Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 158, Number 5: GOVERNMENT NOTICES

February 3, 2024

DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

Ministerial Instructions with respect to the processing of certain applications for a study permit made by a foreign national as a member of the student class

These Instructions are published in the Canada Gazette in accordance with subsection 87.3(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

These Instructions are given, pursuant to section 87.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as, in the opinion of the Minister, these Instructions will best support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada by

Overview

These Instructions stipulate that new study permit applications within the scope of these Instructions require a provincial attestation letter from the respective province or territory where the applicant intends to study.

The intent of these Instructions is to ensure the number of study permit applications accepted into processing by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (the Department) within the scope of the Instructions does not exceed 606 250 study permit applications for one year beginning on the date of signature. As stipulated in these Instructions, certain categories of study permit applications are excluded from the conditions set out in these Instructions and the associated application cap established by these Instructions.

Definitions

The following definitions apply in these Instructions.

“Act”
means the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (Loi)
“provincial attestation letter”
means a letter written and signed by a provincial or territorial government confirming that an applicant has a space within the provincial or territorial allocation for study permit applications, and must include the following information of the foreign national:
  1. full name,
  2. date of birth, and
  3. address. (lettre d’attestation provinciale)
“Regulations”
means the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. (Règlement)

Scope

These Instructions apply to applications for a study permit made under the student class, referred to in Part 12 of the Regulations, except for:

  1. study permit applications referred to in subsection 215(1) of the Regulations;
  2. study permit applications referred to in subsection 215(2) of the Regulations;
  3. study permit applications from foreign nationals planning to study at the primary school or secondary school level; or
  4. study permit applications from foreign nationals planning to study in a graduate degree program at the master’s or doctorate level.

Conditions

In order to be accepted for processing, any study permit application subject to these Instructions that was received after the coming into effect of these Instructions must include a provincial attestation letter.

Study permit applications received by the Department after the coming into effect of these Instructions that do not include a provincial attestation letter will not be accepted for processing, and processing fees will be returned.

Maximum number of study permit applications to be accepted for processing in a year

These Instructions authorize a maximum of 606 250 study permit applications within the scope of these Instructions, to be accepted for processing for one year beginning on the date of signature.

This maximum number of study permit applications accepted for processing may be amended in accordance with any subsequent Instructions the Minister may provide.

Study permit applications that are within the scope of these Instructions received by the Department after the maximum number of study permit applications has been reached will not be accepted for processing and processing fees will be returned.

Coming into effect

These Instructions take effect upon signature.

The Hon. Marc Miller, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Dated on January 22, 2024

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Order 2024-87-01-02 Amending the Non-domestic Substances List

Whereas, under subsection 87(5) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 footnote a, the Minister of the Environment has added the substances referred to in the annexed Order to the Domestic Substances List footnote b;

Therefore, the Minister of the Environment makes the annexed Order 2024-87-01-02 Amending the Non-domestic Substances List under subsection 87(5) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 footnote a.

Gatineau, January 29, 2024

Steven Guilbeault
Minister of the Environment

Order 2024-87-01-02 Amending the Non-domestic Substances List

Amendment

1 Part I of the Non-domestic Substances List footnote 1 is amended by deleting the following:

Coming into Force

2 This Order comes into force on the day on which Order 2024-87-01-01 Amending the Domestic Substances List comes into force.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Publication after assessment of 12 substances in the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group specified on the Domestic Substances List (section 77 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

Whereas a summary of the draft assessment conducted on the 12 substances identified in the annex below pursuant to paragraphs 68(b) and (c) of the Act is annexed hereby;

And whereas it is proposed to conclude that bay oil, tarragon oil, jasmine oil, perfumes and essences of jasmin, violet oil and lilial meet one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

Notice therefore is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) propose to recommend to Her Excellency the Governor in Council that these substances be added to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act.

Notice is furthermore given that the ministers have released a risk management scope document for these substances to initiate discussions with stakeholders on the development of risk management options.

And whereas it is proposed to conclude that the remaining six substances do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

Notice therefore is hereby given that the ministers propose to take no further action on these substances at this time under section 77 of the Act.

Notice is further given that options are being considered for follow-up activities to track changes in exposure to verdantiol, myrac-aldehyde, myrmac-aldehyde, myrmac-carboxaldehyde, cetonal and vernaldehyde.

Public comment period

Any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the measure the ministers propose to take and on the scientific considerations on the basis of which the measure is proposed. More information regarding the scientific considerations may be obtained from the Canada.ca (Chemical substances) website. All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be addressed to the Executive Director, Substance Prioritization, Assessment and Coordination Division, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, by email to substances@ec.gc.ca, or by using the online reporting system available through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Single Window.

In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential.

Jacqueline Gonçalves
Director General
Science Reporting and Assessment Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment

Cécile Siewe
Director General
Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment

Greg Carreau
Director General
Safe Environments Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of Health

ANNEX
Summary of the draft assessment of the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group

Pursuant to section 68 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have conducted an assessment of 12 substances referred to under the Chemicals Management Plan as the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group. The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CAS RNsfootnote 2the Domestic Substances List (DSL) names, the common names, and the subgroups of these substances are listed in the table below.

Substances in the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group
CAS RN Subgroup DSL name Common name
8006-78-8 table a1 note a Individual (Phenylpropanoids) Oils, bay Bay oil
8016-88-4 table a1 note a Individual (Phenylpropanoids) Oils, tarragon Tarragon oil
8022-96-6 table a1 note a Phenylpropanoids subgroup 1 (Phenylpropanoids) Oils, jasmine Jasmine oil
8024-43-9 table a1 note a Phenylpropanoids subgroup 1 (Phenylpropanoids) Perfumes and essences, jasmin Perfumes and essences of jasmin
8024-08-6 table a1 note a Individual (Aldehydes) Oils, violet Violet oil
80-54-6 Aldehydes subgroup 2 (Aldehydes) Benzenepropanol, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-α-methyl- Lilial
91-51-0 Aldehydes subgroup 2 (Aldehydes) Benzoic acid, 2-[[3-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-2-methylpropylidene]amino]-, methyl ester Verdantiol
37677-14-8 Aldehydes subgroup 2 (Aldehydes) 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 4-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)- Myrac-aldehyde
52474-60-9 Aldehydes subgroup 2 (Aldehydes) 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-methyl-3-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)- Myrmac-aldehyde
52475-86-2 Aldehydes subgroup 2 (Aldehydes) 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-methyl-4-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)- Myrmac-carboxaldehyde
65405-84-7 Aldehydes subgroup 2 (Aldehydes) Cyclohexenebutanal, α,2,2,6-tetramethyl- Cetonal
66327-54-6 Aldehydes subgroup 2 (Aldehydes) 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-methyl-4-(4-methylpentyl)- Vernaldehyde

Table a1 note(s)

Table a1 note a

The substance bearing this CAS RN is a UVCB (substance of unknown or variable composition, complex reaction product, or biological material).

Return to table a1 note a referrer

All of the substances in the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group were included in a survey issued pursuant to a CEPA section 71 survey (Canada, 2012footnote 3). With the exception of lilial, none of the substances in this group were reported to be manufactured or imported into Canada in quantities greater than the reported threshold of 100 kg during the 2011 reporting year (Environment Canada, 2013footnote 4). For lilial, 910 kg was reported to be manufactured in Canada in 2008, and 24 460 kg was reported to be imported into Canada during the same calendar year (Environment Canada, 2013footnote 4).

The substances in the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group are generally used as fragrance ingredients in cosmetics, drugs including natural health products (NHPs), cleaning products, and air fresheners, including do-it-yourself (DIY) use of these substances to create some of these products. Some of them are also present in pest control products as formulants. In addition, some of them occur naturally in food and may be used as food flavouring agents.

The ecological risks of substances in the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group were characterized using the ecological risk classification of organic substances (ERC) approach, which is a risk-based approach that employs multiple metrics for both hazard and exposure, with weighted consideration of multiple lines of evidence for determining risk classification. Hazard profiles are based principally on metrics regarding mode of toxic action, chemical reactivity, food web–derived internal toxicity thresholds, bioavailability, and chemical and biological activity. Metrics considered in the exposure profiles include potential emission rate, overall persistence, and long-range transport potential. A risk matrix is used to assign a low, moderate, or high level of potential concern for substances on the basis of their hazard and exposure profiles. Based on the outcome of the ERC analysis, the substances in the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group are considered unlikely to be causing ecological harm.

Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this draft assessment, there is a low risk of harm to the environment from substances in the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group. It is proposed to conclude that the 12 substances in the Phenylpropanoids and Aldehydes Group do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(a) or (b) of CEPA, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

For the human health risk assessment, 9 of the 12 substances in this group have been addressed under two subgroups, due to similarities in chemical structure, properties, and/or toxicity, while the remaining 3 substances were addressed individually. An impact on human health resulting from exposure to these substances from environmental media is not expected due to the low quantities submitted in response to a CEPA section 71 survey or estimated exposures from environmental monitoring and modelling. Where applicable, exposures were characterized for the use of cosmetics, and of drugs including NHPs, and for possible use as food flavouring agents, cleaning products, air fresheners, and DIY products containing the phenylpropanoids and aldehydes, and were expected to be predominately by the dermal and inhalation routes.

For bay oil, the risk characterization was based on methyl eugenol, a component of bay oil. The critical health effect was genotoxic carcinogenicity in laboratory animals. Methyl eugenol is described as a restricted ingredient on the Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist. The Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist describes it as being permitted only as a naturally occurring component in botanical extracts, with maximum permitted concentrations in the final product listed for different product types. In this assessment, it has been assumed that these restrictions are met and that bay oil is the only contributor of methyl eugenol. Margins of exposure (MOEs) to bay oil from food, cosmetics, and a respiratory air spray or inhaler stick (NHP) are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. A comparison of the critical health effect to the estimated level of exposure to bay oil from its use in making a DIY bath oil product is considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. The MOEs to bay oil from its use in DIY products such as in an aromatic diffuser or body moisturizer, with the critical health effect, are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk.

For tarragon oil, the risk characterization was based on one of its main components, methyl eugenol, and two structurally similar compounds, estragole and elemicin, which were assumed in this assessment to have the same cancer potency as methyl eugenol. The critical health effect was genotoxic carcinogenicity in laboratory animals. The MOEs to tarragon oil from food (based on its potential use as a flavouring agent), digestive aid capsules (NHP), facial cleansers, and soaps are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. However, the MOEs between the critical effect level and the estimates of daily exposure from body moisturizers, body fragrances, and facial moisturizers are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. In addition, for exposures to tarragon oil from its use in DIY products such as in aromatic diffusers, massage oils, bath oil products, or body moisturizers, the MOEs are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk.

For phenylpropanoids subgroup 1 (jasmine oil, perfumes and essences of jasmin), hazard information was based on jasmine extract. The critical health effect was female reproductive toxicity in laboratory animals. A comparison of the critical health effect to estimated levels of exposure to phenylpropanoids subgroup 1 from food (based on its potential use as a flavouring agent), hair conditioners, body cleansers, topical treatment creams (NHP), facial sun protection powders (NHP), de-stress roll-ons (NHP), lipsticks, hair styling products, antiperspirants/deodorants, temporary hair colour, and sunscreens (children of two years and older) [NHP] resulted in MOEs that are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. In addition, MOEs for jasmine oil from its use in a DIY bath oil product are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. The MOEs derived from the use of jasmine oil in an aerosol all-purpose cleaner, an all-purpose floor cleaner, an aerosol laundry conditioner, or a liquid laundry detergent are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. However, the MOEs between the critical effect levels and the estimates of daily exposure from body moisturizers, body fragrances, facial moisturizers/acne treatments (NHP), sunscreens (children who are 6 to 12 months) [NHP], or antiseptic skin cleansers (NHP) are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. In addition, the MOEs derived from the use of jasmine oil in DIY products such as in aromatic diffusers, massage oils, body moisturizers, or facial steamers are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk.

Hazard information for 2,4-hexadienal, the read-across analogue of 2,6-nonadienal, one of the main components of violet oil, was used to inform the hazard assessment of violet oil. Critical health effects in laboratory animals of mild to moderate forestomach epithelial hyperplasia were used to characterize risk. The MOEs to violet oil from food (based on its potential use as a flavouring agent), eye moisturizers, hair conditioners, facial cleansers, body moisturizers, massage oils (children who are nine years and above), lipsticks, or body fragrances, or from its use in DIY products such as bath oil products or body moisturizers, are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. However, the MOEs derived from the use of violet oil in a massage oil (children who are eight years and below) and the use of violet oil in DIY products, such as those used in aromatic diffusers or facial steamers, are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk.

For aldehydes subgroup 2 (lilial, verdantiol, myrac-aldehyde, myrmac-aldehyde, myrmac-carboxaldehyde, cetonal, vernaldehyde), hazard information for lilial was used as a read-across analogue to inform the hazard assessment for all the other substances in the aldehydes subgroup. Critical health effects of developmental toxicity in laboratory animals were used to characterize risk. The MOEs between the critical effect levels and the estimates of exposure to lilial from environmental media, body cleansers, hair conditioners (wash-off), face makeup, nail polish, nail polish removers, depilator products, spray antiperspirants/deodorants, bath products, acne treatments (NHP), antiseptic skin cleansers (NHP), temporary hair colour, or facial sunless tanning products are considered to be adequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. In addition, the MOEs between the critical effect levels and the estimates of exposure to lilial from a carpet deodorizer are considerate to be adequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. However, the MOEs between the critical effect levels and the estimates of daily exposure to lilial from cosmetics, a solid gel air freshener, or a liquid plug-in air freshener (one-year old children) are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk.

For myrac-aldehyde, myrmac-aldehyde, myrmac-carboxaldehyde, cetonal, and vernaldehyde, the MOEs between the critical effect level and the estimates of daily exposure from cosmetics, as well as air fresheners and cleaning products, are considered adequate to account for uncertainties.

Since there were no identified sources of exposure to the general population for verdantiol, a qualitative approach to risk characterization was taken, and the risk to human health from verdantiol was considered to be low.

The human health assessment for each substance took into consideration those groups of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be more vulnerable to experiencing adverse health effects. Certain subpopulations are routinely considered throughout the assessment process, such as infants, children, and people of reproductive age. For instance, age-specific exposures are routinely estimated, and developmental and reproductive studies are evaluated for potential adverse health effects. These subpopulations that have potential for higher exposure and those who may be more susceptible were taken into account in the risk assessment outcomes.

On the basis of the information presented in this draft assessment, it is proposed to conclude that bay oil, tarragon oil, jasmine oil, perfumes and essences of jasmin, violet oil, and lilial meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA, as they are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health and that verdantiol, myrac-aldehyde, myrmac-aldehyde, myrmac-carboxaldehyde, cetonal, and vernaldehyde do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Proposed overall conclusion

Therefore, it is proposed to conclude that bay oil, tarragon oil, jasmine oil, perfumes and essences of jasmin, violet oil and lilial meet one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA, and that verdantiol, myrac-aldehyde, myrmac-aldehyde, myrmac-carboxaldehyde, cetonal, and vernaldehyde do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA.

It is also proposed to conclude that lilial meets the persistence criteria but not the bioaccumulation criteria as set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.

Consideration for follow-up

While exposure of the general population or the environment to verdantiol, myrac-aldehyde, myrmac-aldehyde, myrmac-carboxaldehyde, cetonal, and vernaldehyde are not of concern at current levels, these substances are associated with effects of concern. Therefore, there may be concern if exposure were to increase. Follow-up activities may be considered in future initiatives to track their commercial status or identify new uses or exposures.

Stakeholders are encouraged to provide, during the 60-day public comment period on the draft assessment, any information pertaining to the substances that may help inform the choice of follow-up activity. This could include information on new or planned import, manufacture or use of the substances, if the information has not previously been submitted to the ministers.

The draft assessment and the risk management scope document for these substances are available on the Canada.ca (Chemical substances) website.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Publication after assessment of three substances — hydrogen sulfide (H2S), CAS RN footnote 5 7783-06-4; sodium sulfide [Na(SH)] (sodium bisulfide), CAS RN 16721-80-5; and sodium sulfide (Na2S), CAS RN 1313-82-2 — specified on the Domestic Substances List (section 77 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

Whereas a summary of the updated draft assessment conducted on hydrogen sulfide, sodium bisulfide, and sodium sulfide pursuant to paragraphs 68(b) and (c) of the Act is annexed hereby;

And whereas it is proposed to conclude that hydrogen sulfide meets one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

Notice therefore is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) propose to recommend to Her Excellency the Governor in Council that this substance be added to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act.

Notice is furthermore given that the ministers have released a risk management scope document for this substance to initiate discussions with interested parties on the development of risk management options.

And whereas it is proposed to conclude that sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

Notice therefore is hereby given that the ministers propose to take no further action on the remaining substances at this time under section 77 of the Act.

Public comment period

Any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the measure the ministers propose to take and on the scientific considerations on the basis of which the measure is proposed. More information regarding the scientific considerations may be obtained from the Canada.ca (Chemical substances) website. All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be addressed to the Executive Director, Substance Prioritization, Assessment and Coordination Division, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, by email to substances@ec.gc.ca or by using the online reporting system available through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Single Window.

In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential.

Jacqueline Gonçalves
Director General
Science Reporting and Assessment Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment

Cécile Siewe
Director General
Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment

Greg Carreau
Director General
Safe Environments Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of Health

ANNEX
Summary of the updated draft assessment of hydrogen sulfide, sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide

Pursuant to section 68 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have conducted an assessment of hydrogen sulfide (H2S; Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number [CAS RN] 7783-06-4), sodium sulfide [Na(SH); referred to as sodium bisulfide in this assessment (CAS RN 16721-80-5)], and sodium sulfide (Na2S; CAS RN 1313-82-2). A draft assessment for hydrogen sulfide, sodium bisulfide, and sodium sulfide was published in September 2017. New information subsequently became available regarding incidental releases of hydrogen sulfide and exposure to humans and the environment. As a result, the draft assessment was updated.

Hydrogen sulfide is a naturally occurring inorganic gas produced from the anaerobic degradation of organic matter; it is therefore widely present in anaerobic sediments and water, and in biological wastes. It is found naturally in crude oil petroleum, natural gas, volcanic gases, and hot springs and is released from these natural sources primarily to air and to water under specific environmental conditions. It can also be released as a result of anthropogenic activities. Industrial operations that release hydrogen sulfide in Canada include oil and gas facilities, kraft pulp and paper mills, wastewater treatment systems, mining production, and intensive livestock operations. Hydrogen sulfide can also be released from inactive oil and gas wells in Canada.

According to information submitted in response to a CEPA section 71 survey, sodium bisulfide is used commercially as a non-pesticidal agricultural substance in non-pesticidal agricultural products, or as a dye or intermediate in paints and coatings and building and construction materials (wood and engineered wood). Sodium sulfide is used in Canada in pulp and paper processing, wastewater treatment, mining, and smelting, and may be used as a component in the manufacture of food packaging materials, but without direct contact with food. These two substances will dissociate to form bisulfide and sulfide anions and hydrogen sulfide if released to water; however, they are not expected to be released to air because of their low vapour pressure. Considering that the likely medium of release for these substances is the aquatic environment, the environmental assessment is focused on hydrogen sulfide. It has been noted that hydrogen sulfide can be released directly to air, or it can volatilize to air from other environmental media (e.g. water, soil). If the general Canadian population were to be exposed to undissociated sodium bisulfide or sodium sulfide, either salt would rapidly and completely hydrolyze in bodily fluids, resulting in the formation of hydrogen sulfide. No specific additional hazard is associated with either salt beyond that associated with hydrogen sulfide. The human health risk characterization is therefore also focused on exposure to hydrogen sulfide.

Concentrations of hydrogen sulfide have been measured in air, surface water, groundwater, and wastewater effluents in the vicinity of pulp and paper operations, oil and gas facilities, wastewater treatment systems, and livestock operations. Incidental releases of hydrogen sulfide have also been measured near inactive oil and gas wells in Ontario, Canada. There are over 279 000 inactive oil and gas wells in Canada. It is reasonable to expect that some inactive oil and gas wells in other provinces and/or territories are also producing incidental releases of hydrogen sulfide, although data about such releases are lacking.

Hydrogen sulfide has the potential to harm aquatic organisms and terrestrial plants when they are exposed to low concentrations. However, in the case of plants, low concentrations can also have stimulatory effects.

A risk quotient analysis determined that the current ambient hydrogen sulfide concentrations in Canadian air near certain anthropogenic sources are unlikely to be high enough to cause adverse effects to terrestrial organisms (mammals or plants) and that the concentrations in surface water near potential sources are unlikely to cause adverse effects to aquatic organisms. However, information is available indicating that there are also incidents of releases of high levels of hydrogen sulfide from inactive oil and gas wells. Although there are limitations to the data, the overall number of reports of incidental exposure, combined with the number of inactive oil and gas wells in Canada, indicates that these incidental releases could be a potential cause for ecological concern. Sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide are not identified as being associated with hydrogen sulfide exposure of concern to the environment.

Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this draft assessment, there is risk of harm to the environment from hydrogen sulfide. It is proposed to conclude that hydrogen sulfide meets the criteria under paragraph 64(a) of CEPA as it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity. However, it is proposed to conclude that hydrogen sulfide does not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(b) of CEPA as it is not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends. It is further proposed to conclude that sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(a) or (b) of CEPA as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

Inhalation is expected to be the predominant route of hydrogen sulfide exposure to the general population; therefore, the health effects assessment is focused on the effects of exposure by this route. Critical effects associated with hydrogen sulfide include respiratory and neurological effects. No genotoxicity or carcinogenicity classifications by other national or international regulatory agencies were identified. Available information does not indicate that hydrogen sulfide is genotoxic or carcinogenic.

Hydrogen sulfide present in ambient air comes from natural and anthropogenic sources, and a review of the available data on continuous air monitoring indicates that a representative upper-bounding range of ambient air concentrations to which the general population would be exposed is 0.001 ppm to 0.031 ppm (0.0014 mg/m3 to 0.0434 mg/m3). The lowest value of this range represents the overall average concentration measured in an urban area presumed to be away from major anthropogenic sources; the highest value of the range is the highest of all 99th percentile concentrations derived from measurements near point sources in Canada. Margins between upper-bounding concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in ambient air and levels associated with critical health effects (ocular, respiratory, and neurological) are considered to be adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure data used to characterize risk. These margins are also expected to account for the formation of hydrogen sulfide from the commercial uses of sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide.

According to information received from provincial and municipal jurisdictions in Ontario, incidents of release of high levels of hydrogen sulfide from inactive oil and gas wells in Canada also occur. These incidents potentially result in acute exposure of the general population to levels approaching or exceeding concentrations of hydrogen sulfide associated with acute respiratory effects. Accordingly — although it is recognized that there are limitations associated with the nature of the data on incidental releases — given the magnitude of reported incidental concentrations, the level at which acute health effects can occur, and the number of incidents that were reported, combined with the number of inactive oil and gas wells in Canada, it is determined that there is a potential concern for human health associated with incidental exposure to hydrogen sulfide.

There are groups of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be more vulnerable to experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances. In the assessment of hydrogen sulfide, people living near inactive oil and gas wells who are more likely to be exposed to high levels of hydrogen sulfide from release events were considered. In addition, data was available to account for people who have asthma and who may be more susceptible to respiratory effects from exposure to hydrogen sulfide.

Considering all the information presented in this draft assessment, it is proposed to conclude that hydrogen sulfide meets the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA as it is entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health. It is further proposed to conclude that sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Proposed overall conclusion

It is therefore proposed to conclude that hydrogen sulfide meets one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA and that sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide do not meet any criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA.

It is also proposed to conclude that hydrogen sulfide meets the persistence but not the bioaccumulation criteria as set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.

The updated draft assessment for these substances and the risk management scope document for hydrogen sulfide are available on the Canada.ca (Chemical substances) website.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality — Antimony

Pursuant to subsection 55(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Minister of Health hereby gives notice of the final Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality — Antimony. The technical document for these guidelines is available on the Water Quality — Reports and Publications web page. This document was publicly consulted for 60 days in 2023 and was updated taking into consideration the comments received.

February 2, 2024

Greg Carreau
Director General
Safe Environments Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of Health

ANNEX

Guideline

A maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of 0.006 mg/L (6 μg/L) is established for total antimony in drinking water.

Executive summary

This guideline technical document was prepared in collaboration with the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water.

Exposure

Antimony naturally occurs in the environment in the form of organic and inorganic compounds. Antimony enters the environment from natural sources and human activities, with coal combustion, mining and smelting being the most important sources of release from human activities.

Canadians can be exposed to antimony via food, drinking water, air and consumer products. Exposure to antimony through environmental media, food and water is considered as low. Antimony may enter drinking water from plumbing solders in drinking water distribution systems. Food (including breast milk for infants), beverages and, to a lesser extent, drinking water are identified as the main contributors for exposure to the general population.

Canadian data indicate that antimony is not commonly found in drinking water. The detection frequency for antimony in drinking water is very low and reported levels are largely below detection limits.

Health effects

Oral exposure to antimony may induce adverse effects mainly on the gastrointestinal tract and the liver. Kidney, cardiovascular, metabolic, and developmental adverse effects have also been reported in the literature. The health-based value (HBV) of 0.003 mg/L (3 µg/L) was derived based on histopathological changes in the liver and changes in serum biochemistry observed in animal studies. These effects are indicative of impacts on the liver.

The overall weight of scientific evidence indicates that antimony and related compounds are not considered carcinogenic via the oral route of exposure.

Analytical and treatment considerations

The development of a drinking water guideline takes into consideration the ability to both measure the contaminant and remove it from drinking water supplies. Several analytical methods are available for measuring antimony in water concentrations well below the MAC. Measurements should be for total antimony, which includes both the dissolved and particulate forms of antimony in a water sample.

At the municipal level, treatment technologies that are available to achieve antimony drinking water concentrations below the MAC include coagulation, adsorption, reverse osmosis and coagulation followed by ultrafiltration. The performance of these technologies depends on factors such as antimony species, pH, coagulant type, coagulant dose and type of adsorbent.

At the residential scale, there are no treatment units currently certified for the removal of antimony from drinking water; however, the technology that is expected to be effective is reverse osmosis. Distillation may also be effective. When using such treatment units, it is important to send samples of water entering and leaving the treatment unit to an accredited laboratory for analysis to ensure that adequate antimony removal is occurring. Routine operation and maintenance of treatment units, including replacement of the filter components, should be conducted according to manufacturer specifications.

It is recommended that water utilities develop a distribution system management plan to minimize the accumulation and release of co-occurring contaminants, including antimony. This typically involves minimizing the antimony concentration entering the distribution system and implementing best practices to maintain stable chemical and biological water quality conditions throughout the system, as well as to minimize physical and hydraulic disturbances.

Application of the guidelines

Specific guidance related to the implementation of drinking water guidelines should be obtained from the appropriate drinking water authority.

All water utilities should implement a comprehensive, up-to-date risk management water safety plan. A source-to-tap approach should be taken that ensures water safety is maintained. This approach requires a system assessment to characterize the source water; describe the treatment barriers that prevent or reduce contamination; identify the conditions that can result in contamination; and implement control measures. Operational monitoring is then established and operational/management protocols are instituted (for example standard operating procedures, corrective actions and incident responses). Compliance monitoring is determined and other protocols to validate the water safety plan are implemented (for example record keeping and consumer satisfaction). Operator training is also required to ensure the effectiveness of the water safety plan at all times.

The guidelines are protective against health effects from exposure to antimony in drinking water over a lifetime. Any exceedance of the MAC should be investigated and followed by the appropriate corrective actions, if required. For exceedances in source water where there is no treatment in place, additional monitoring to confirm the exceedance should be conducted. If it is confirmed that antimony concentrations in the water source are above the MAC, then an investigation to determine the most appropriate way to reduce exposure to antimony should be conducted. This may include the use of an alternate water supply or installation of an antimony treatment system. Where treatment is already in place and an exceedance occurs, an investigation should be conducted to verify treatment and to determine whether adjustments are needed to lower the treated water concentration below the MAC.

Discolouration (coloured water) episodes are likely to be accompanied by the release of accumulated contaminants, including antimony, because dissolved antimony can adsorb onto deposits in the distribution and plumbing systems. Therefore, discoloured water events should not be considered only an aesthetic issue; they should trigger sampling for metals and possibly distribution system maintenance.

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

Appointment

Instrument of Advice dated January 8, 2024

January 26, 2024

Rachida Lagmiri
Official Documents Registrar

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

Appointments

January 26, 2024

Rachida Lagmiri
Official Documents Registrar

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

Senator called

Her Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to summon to the Senate of Canada, by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada bearing the date of January 22, 2024:

January 26, 2024

Rachida Lagmiri
Official Documents Registrar

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

INVESTMENT CANADA ACT

Amounts for the year 2024

Limits for World Trade Organization investors

Pursuant to subsections 14.1(1) and (2) of the Investment Canada Act, I hereby determine that the amount for the year 2024, equal to or above which an investment is reviewable, is 1.326 billion dollars.

Limits for World Trade Organization investors that are state-owned enterprises

Pursuant to subsections 14.1(1.1) and (2) of the Investment Canada Act, I hereby determine that the amount for the year 2024, equal to or above which an investment is reviewable, is 528 million dollars.

Limits for trade agreement investors

Pursuant to subsections 14.11(1), (2) and (3) of the Investment Canada Act, I hereby determine that the amount for the year 2024, equal to or above which an investment is reviewable, is 1.989 billion dollars.

François-Philippe Champagne
Minister of Industry

INNOVATION, SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CANADA

RADIOCOMMUNICATION ACT

Notice No. SPB-001-24 — Decision on New Access Licensing Framework, Changes to Subordinate Licensing and White Space to Support Rural and Remote Deployment

The intent of this notice is to announce Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s (ISED) publication of a decision on new measures to support innovation and the availability of services in rural and remote areas in the Personal Communications Services and Cellular bands through the release of the document entitled SPB-001-24, Decision on New Access Licensing Framework, Changes to Subordinate Licensing and White Space to Support Rural and Remote Deployment.

This document is the result of the consultation process undertaken in SLPB-004-21 Consultation on New Access Licensing Framework, Changes to Subordinate Licensing and White Space to Support Rural and Remote Deployment.

Obtaining copies

Copies of this notice and of documents referred to herein are available electronically on ISED’s Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website.

Official versions of notices can be viewed on the Canada Gazette website.

February 3, 2024

Chantal Davis
Senior Director
Spectrum Licensing Policy Branch

INNOVATION, SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CANADA

RADIOCOMMUNICATION ACT

Notice No. SPB-002-24 — Improving Indigenous Access to Spectrum: Draft Indigenous Priority Window Spectrum Policy Framework

The intent of this notice is to announce Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s (ISED) publication of an engagement process to seek input on a new draft spectrum policy framework called the Indigenous Priority Window (IPW), through the release of the document entitled SPB-002-24, Improving Indigenous Access to Spectrum: Draft Indigenous Priority Window Spectrum Policy Framework.

ISED will first apply the IPW to the 800 MHz (Cellular) band and the 1900 MHz Personal Communications Services (PCS) band licences made available through the Decision on New Access Licensing Framework, Changes to Subordinate Licensing and White Space to Support Rural and Remote Deployment.

Obtaining copies

Copies of this notice and of documents referred to herein are available electronically on ISED’s Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website.

Official versions of notices can be viewed on the Canada Gazette website.

February 3, 2024

Mark Saunders
Manager
Spectrum Policy Branch

OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

BANK ACT

Royal Bank of Canada — Letters patent of amalgamation and order to commence and carry on business

Notice is hereby given of the issuance,

February 3, 2024

Peter Routledge
Superintendent of Financial Institutions

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE

Appointment opportunities

We know that our country is stronger — and our government more effective — when decision-makers reflect Canada’s diversity. The Government of Canada has implemented an appointment process that is transparent and merit-based, strives for gender parity, and ensures that Indigenous peoples and minority groups are properly represented in positions of leadership. We continue to search for Canadians who reflect the values that we all embrace: inclusion, honesty, fiscal prudence, and generosity of spirit. Together, we will build a government as diverse as Canada.

We are equally committed to providing a healthy workplace that supports one’s dignity, self-esteem and the ability to work to one’s full potential. With this in mind, all appointees will be expected to take steps to promote and maintain a healthy, respectful and harassment-free work environment.

The Government of Canada is currently seeking applications from diverse and talented Canadians from across the country who are interested in the following positions.

Current opportunities

The following opportunities for appointments to Governor in Council positions are currently open for applications. Every opportunity is open for a minimum of two weeks from the date of posting on the Governor in Council appointments website.

Governor in Council appointment opportunities
Position Organization Closing date
Director Bank of Canada  
Director Canada Foundation for Innovation  
Director Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology  
Director Canada Infrastructure Bank  
Chairperson Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation  
Director Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation  
President Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation  
Chairperson Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization  
Director Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization  
Director Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse  
Director Canadian Commercial Corporation  
Commissioner Canadian Energy Regulator  
Director Canadian Energy Regulator  
Chief Commissioner Canadian Grain Commission  
Chief Commissioner Canadian Human Rights Commission  
Member Canadian Human Rights Tribunal  
Member Canadian Institutes of Health Research  
President Canadian Institutes of Health Research  
Chairperson Canadian Museum for Human Rights  
President Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission  
Director Canadian Race Relations Foundation  
Director Canadian Tourism Commission  
Chairperson Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board  
Member Copyright Board  
Director Export Development Canada  
Commissioner First Nations Tax Commission  
Director (Federal) Halifax Port Authority  
Deputy Chairperson and Member, Refugee Appeal Division Immigration and Refugee Board  
Member Independent Advisory Board on Eligibility for Journalism Tax Measures  
Vice-Chairperson Independent Advisory Board on Eligibility for Journalism Tax Measures  
Member International Pacific Halibut Commission  
Chairperson Laurentian Pilotage Authority  
Commissioner Law Commission of Canada  
Parliamentary Librarian Library of Parliament  
Chairperson Military Grievances External Review Committee  
Vice-Chairperson Military Grievances External Review Committee  
Chairperson National Advisory Council on Poverty  
Member (Children’s Issues) National Advisory Council on Poverty  
Chairperson National Gallery of Canada  
Chairperson National Seniors Council  
Member National Seniors Council  
Canadian Representative North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization  
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner  
Director of Public Prosecutions Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions  
Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments Senate  
Member Social Sciences and Humanity Research Council  
Chairperson Telefilm Canada  
Member Telefilm Canada  
Director VIA Rail Canada Inc.