first two configurations were patterned after the U.S. federal full-width impacts but used the Canadian 8 km/h impact speed rather than the U.S. 4 km/h. The two latter impact tests were also conducted at 8 km/h and represented additional crash configurations that may be encountered in the real world.
In 2007, IIHS released a new bumper test protocol to better mimic the design of a car bumper and assess underride and override during vehicle-to-vehicle low speed crashes. The impact speed of the front and rear full-width impacts was changed from 8 km/h to 9.6 km/h and the flat barrier was substituted with a steel barrier developed with RCAR comprising a plastic absorber and flexible cover simulating typical energy absorbers and plastic bumper covers from passenger cars. The third and fourth tests comprise front and rear corner impacts at 4.8 km/h against the same barrier with a 15% bumper overlap.
The RCAR test program, which has existed since 1999, uses a different test procedure for evaluating bumper performance. The tests are a 40% overlap front impact into a flat rigid barrier (known as the Danner test in Germany and the Thatcham test in the United Kingdom) and a 40% overlap rear impact by a 1 000 kg mobile barrier. The tests are completed at a speed of 15 km/h. In 2006, the tests were modified and the vehicle now strikes the barriers with an angle of 10°. In addition, the mass of the mobile barrier has been increased to 1 400 kg. In 2009, RCAR is expected to add the same front and rear full-width bumper impact tests into a steel barrier that were recently adopted by IIHS.
While IIHS widely publicizes its results, some members of RCAR use results of their tests to rate vehicles for insurance pricing purposes. According to RCAR, many manufacturers have also incorporated the insurance test into the development program for new models. The test serves to forewarn of any difficulties or problems that may arise with a production standard vehicle, and thus provides the opportunity to eliminate such difficulties at an early stage.
Protection of the occupants in high-speed frontal collisions
Car bumpers do not typically play a major role in vehicle crashworthiness or occupant protection during front or rear collisions. According to American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), new technologies permit the bumper design to absorb about 15% of the energy under high-speed impact. Nonetheless, there is a direct interaction between the bumper and the chassis rails. The bumper is also a common structural component in both low- and high-speed crash tests, and has an influence on the level of vehicle stability in a crash and the deployment synchronicity of the air bag system. Diverging bumper standard requirements between jurisdictions increase the complexity for manufacturers of complying with high-speed crash test requirements. A harmonized world bumper standard would reduce the burden on industry by allowing manufacturers to design, test and produce products to one set of standards.
Review of alternatives
Manufactures of vehicles are increasingly challenged to comply with all applicable bumper standards; receive high performance, low cost ratings from insurance groups; protect occupants in high-speed frontal collisions; enhance pedestrian safety requirements; provide visually appealing designs to their customers; and maintain aerodynamic characteristics which promote fuel efficiency. If manufacturers need to design several vehicle front and rear ends to accommodate different safety standards from various jurisdictions, this could increase costs to the consumers or decrease the number of vehicle models offered in a given jurisdiction. Thus, the Department believes that it is time to revisit the Canadian bumper standard and determine whether it is justified to maintain or amend the standard.
The Department is considering the following options and is interested in gathering comments:
1. Maintain status quo;
2. Maintain status quo but allow alternative compliance with the lower leg requirements of the gtr on pedestrian safety (since this portion of the gtr is the most advanced);
3. Rescind the Canadian bumper standard;
4. Rescind the Canadian bumper standard but regulate the lower leg requirements of the gtr on pedestrian safety as either mandatory or optional;
5. Amend the Canadian bumper standard to align the bumper impact test speeds with those of the United States; and
6. Amend the Canadian bumper standard to align the bumper impact test speeds with those of the United States and allow optional (or potentially require) compliance with the lower leg requirements of the gtr on pedestrian safety.
As a normal practice, the Department seeks to harmonize its regulatory requirements with those of other countries wherever possible to facilitate trade and minimize the economic burden of compliance on the automotive industry, as well as the costs that the industry subsequently passes on to its customers. The first option to maintain status quo by keeping the Canadian bumper standard unchanged implies that the standard would remain in disharmony with the U.S. and UNECE standards. The Canadian bumper impact tests are double the speed of any other country's bumper regulations. This higher impact speed may require a stiffer bumper system. This may represent an impediment to free trade if unique model variants are designed for the Canadian marketplace, with a potential loss of vehicle sales for some manufacturers, as well as the inability for the general public to import certain models of vehicles sold in the United States. In addition, some manufacturers have found it necessary to commit additional testing and engineering resources and, in some cases, have experienced longer lead times and/or the unavailability of certain models for the Canadian market due to the existing disharmony. The end result for consumers is a potentially smaller consumer choice and an increase in car purchase prices. An analysis, prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which supported that the U.S. bumper standard impact test speeds be reduced by half in 1982, indicated that while the faster Canadian impact test speeds reduce lifetime repair costs for cars, they increase car purchase prices and fuel consumption. In terms of safety, a second report prepared by NHTSA in 1987, indicated that the change in the bumper standard from 8 km/h to 4 km/h in 1982 had not affected the protection of the safety related parts. From a cost-benefit perspective, Transport Canada has been unable to justify why the Canadian bumper standard should continue to be more stringent than those of the United States or the UNECE. In the absence of evidence that the benefits of the Canadian bumper standard exceed the cost to society resulting from it, maintaining the standard unchanged would not appear to constitute an appropriate solution.
Option 2, that of maintaining status quo but allowing optional compliance with the lower leg requirements of the gtr on pedestrian safety, could facilitate trade and minimize the economic burden of compliance on the automotive industry by incorporating some of the future requirements of the gtr on pedestrian safety. This would allow optional compliance with global requirements, while also maintaining the current requirements, allowing vehicle manufacturers freedom of choice. This option is practical only if the gtr is adopted by the UNECE and if any U.S. regulatory amendment mirrors the gtr.
Since the benefits to safety provided by bumpers in low-speed collisions are difficult to assess and there may be a greater need to address vehicle repair costs or pedestrian safety, options 3 and 4 are to either rescind the Canadian bumper standard altogether or to rescind it and regulate instead the lower leg requirements of the gtr on pedestrian safety. It should be pointed out that several countries in the world, such as Austria, France, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, and Australia, have no safety standards regulating bumper impact tests. The United Kingdom for one has an organization called the Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre (Thatcham), which instead uses the RCAR test to rate the performance of bumpers for insurance pricing purposes. Other countries, such as Japan, are more concerned about injury to their pedestrians and therefore do not necessarily want car bumpers to be so rigid and unyielding that they could lead to a higher risk of injuries to pedestrians. The downside to options 3 and 4 is that Canadian consumers could lose with respect to both safety and reparability if some manufacturers (including perhaps emerging entities that do not currently market in Canada) choose to economize by selling cars in Canada that meet none of the other national standards for bumpers.
The proposed option 5 would be to amend the Canadian bumper standard to align the bumper impact test speeds with those of the United States. This would ensure free trade between Canada and the United States, and would also put the Canadian impact test speeds more in line with those of ECE Regulation No. 42. While introducing this option would increase the number of passenger car vehicle models available in Canada, the Department is not able to determine if there would be any negative effect on safety as the current passenger car fleet is capable of meeting the higher speed tests.
Option 6 would be to not only amend the Canadian bumper standard to align the bumper impact test speeds with those of the United States but also to allow compliance with the lower leg requirements of the gtr on pedestrian safety as an option or as a mandatory requirement. Discussions with the industry revealed that, while it is very challenging and costly to design to the Canadian bumper standard and the gtr on pedestrian safety, they are able to manufacture vehicles that would comply with both the U.S. bumper standard and the gtr. World studies all suggest that pedestrian head and leg injuries will be significantly reduced with the introduction of pedestrian safety requirements. The science on lower leg injury prevention is relatively more advanced at present.
Comments
Manufacturers, importers, public safety organizations, insurers, and other interested parties are requested to provide their comments on this proposal in writing, at the address provided below, before December 31, 2007. Comments should be supported by data wherever possible.
Comments should identify those parts of the representations that should not be disclosed pursuant to the Access to Information Act and, in particular, pursuant to sections 19 and 20 of the Act, the reason why those parts should not be disclosed and the period during which those parts should remain undisclosed.
Comments, questions, and requests for additional information regarding this notice may be directed to Matthew Coons, Senior Regulatory Development Engineer, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Transport Canada, 330 Sparks Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, 613-998-1961 (telephone), 613-990-2913 (fax); and Standards and Regulations Division, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Transport Canada, 330 Sparks Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, 613-998-2268 (telephone), 613-990-2913 (fax).
CHRISTIAN LAVOIE
Director
Standards Research and Development
For the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
[41-1-o]
BANK OF CANADA
Balance sheet as at September 30, 2007
(Millions of dollars)
Unaudited
| ASSETS | montant | total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deposits in foreign currencies | 6.8 | ||
| Loans and receivables | |||
| Advances to members of the Canadian Payments Association | |||
| Advances to Governments | |||
| Securities purchased under resale agreements | 1,548.2 | ||
| Other loans and receivables | 31.5 | ||
| 1,579.7 | |||
| Investments | |||
| Treasury bills of Canada | 20,323.7 | ||
| Other securities issued or guaranteed by Canada: |
|||
| maturing within three years | 11,503.3 | ||
| maturing in over three years but not over five years |
6,200.9 | ||
| maturing in over five years but not over ten years |
5,711.6 | ||
| maturing in over ten years | 6,327.2 | ||
| Other investments | 38.0 | ||
| 50,104.7 | |||
| Bank premises | 130.9 | ||
| Other assets | 83.7 | ||
| 51,905.8 | |||
| LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL | |||
| Bank notes in circulation | 47,979.8 | ||
| Deposits | |||
| Government of Canada | 1,907.7 | ||
| Members of the Canadian Payments Association | 1,039.4 | ||
| Other | 493.3 | ||
| 3,386.4 | |||
| Liabilities in foreign currencies | |||
| Government of Canada | |||
| Other | |||
| Other Liabilities | |||
| Securities sold under repurchase agreements |
|||
| All other liabilities | 391.1 | ||
| 391.1 | |||
| 51,757.3 | |||
| Capital | |||
| Share capital | 5.0 | ||
| Statutory reserve | 25.0 | ||
| Special reserve | 100.0 | ||
| Accumulated other comprehensive income | 18.5 | ||
| 148.5 | |||
| 51,905.8 | |||
I declare that the foregoing return is correct according to the books of the Bank.
Ottawa, October 2, 2007
H. A. WOERMKE
Acting Chief Accountant
I declare that the foregoing return is to the best of my knowledge and belief correct, and shows truly and clearly the financial position of the Bank, as required by section 29 of the Bank of Canada Act.
Ottawa, October 2, 2007
DAVID A. DODGE
Governor
[41-1-o]
With regards to the Andean Community countries, although Canada is negotiating an FTA with Columbia and Peru at this time, the environmental assessment will consider possible free trade with Ecuador and Bolivia as well, in the event that the Government decides to negotiate with these countries.
CARICOM is comprised of the following members: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Surinam, Trinidad and Tobago, and Montserrat.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada is committed to respecting the privacy rights of individuals who participate in consultation-related activities. The information is being collected for the sole purpose of assisting the Government of Canada in conducting the Initial Environmental Assessments of the Canada-Dominican Republic FTA negotiations, the Canada-Andean Community FTA negotiations, and the Canada-CARICOM FTA negotiations. It will not be linked with other databases, nor will it be used for any secondary purpose (e.g. follow-up research/survey) without first obtaining your explicit consent. This information will be retained for seven years and stored with the program records of the Regional and Bilateral Trade Policy Division under the following class of personal information: Environmental Assessment Consultations — Canada-Dominican Republic FTA; Environmental Assessment Consultations — Canada-Andean Community FTA; and Environmental Assessment Consultations — Canada-CARICOM FTA. Your personal information is protected from disclosure to unauthorized persons/agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act, and you should also know that third party commercial information may be subject to requests under the Access to Information Act. However, in these instances, no information will be released without your prior consent.
NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).
