Vol. 132, No. 31 — August 1, 1998

Regulations Amending the Fish Inspection Regulations

Statutory Authority

Fish Inspection Act

Sponsoring Agency

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

This amendment is the result of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) ongoing participation in regulatory review activities and consequent re-examination of how domestic fish inspection services are provided and administered.

The Quality Management Program (QMP) is currently recognized internationally as perhaps the most effective approach to providing reasonable assurance that fish products are safe, of acceptable quality, and fairly traded. Apart from further enhancing food safety and consumer protection, proposed amendments, notably those regarding the incorporation of all Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles into QMP, are absolutely crucial to maintaining market access. There is a worldwide trend to the adoption of mandatory HACCP systems by our major trading partners such as the United States. For example, the United States implemented new seafood regulations on December 18, 1997, that require all fish or fishery products offered for sale in the United States to be processed under a HACCP system. Approximately 85 percent of Canada’s fish products are exported. Of this export trade, 56 percent goes to the United States and 10 percent to the European Union.

These proposed amendments enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of QMP delivery, foster a more collaborative approach between industry and government, and encourage the utilization of modern audit or regulatory techniques and methods in evaluating QMPs.

History

Section 15 of the Fish Inspection Regulations, made pursuant to the Fish Inspection Act, currently require that all federally registered fish processing establishments that process fish and fish products for export (export defined as crossing provincial or national boundaries) have functioning QMPs in effect for each type of fish processing operation conducted at their establishments. Types of “fish process operations” total six in number: fresh/frozen; ready-to-eat; drying and saltfish; pickled, spiced and marinated; canning; and molluscan shellfish.

QMP was successfully implemented in over 1 200 fish processing establishments in February 1992, and was the first mandatory food inspection program in the world largely based on HACCP inspection principles.

HACCP is now recognized as the most effective tool for achieving safe food products, and is becoming food’s passport to the international market place. HACCP-based inspection systems such as QMP comprise a systematic approach to identification, assessment, and prevention of food safety hazards. Their focus is on preventing product and process defects from occurring (as both could result in the production and marketing of unsafe foods) rather than spending time attempting to “inspect defects out” of finished products.

Also, apart from covering food safety, QMP also addresses fish quality minimum acceptability and fraudulent presentation of fish products.

As a result, QMP is recognized internationally as an effective approach to providing reasonable assurance that fish products are safe, of acceptable quality, and fairly traded. QMP has considerably facilitated market access of Canadian fish.

Up until now, to develop QMPs, federally registered establishments have identified the quality assurance specifications and monitoring criteria, and inspection functions that their quality control and/or production staff take at 12 regulated critical control points (CCP). These are prescribed in the Regulations for each process operation they perform in their establishments. These critical control points are:

(a) Incoming Fish
(b) Other Ingredients
(c) Packaging Material
(d) Cleaning Agents, Sanitizers, and Lubricants
(e) Labelling
(f) Construction Equipment
(g) Operations and Sanitation
(h) Process Controls
(i) Storage
(j) Final Product
(k) Recall
(l) Employee Qualifications

Federally registered fish processing establishments keep records of all inspections they conduct for each CCP of each process operation covered by a QMP, and take remedial action where warranted to correct deficiencies and maintain compliance with the Regulations.

The Fish Inspection Directorate of the CFIA audits functioning QMPs of federally registered establishments, and rates them as Excellent, Good, Satisfactory or Fail (if they do not meet requirements), in accordance with QMP policy and procedures, which include reviews of all establishment QMP records, spot checks of CCPs, and inspections of lots of finished product produced in timeframes between QMP audits. When establishments receive Fail ratings, CFIA inspectors take appropriate enforcement action up to and including suspension of federal registration or legal action, in accordance with CFIA compliance policy.

In this way, industry maintains responsibility for the quality and safety of the products it produces, while Government establishes the requirements and standards, and audits industry QMPs to confirm that the QMPs and establishment operations are functioning effectively and products meet the Regulations.

CFIA inspectors now focus their time and efforts on establishments or products where food safety or trade risks are greatest, or which have an unsatisfactory history of compliance. As a result, CFIA inspectors no longer provide continuous in-establishment inspection service.

The Current Situation

Since the implementation of QMP, in 1992, no changes to the program have taken place. In order to enhance overall QMP effectiveness and efficiency, in June 1996, the CFIA formed a QMP Re-Engineering Task Force. The Task Force was formed to examine QMP after four years of operation, and make recommendations to amend QMP regulations and policy, based on the their assessment of QMP and the worldwide trend towards the adoption of mandatory HACCP inspection systems.

Although QMP is based on HACCP principles, since its implementation, significant advances in the application of these principles have occurred.

Also, and just as importantly, the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) implemented new seafood regulations on December 18, 1997. These regulations require all fish or fishery products offered for sale in the United States to be processed under a HACCP system. These requirements also apply to imported seafood products. The United States (U.S.) represents approximately 56 percent of the export market for Canadian fish products. Similar requirements also exist in the European Union (EU), i.e., the EU’s evolving HACCP-based “own checks” program. The EU marketplace absorbs a further 10 percent of Canadian fish product exports. To maintain U.S. and EU market access, it is crucial that Canadian QMP requirements be fully HACCP-consistent.

Several internal and external reviews were thus carried out to measure the effectiveness of QMP. These reviews identified the strengths and weaknesses of QMP and provided a strong foundation to evolve QMP into a more effective, efficient and focused fish inspection system that is fully HACCP-consistent and incorporates all advances made in HACCP application.

As a result, amendments to the Fish Inspection Regulations are required to implement changes to registration and QMP requirements to respond to the results of these reviews.

Concurrently, the CFIA also examined a number of closely related regulatory issues such as establishment registration, vessel certification, canned fish processing and establishment construction and equipment requirements. Some of these issues are “regulatory housekeeping” while others are fairly significant in their own right and are intertwined with QMP. However, given the fact that in order to obtain federal registration, an establishment must have a QMP which complies with the Regulations, it was decided to deal with all in one regulatory package.

Therefore, the intent of this amendment is to better protect public safety and maintain market access, notably to the United States, through the enactment of regulations in which all:

(1) HACCP principles are incorporated into QMP, record keeping is stregthened and streamlined and QMP overall is thereby better aligned with internationally recognized standards;

(2) requirements regarding the administration of CFIA’s establishment registration activities are clarified and expanded, and application and enforcement of the Fish Inspection Regulations is facilitated;

(3) Schedule I, Construction and Equipment Requirements, and Schedule II, Operating Requirements, of the Fish Inspection Regulations shall be updated to confirm that processing infrastructure meets recognized “state of the art” international food handling standards with an increased emphasis on sanitation, but concurrently are streamlined and made easier to understand;

(4) exemption provisions contained in the Regulations are consolidated in one section, rationalized and thus made simpler to administer;

(5) requirements to attach certification stickers to fishing vessels are revoked; and

(6) provisions for the approval of thermal processes used in canneries to sterilize lots of canned fish are strengthened.

These regulatory amendments will permit consequent QMP and associated fish inspection policy and procedural changes, the net result of which is that the National Fish Inspection Program efficiency and effectiveness shall be enhanced, a more collaborative approach between industry and Government will be fostered and that modern audit techniques and methods in evaluating QMPs can be adopted.

Concurrently, outdated and redundant provisions of the Regulations will be revoked.

HACCP and QMP

Regulations will be enacted requiring that industry conduct hazard analyses and formulate HACCP inspection plans as one component of developing an overall QMP, and requiring that industry implement and comply with QMP in accordance with detailed requirements specified in the Facilities Inspection Manual and Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual which shall be referenced as applicable regulatory standards in the Regulations.

Also, QMP is being restructured in the Regulations to reorganize the existing, regulated 12 CCPs into a revised regulatory model consisting of three components — Prerequisite Programs, Regulatory Action Point Programs and HACCP Plans. This new QMP organization is illustrated by Table I.

As a result of these actions, Schedule VI of the Regulations dealing with existing QMP requirements is to be revoked.

As stated above, QMP is based on seven HACCP principles which are applicable to any type of food manufacturing operation as follows:

(1) Conduct a hazard analysis in which all significant hazards in any given process operation are identified;

(2) Identify the CCPs in the process at which identified hazards can be controlled, prevented or eliminated;

(3) Establish critical limits at each CCP so that when a particular value such as time or temperature falls outside of these operating parameters and hence is identified as a deviation, establishment quality control staff know that a potential safety hazard exists or may exist;

(4) Establish monitoring systems employing qualified personnel to ensure all products being processed are within critical limits at each CCP and that deviations are rapidly detected;

(5) Establish corrective action policies for each type of deviation so that effective remedies can be taken swiftly and no defective or potential or actual unsafe products are marketed;

(6) Establish verification or internal quality control systems such that in-establishment quality control staff are regularly reviewing their QMP operations, determining where improvements are required and effecting the necessary changes, especially in circumstances where corrective actions are taken; and

(7) Document appropriate inspection, grading, testing, audit or verification activities for internal review, the production of statistics by which the effectiveness of HACCP can be determined and for reference by external agencies such as Government in order to ensure that applicable legislative or regulatory requirements are being met.

When QMP was originally developed and implemented in 1992, industry was not required to conduct a hazard analysis or identify CCPs. The Fish Inspection Directorate conducted an industry-wide hazard analysis and subsequently “regulated” all CCPs in Schedule VI of the Fish Inspection Regulations. Also, the Fish Inspection Directorate largely took on the task of verification through the conducting of audits of functioning QMPs.

At the time, given the “newness of QMP” coupled with the fact that it was amongst the first mandatory HACCP-based program in the world, both industry and Government needed time to learn and implement what is a very sophisticated inspection and control system. It was simply “too big a jump” to go straight to a 100 percent HACCP regime. Hence, this was the rationale for not incorporating all HACCP requirements at that time in regulation.

TABLE I — THE NEW STRUCTURE OF QMP

Prerequisite Program Plan		Regulatory Action Point Plan		HACCP Plan
Covering:
I.	Plant Environment (Plant Construction, Equipment, Sanitation and Hygiene)	I.	Minimum Acceptable Fish Product Standards	CCP’s — Determined through the application of HACCP principles
		II.	Input Materials
		III.	Labelling
II.	Recall

Prerequisite Program Plan

An essential element of any food processing establishment quality system to control the plant environment elements and recall procedures to confirm compliance with the Fish Inspection Regulations.

— Plant Environment

— Recall Program

Regulatory Action Point Plan

Are controls established at a processing step(s) to confirm regulatory compliance. They focus on 3 elements of fish processing:

— minimum acceptable fish product standards;

— input materials; and,

— labelling and coding of final product.

HACCP Plan

A document prepared in accordance with the seven principles of HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) to confirm the control of significant hazards.

However, by 1997, in line with the international trend towards the mandatory adoption of HACCP systems and given that Canadian industry has reached the level of scientific and technical sophistication to proceed, action is being taken to incorporate in regulation the requirement for industry to develop, implement and comply with a QMP based on all of the above HACCP principles. This includes the conducting of hazard analyses, the establishment of critical limits, monitoring procedures and the integration of these principles into an overall establishment HACCP inspection plan administered by suitably qualified individuals based on methodologies recommended by the,

— World Health Organization,

— Codex Alimentarius Commission of the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, and

— National Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Criteria for Foods in the United States.

Periodic CFIA audits or regulatory verifications shall confirm that all government legislative and regulatory requirements and standards are met and that only fish and fish products that are safe and of acceptable quality are marketed.

Concurrently, additional requirements for documented establishment sanitation and insect pest/rodent control programs shall be enacted.

The development of QMP’s will be intellectually demanding, but one for which industry is ready and willing to commit to based on consultations.

QMP and Record Keeping

Regulations will be enacted requiring that industry maintain for a period of three years adequate records of all,

— testing, measurements and monitoring procedures and corrective actions taken for each CCP;

— deficiencies and corrective actions taken for each prerequisite and regulatory action point program;

— verification activities; and

— amendments to QMP,

as well as for product recalls, consumer complaints and the training provided to all personnel performing QMP activities or product safety processes which are defined as technically demanding processing operations such as retorting, pasteurizing, vacuum packing or irradiating, which if not properly performed may result in the production of fish and fish products which are unsafe for human consumption.

This action represents streamlining of record keeping requirements currently contained in Schedule VI of the Regulations as Industry will be required to keep records for prerequisite and regulatory action point programs only if a deficiency or deviation from QMP is detected and corrective action taken. Such action should relieve industry of considerable paperwork burden saving time, money and space.

On the other hand, CCP and shellfish record keeping in its present detailed form in the existing Regulations pursuant to the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program shall be maintained in order to protect public safety and meet Canada’s international obligations under the Canada — United States International Shellfish Agreement.

Administration of Establishment Registration

Regulations will be enacted to facilitate the administration of CFIA’s establishment registration activities and the application and enforcement of the Fish Inspection Regulations.

Pursuant to section 16 of the Regulations, certificates of registration are not “assignable” and for example, become void when establishments are sold or are subject to a receivership or assignment in bankruptcy. To facilitate consistent and uniform interpretation of this requirement, additional regulations are to be enacted which clearly detail all circumstances under which certificates of registration become void such as sale, destruction or bankruptcy of establishments or the death of the establishment’s owner or operator.

Additional requirements will allow the President of the Agency to amend certificates of registration to add or delete process operations at industry request, and in the process, charge appropriate fees.

In addition to suspension of registration, the President of the Agency shall be empowered to revoke or refuse to issue registrations in cases where the registration holder has failed to meet the requirements of the Act and Regulations, and to allow the President to reinstate revoked registrations.

Schedule I — Construction and Equipment Requirements

Schedule II — Operating Requirements

Regulations will be enacted to bring Canadian land based and ocean going (vessel) seafood processing infrastructure up to current recognized world standards in preparation for the 21st century as 1971 was the last time these standards were comprehensively reviewed and overhauled.

Since 1971, processing technology and science have significantly changed. The CFIA and the industry today must understand, cope with, implement and audit sophisticated processing technologies whose operating parameters must be met in order to ensure the production of safe products of acceptable quality. These have been introduced into the typical Canadian seafood processing establishment over the past three decades resulting in the manufacture of new products, such as microwavable dinners and other sorts of custom cuisine which were unknown 36 years ago.

Also, developments since the 1970s in the construction and fabrication technology fields have brought new types of building methods, materials and equipment which were not previously available, or have alerted all to risks posed by the use of some materials such as asbestos which were also not previously known.

During the late 1970s and up to the present day, developments in freezer factory ship technology have made at-sea processing more commonplace. Many existing Schedule I and II requirements were implemented with land based processing infrastructure in mind, and do not readily “fit” or “work well” when it comes to shipboard processing. For this reason, specific shipboard processing provisions have been incorporated in the new Schedule I.

At the same time, duplicate and redundant sections of Schedules I and II are to be eliminated with Schedule IV Requirements for Storing Frozen Fish being merged into Schedules I and II resulting in the revocation of Schedule IV. As a result, the new Schedule I now has 26 sections instead of 50 sections while the new Schedule II has 18 sections instead of 55 sections. To further enhance clarity, a new interpretative guide, i.e. a revised Handbook of Compliance, which comprehensively outlines the reason and compliance requirements for each section in the new Schedules I and II is being prepared.

Proactive application and enforcement of these Schedules has significantly increased the construction, equipment and operating standards extant in Canadian fish processing infrastructure since 1971. The provision of these new Schedules and their revised and strengthened standards will continue to ensure that Canada’s fish processing infrastructure is state of the art in the year 2000 and beyond.

Exemptions

Regulations will be enacted consolidating in one provision in the Fish Inspection Regulations all exemption granting authorities in sections 30 and 121 of the Regulations and those currently provided for in CFIA Manuals and the existing Schedule I and II Handbook of Compliance, and in this process, specifying precisely those items for which exemptions can be granted, requiring that any exemptions granted be authorized through the issuance of exemption permits which can be provided to persons or classes of persons.

Such action will rationalize the exemption granting process, make for a process which is simpler to administer and in the long term, as exemption permits can be granted to classes of persons, result in an overall reduction in the number of exemption requests, notably in the labelling area. For example, if an individual requests an exemption to use unilingual Korean labelling on products destined for Korea, the CFIA could grant an exemption permit to the entire Canadian fish processing industry to use unilingual Korean labelling on products destined for Korea provided that such labelling, when translated, contained no wording which would be considered false, misleading or deceptive such as a fraudulent health claim.

Vessel Certification

Regulations will be enacted to eliminate the requirement contained in section 18 of the Fish Inspection Regulations to affix a certification sticker to a vessel attesting that it meets the requirements of the Schedule III Requirements for Vessels Used for Fishing or Transporting Fish for Processing.

Revised regulations shall simply require that vessels meet the requirements of Schedule III. When vessels fail to meet the construction, equipment or operating requirements contained in Schedule III, CFIA inspectors will take appropriate enforcement action up to and including legal action in accordance with CFIA compliance policy.

Since these vessel requirements were promulgated in the early ‘80’s, Canada’s fishing fleets have made significant strides in protecting the quality and safety of the fish they harvest. Foodgrade materials and coatings are used for fish hold construction, and fish are chilled by ice or other refrigeration means when harvested. Today, the CFIA only inspects and rates vessels when problems with incoming raw material are detected at the processing establishment level.

As an enforcement tool, the certification sticker places inspectors in a “catch 22” situation. Under the existing regulations, if the vessel does not comply with Schedule III — i.e. the vessel did not chill the catch, then the certification sticker is to be removed which, in turn, means that the vessel can no longer legally fish. However, if the vessel can no longer legally fish, the vessel will be unable to demonstrate that it can comply with regulatory requirements.

Canned Fish

Section 34 of the Fish Inspection Regulations will be amended to require that canned fish be sterilized by a method approved by the Minister in accordance with detailed requirements specified in the Facilities Inspection Manual which will be referenced as the applicable regulatory standard in the Regulations.

Canned fish processors will thus be required to more thoroughly document all thermal processes used in their canneries. This documentation shall be available for review by CFIA inspectors with appropriate credentials.

Canned fish must be cooked or “retorted” at sufficient times and temperatures dependent on the type and construction of container, weight of product and other ingredients, species and style of pack being canned in order to ensure adequate heat processing, or as it is known in the trade, “commercial sterility”. The latter is achieved when all heat resistant “spores” of the bacteria Clostridium botulinum are destroyed during cooking. If the process is inadequate, i.e. if the spores are not completely destroyed due to inadequate heat treatment and they germinate inside cans, this presents a high risk of a lethal food poisoning due to the production of neurotoxins by the now germinated spores.

It is crucial that appropriate technical information for all processes employed for each container type and size, style of pack and species packed be available for review by inspectors as necessary in order to:

(1) clearly identify the process control authority or other parties who developed them and to ascertain their professional competence;

(2) confirm that the processes in question are technically sound based on good science;

(3) in the case of canned fish, confirm that if utilized, commercial sterility shall be achieved;

(4) confirm that the process control authority or other party takes formal responsibility for its processes through attestation that if followed, the production of safe products shall ensue.

Also, canned fish processing operations must be conducted and supervised by technically competent personnel in accordance with clearly elaborated procedures or “processes” and be properly constructed, equipped and operated in accordance with detailed requirements specified in the Facilities Inspection Manual to confirm the production of seafood products which are safe to consume.

Alternatives

Status Quo

The status quo is not an acceptable alternative considering that the QMP Re-Engineering Task Force and the Fish Inspection Directorate’s concurrent regulatory review identified recommendations or shortfalls in existing regulations that require regulatory amendment. Failure to make these changes would have a negative impact on the orderly marketing of Canada’s seafood products, notably to the United States which represents approximately 56 percent of the Canadian fish products export market. In the United States, as stated above, from December 18, 1997 onwards, all domestic origin and imported seafood offered for sale in the United States must be processed under a HACCP regime.

Deregulation/Privatization

Most fish exporters, associations, other government departments and levels of government and consumers appreciate the benefits provided by the Fish Inspection Act and Fish Inspection Regulations which,

— establish a level playing field for all involved in the Canadian seafood industry,

— with QMP, have made Canada the recognized world leader in fish inspection and control systems,

— have provided strong consumer protection and have greatly facilitated Canadian seafood market access, and

— ensure that Canadian seafood is safe, of acceptable quality and is not fraudulently presented.

Maintenance of government regulated standards is crucial in the interests of public health and safety, consumer confidence and the protection of the reputation of the Canadian fish processing industry.

Benefits and Costs

Implementation of re-engineered QMP or QMPR to make it fully consistent with HACCP principles will provide the primary mechanism to facilitate continued access of Canadian seafood products to foreign markets, notably to the United States and the European Union (EU), both of which have or are implementing requirements for HACCP-based regimes in domestic food processing operations and for imported food products.

This regulatory package provides amendments that address all recommendations and regulatory shortfalls identified by the QMP Re-engineering Task Force and CFIA’s regulatory review.

QMPR will allow the development and implementation of QMP’s that not only meet Canadian requirements and the specific needs of individual processing operations, but will place the Canadian seafood industry into “compliance” with forthcoming foreign country HACCP and related requirements so that market access remains unimpeded.

This regulatory package, which features

— QMP’s incorporating all HACCP principles and streamlined record keeping;

— State of the art standards for sanitation, insect/rodent pest control, construction, equipment and operation;

— A rationalized exemption permit process;

— Comprehensive canned fish process controls; and

— Streamlining and elimination of duplicate and redundant regulations,

demonstrates how the CFIA is taking action consistent with Government policy to facilitate trade, create jobs, protect safety and quality, remove the regulatory burden and give the industry greater opportunities to be entrepreneurial.

The implementation of QMPR will require that all seafood processors review their QMP’s, conduct hazard evaluations and develop and implement HACCP inspection plans and, where applicable, conduct training of their quality control and/or production personnel. Given industry experience in QMP, coupled with the supporting guides and policy packages which the CFIA is providing to the industry, time and cost expenditures are not expected to be significant.

There will be no substantial additional costs to Government in the implementation of these amendments to the Fish Inspection Regulations, as personnel and infrastructure are already in place discharging these duties. With the development of new QMPR auditing or verification methodology, time savings will be realized that can be used to deal with high risk food safety issues such as shellfish biotoxins.

As a result, fees charged for the issuance of certificates of registration remain unchanged.

Consultation

Extensive consultations have been held across Canada. All federally registered fish processors, their associations, provinces and various training institutions have been invited to attend reengineered QMP consultation meetings or workshops. As of July 1997, 53 consultation meetings and 21 re-engineered QMP workshops have been held with 846 industry members attending representing 535 establishments. All were introduced to the QMPR model, the rationale behind it and benefits of adoption; the response was overwhelmingly positive.

Regular QMP re-engineering newsletters are published and widely distributed informing all as to progress of these initiatives.

Consultations are continuing, and are being expanded to consumer associations.

CFIA actively solicits comments at this step of the regulatory approval system.

Compliance and Enforcement

With the adoption of these amendments, the CFIA is actively completing the move from a traditional “Inspection” mode of doing business to an “Auditing” or “Verification” mode of doing business using new audit methodologies. In these circumstances, Government sets the standards, industry conducts its processing operations and Government audits industry QMP’s to confirm that they are resulting in the production of safe food of acceptable quality in establishments and on vessels which meet recognized state of the art food establishment construction, equipment and operating requirements. CFIA inspectors will be in the establishments less, and must be in a position to hold industry accountable for failure to comply with the Act and Regulations. With the passage of the Act creating the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, penalties for infractions of the Fish Inspection Act are now up to date and consistent with other modern food inspection statutes. This reality, coupled with the proposed amendments to the Regulations in this regulatory initiative empowering the President of the Agency to revoke or refuse to issue registrations, will constitute an effective deterrent to violators.

The CFIA will enforce the Act and Regulations in accordance with the Fish Inspection Directorate’s National Enforcement Policy. Depending on the severity of infraction, actions from the provision of warnings up to and including charges and revocation of registration could be taken. In cases where fees are outstanding, payment, including interest, may be recovered from the person on whom the fees were imposed as a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada. Also, until outstanding fees have been paid, payment for future services may be required in advance.

Upon promulgation of these Regulations, all provisions shall come into force immediately.

Contact

C. Prince, Director, Fish, Seafood and Production Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0Y9, (613) 225-2342, extension 4212 (Telephone), (613) 228-6607 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 3(see footnote a) of the Fish Inspection Act, process to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Fish Inspection Regulations.

Any interested person may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be addressed to C. Prince, Director, Fish, Seafood and Production Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0Y9, (613) 225-2342 (Telephone), (613) 228-6648 (Facsimile), and cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of this notice.

July 15, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE
FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) The definition “registration certificate” in section 2 of the Fish Inspection Regulations(see footnote 1) is repealed.

(2) The definition “can” in section 2 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

“can” means any hermetically sealed container; (boîte)

(3) Section 2 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“additive” means a food additive as defined in section B.01.001 of the Food and Drug Regulations; (additif)

“Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual” means the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment in 1992, as amended from time to time; (Manuel du Programme canadien de contrôle de la salubrité des mollusques)

“certificate of registration” means a certificate issued in accordance with subsection 15(2); (certificat d’agrément)

“conveyance” means any vessel, aircraft, train, motor vehicle, cargo container, trailer or other means of transportation of goods or fish; (véhicule)

“corrective action” means the procedure that is to be followed whenever a deviation from a critical limit in a HACCP plan occurs or whenever the results of monitoring procedures in respect of a prerequisite program plan or regulatory action point plan show that there is non-compliance with these Regulations; (mesures correctives)

“critical control point” means a point in a process operation at which control is to be applied in order to prevent or eliminate a hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level; (point de contrôle critique)

“critical limit” means the maximum or minimum value to which a hazard must be controlled at a critical control point; (limite critique)

“crustaceans” means all species of the class Crustacea; (crustacés)

“Facilities Manual” means the Facilities Inspection Manual published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1988, as amended from time to time; (Manuel des installations)

“HACCP plan” means a hazard analysis critical control point plan that is prepared in accordance with the principles of hazard analysis critical control point inspection as specified in the Facilities Manual to ensure control of hazards during the processing of fish; (plan HACCP)

“hazard” means a biological, chemical or physical agent or factor that has the potential to cause illness or injury to humans in the absence of its control; (danger)

“prerequisite program plan” means a series of steps, measures or procedures that are to be applied to ensure compliance with the Act and these Regulations in respect of

(a) establishment construction and equipment,

(b) establishment operation and sanitation,

(c) the cleaning, sanitizing, lubricating and maintenance of establishment equipment and facilities, and insect and animal pest control,

(d) fish packaging, labelling or ingredient storage rooms or areas in the establishment, and

(e) the system for tracing fish to its first destination; (plan des programmes préalables)

“President” means the President of the Agency; (président)

“process operation” means a fish process operation set out in column I of Table 2 to section 15; (opération de transformation)

“processing area” means any area of a registered establishment that is used for the processing or storage of fish, or the storage of materials and ingredients used in the processing of fish and the maintenance of employee sanitation and personal hygiene, and any other area designated as a processing area in a quality management program; (aire de transformation)

“product description” means a form on which are recorded the characteristics of a particular fish product, including

(a) the product name,

(b) the source of the raw material used in producing the product,

(c) those characteristics that affect safety and may influence the growth of disease-causing pathogens,

(d) the ingredients that are added to the product,

(e) the packaging of the product,

(f) if applicable, directions to the consumer as to the preparation required for consumption or whether the product is ready-to-eat,

(g) the product’s shelf life,

(h) where the product is intended to be sold, and

(i) labelling instructions as may be applicable for safe product distribution and storage; (description du produit)

“product preservation process” means a process such as thermal processing, depuration or irradiation, that poses known hazards or which, if not performed in accordance with the Facilities Manual or the Canadian Shellfish Program Sanitation Manual, as the case may be, may result in the production of fish that are unsafe for human consumption; (procédé pour l’innocuité alimentaire)

“registered establishment” means a freezer-factory vessel, onshore plant, building or premise where fish are processed or stored for export and that is registered pursuant to subsection 15(2); (établissement agréé)

“regulatory action point plan” means a series of steps, measures or procedures that are to be applied to ensure compliance with the Act and these Regulations in respect of

(a) fish intended for processing, being processed, stored or exported to ensure that the fish is not tainted, decomposed or unwholesome;

(b) the addition of ingredients, additives and other substances in the processing of fish; and

(c) the packaging and labelling of fish. (plan des points d’intervention réglementaire)

“sanitation program” means a written program developed in respect of a registered establishment to ensure that employees of the establishment use proper sanitation and hygiene practices and that the establishment, grounds or conveyance under the control of the operator is maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and free from serious contamination and insect and animal pests; (programme d’assainissement)

“shellfish” means all edible species of bivalve molluscs of the class Bivalvia and all marine, edible species of the class Gastropoda, either shucked or in the shell, in whole or in part, excluding the adductor muscles of scallops and the meat of geoducks; (mollusques)

2. Paragraph 6.4(2)(b) (see footnote 2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(b) the fish is being delivered to a registered establishment.

3. Sections 14 to 19 (see footnote 3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

14. (1) No person shall export fish, process fish for export or store fish for export unless the processing or storing of that fish is carried out in a registered establishment.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of fish that are imported into Canada by a holder of an import licence and that are intended for direct sale to consumers without further processing.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (1), “processing” does not include any of the following:

(a) the washing, icing or boxing of live, whole or dressed unfrozen fish other than shellfish, fish raised in an aquaculture operation, or crustaceans, excluding live lobster or crab;

(b) the freezing on board a vessel of whole or dressed fish that are destined for further processing in a registered establishment, other than shellfish or crustaceans excluding shrimp;

(c) the shucking of scallops to remove adductor muscles, if carried out on board a vessel;

(d) the salting or pickling of whole, split or dressed unfrozen fish by fisher packers, other than shellfish or crustaceans if carried out

(e) actions taken by fishers or processors at the time of harvesting, unloading, handling, holding or transporting fish to preserve its quality and safety before delivery to a registered establishment for the purpose of processing, storage or inspection before export, if such actions are done in accordance with these Regulations.

(4) If the Minister, in writing, informs a fisher packer who carries out an activity described in paragraph (3)(d) that there is serious contamination on board the vessel or onshore in the establishment where that activity is conducted:

(a) no person shall process any fish on board that vessel or onshore in that establishment; and

(b) no person shall export or attempt to export any fish that has been processed in that vessel or establishment.

14.1 No person shall operate a registered establishment unless it meets the requirements of these Regulations.

14.2 No person shall, unless they have job experience or qualifications that meet the applicable requirements set out in the Facilities Manual,

(a) perform or supervise a product preservation process; or

(b) supervise the development or implementation of a quality management program.

14.3 No person shall use a vessel for fishing or for transporting fish unless the vessel meets the applicable requirements of Schedule III.

15. (1) An application for a certificate of registration for an establishment shall be made to the President, be accompanied by the applicable fees set out in Tables 1 and 2 to this section and, subject to subsection (1.1), contain

(a) the full business name, business address and business telephone number of the applicant and, if applicable, the full names of partners or officers of the company;

(b) a description of the types of process operations intended to be conducted;

(c) the types of fish products intended to be produced, stored or exported;

(d) a product description of each type of fish product intended to be produced, stored or exported;

(e) a process flow diagram that identifies each step in the process operation for each type of fish product; and

(f) a detailed diagram of the establishment.

(1.1) The President may not require an applicant to provide the information referred to in paragraphs (1)(c) to (e) and (f) if it has been previously submitted to the Agency and there has been no change to the information.

(2) The President may issue a certificate of registration to an establishment if

(a) the establishment and its processing areas meet the requirements set out in Schedules I and II;

(b) the establishment is free from serious contamination;

(c) the applicant has a quality management program that meets the requirements of subsection (4) in respect of the processing, storing or exporting of fish; and

(d) the President has no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not comply with the Act or these Regulations.

(3) Despite subsection (2), the President may issue a certificate of registration to an establishment that is a food processing facility if

(a) it is registered in accordance with regulations made under the Meat Inspection Act or the Canada Agricultural Products Act or any other Act of Parliament;

(b) the establishment has a food inspection and control program that is equivalent to a quality management program; and

(c) the requirements set out in subsection (1) and paragraphs (2)(a), (b) and

(d) are met.

(4) A quality management program referred to in paragraph (2)(c) for use in an establishment shall

(a) contain

(b) meet the applicable requirements set out in the Facilities Manual; and

(c) if the applicant intends to conduct a shellfish process operation, meet the applicable requirements set out in the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual.

(5) An operator of a registered establishment shall

(a) comply with all the applicable provisions of the Act and these Regulations;

(b) implement and comply with the quality management program;

(c) adhere to all the conditions of the certificate of registration;

(d) ensure that the establishment’s quality management program meets the applicable requirements set out in the Facilities Manual;

(e) in the case of an establishment conducting a shellfish process operation, ensure that the establishment’s quality management program meets the applicable requirements set out in the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual;

(f) on request of an inspector, make available to an inspector in a readily accessible location a copy of the quality management program and all records of, and amendments to, the quality management program; and

(g) conduct a review of the quality management program each time it is found to be not in compliance with subsection (4) and, in any case, at least once per year.

(6) An operator of a registered establishment shall maintain, at an address in Canada and for not less than three years, a record in English or French of

(a) the name, business address, business telephone number and title of the person responsible for the quality management program at the establishment;

(b) the location of all files and records in respect of the quality management program;

(c) in respect of each critical control point specified in the HACCP plan,

(d) in respect of every prerequisite program plan and regulatory action point plan,

(e) a description of the system used to trace fish to their first shipping destination;

(f) in respect of each shipment of fish,

(g) the date when the operator of the registered establishment received information that questions the safety of fish processed or exported by the operator;

(h) if the information referred to in paragraph (g) is validated on investigation, a description of the information, the date when it was received, the time and date the information is validated, the name, address and telephone number of the informant, the method of investigation and the results obtained, the corrective actions taken and the time and date when the Agency was notified under subsection 6.01(2);

(i) in respect of every person responsible for supervising the development or implementation of the quality management program or performing or supervising a product preservation process, documentary evidence of their training, qualifications or job experience in fish or food processing or quality control; and

(j) a list of all amendments made to the quality management program.

TABLE 1

INITIAL AND ANNUAL FEES FOR REGISTERED ESTABLISHMENTS

Item	Size of registered Establishment	Column 1	Column 2
		Initial fee for registered establishments that conduct process operations by depuration ($)	Annual Fee ($)
1.	300 m2 or less	6,000	1,000
2.	More than 300 m2	7,500	1,500

TABLE 2

FEES PER PROCESS OPERATION

Item	Column 1	Column 2
	Process Operation	Fee ($)
1.	Canning fish	1,000
2.	Processing ready-to-eat fish	1,000
3.	Processing shellfish	1,000
4.	Pickling, spicing or marinating fish	500
5.	Salting or drying fish	500
6.	Processing fresh or frozen fish or semi-preserves	500
7.	Any other type of process operation	1,000

16. A certificate of registration is not assignable and expires one year after the date of issuance indicated on it.

16.1 (1) The President may, on application by an operator of a registered establishment, amend a certificate of registration if every applicable requirement of these Regulations is met, including the payment of the applicable fees.

(2) The expiry date of an amended certificate of registration is the date indicated on the original certificate.

16.2 (1) The President may, on application by an operator of a registered establishment, inactivate the certificate of registration, if all applicable fees have been paid in respect of it.

(2) The operator of a registered establishment in respect of which a certificate of registration has been inactivated shall not export or process or store for export any fish or marine plants.

(3) The President may, on application by the operator of a registered establishment, reactivate the certificate of registration if an inspector has determined that the establishment meets the conditions of the certificate and the applicable requirements of the Act and these Regulations.

16.3 A certificate of registration is void on the day that any of the following occur:

(a) effective control or effective direction of the registered establishment is transferred to the control or direction of any other person, body corporate, partnership, cooperative, association, trustee, executor or legal representative;

(b) the registered establishment is destroyed or damaged to an extent that the processing of fish without a risk of serious contamination is, in the opinion of an inspector, not possible;

(c) the operator of the registered establishment is subject to a receivership or makes an assignment in bankruptcy; or

(d) the operator of the registered establishment ceases to operate the registered establishment or surrenders the certificate of registration.

16.4 (1) The President may, on application, issue a temporary certificate of registration in respect of an establishment the operator of which is subject to a receivorship or has made an assignment in bankruptcy if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) the applicant for the certificate is the authorized receivor or trustee in bankruptcy of the operator of the establishment;

(b) the application contains the information required by subsection 15(1); and

(c) the establishment meets the requirements of the Act and these Regulations.

(2) A temporary certificate of registration expires on the earlier of

(a) 180 days from its date of issue, or

(b) the day stated on the temporary certificate or on any amendments made thereto.

(3) No fees are payable in respect of the application for, or the issuance of a temporary certificate of registration.

16.5 The President may revoke a certificate of registration if an inspector, using all reasonable means, cannot contact the operator of the registered establishment for a period of 90 days.

17. (1) The President may suspend, revoke or refuse to issue a certificate of registration if

(a) the President has reasonable grounds to believe that the operator of a registered establishment or the applicant has provided false information to the President for the purpose of obtaining a certificate;

(b) the establishment is not free from serious contamination;

(c) the establishment is not operated in accordance with the quality management program;

(d) the operator of the establishment has failed to comply with the requirements of section 6.01; or

(e) the operator of the establishment or the applicant otherwise fails to comply with these Regulations.

(2) Where a certificate of registration has been suspended or revoked, the operator of the registered establishment may, within 30 days after the suspension or revocation, request in writing that the President determine whether the certificate should be reinstated.

(3) The fee payable for each inspection that is carried out for the purpose of determining whether a certificate of registration may be reinstated is $1,000.

(4) A determination referred to in subsection (2) is final.

17.1 Any person who requests an inspection, other than an inspection referred to in subsection 17(3), to determine whether their establishment meets the applicable requirements of Schedule I or a quality management program, shall pay a fee of $500.

18. (1) Despite anything in these Regulations and subject to subsection (2), the President may, on receiving an application, issue a permit to allow, during the period stated in the permit,

(a) the production or marketing of experimental or test products;

(b) the reworking, reconditioning, processing, culling or salvaging of fish at a registered establishment to enable the fish to meet the applicable requirements of the Act or these Regulations;

(c) the construction or utilization of processing areas that do not comply with the Act or these Regulations;

(d) equipment that is used in a vessel or an establishment constructed before the coming into force of this section that does not comply with the Act or these Regulations to continue to be used or to operate;

(e) the marketing, possession, use or disposal of tainted, decomposed or unwholesome fish not intended for human consumption;

(f) the re-use of containers or the use of labels that do not meet the applicable requirements of these Regulations;

(g) the labelling of products to accommodate particular cultural communities in Canada or foreign countries;

(h) the importing, exporting or marketing of fish for charitable purposes, international events or national festivities, if the lot size is less than 1 000 kg;

(i) the production and supply of food in a national emergency or for international aid; or

(j) the exporting to another country of fish or containers that do not meet the applicable requirements of the Act or these Regulations.

(2) The President may on reasonable grounds refuse to issue a permit if, in the President’s opinion, the issuance of the permit

(a) would result in a risk to public health or safety or otherwise diminish consumer protection;

(b) may result in the marketing to consumers of fish that does not comply with subsection 6(1) or section 27 or the requirements of other countries; or

(c) may damage the reputation of Canada’s fish processing industry.

(3) The President may revoke or refuse to issue a permit if

(a) the President has reasonable grounds to believe that the holder of the permit or the applicant has provided false information to the President for the purpose of obtaining the permit; or

(b) the holder of the permit or the applicant has contravened a condition of the permit or a provision of the Act or these Regulations.

18.1 The President may, from time to time, attach any conditions to a registration certificate, licence or permit issued under these Regulations if the President is satisfied that those conditions are necessary to ensure that the import or export of fish or marine plants complies with these Regulations.

4. Section 30 of the Regulations is repealed.

5. The portion of subsection 32(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

32. (1) Every can of fish that is packed in a registered establishment shall be embossed or otherwise marked in a manner that is visible, permanent and legible with code markings that

6. Section 34 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

34. (1) Canned fish shall be sterilized by a method approved by the President.

(2) All registered establishments that conduct canning process operations shall comply with all thermal process requirements set out in the Facilities Manual.

7. Section 121 of the Regulations is repealed.

8. Schedules I (see footnote 4) and II (see footnote 5) to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

SCHEDULE I
(Sections 15 and 17.1)

ESTABLISHMENT CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

1. The definitions in this section apply in this Schedule.

“cleaning” means the removal of soil, food, fish residues, blood, waste water or any other dirt or debris from a processing area and processing equipment. (nettoyage)

“disinfection” means the reduction of the amount of microorganisms to a level that will not cause serious contamination. (désinfection)

“durable”, in respect of construction material, means resistant to decay, breakdown or other physical damage. (durable)

“impervious”, in respect of any material, means an inert material such as concrete through which water or any other substance will not pass. (imperméable)

“non-absorbent”, in respect of any material, means a material that is highly resistant to the passage, absorption or incorporation of water or any other substance. (non absorbant)

“non-corrodible” means any metal that does not rust, corrode, erode or otherwise decay. (résistant à la corrosion)

“non-toxic” means not injurious to health. (non toxique)

“smooth” means a fairly regular or even surface without projections, indentations or roughness and that can be easily cleaned and disinfected. (lisse)

“sound” means being in good repair or maintenance. (en bon état)

“washable” means being capable of being cleaned and disinfected with water, cleansers, disinfectants or liquids. (lavable)

2. (1) The layout, design, construction and size of every establishment and processing area shall

(a) permit adequate cleaning and disinfection of all processing areas;

(b) prevent the accumulation of dirt, fish being in contact with toxic materials and floor surfaces, the shedding of foreign particles into fish and the formation of condensation or mould on surfaces;

(c) permit good production practices, including protection against contamination and cross-contamination by fish, equipment, materials, water, air or personnel and external sources of contamination;

(d) provide, if necessary, suitable temperature conditions that permit sanitary processing and storage of fish; and

(e) provide for the orderly and rapid movement of raw material and finished product into and out of the establishment.

(2) Saltfish, squid, stockfish and capelin may be dried outside an establishment if it is dried in a location away from traffic on grounds under the control of the operator of the establishment, on dryer flakes or other equipment that is raised at least 1 m above the ground or water and if the fish is handled to prevent the risk of contamination.

3. Floors shall be constructed of smooth, impervious, nonabsorbent and non-toxic materials, be sloped for drainage and be maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

4. Drains shall be of a type and size sufficient to carry off any process effluent and water from processing and cleaning operations, be equipped with non-corrodible covers or grates and be constructed in a manner that prevents the entry of insect and animal pests, sewer gases or any other deleterious substance.

5. Wall surfaces shall be constructed of smooth, non-absorbent, durable and non-toxic materials that are light-coloured and thoroughly washable, in such a manner that all joints are sealed and floor and wall junctions are coved or rounded, and shall be maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

6. Ceilings shall be constructed of smooth, non-absorbent, durable and non-toxic materials that are light-coloured, washable, of a height acceptable to the President and maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

7. Heating units, water feed lines, piping, lighting, public address or radio systems or other overhead fixtures shall be designed, constructed, installed and finished to prevent the accumulation of dirt, to reduce condensation, the growth of moulds and the shedding of foreign particles into fish being processed beneath and, if applicable, shall be labelled in such a manner that the purpose of each is readily discernable by an inspector.

8. Windows and any other similar openings to the outside environment in a processing area must be constructed so as to prevent the accumulation of dirt and be fitted with non-corrodible insectproof screens.

9. (1) Doors into and out of processing areas shall be constructed of smooth, non-absorbent and non-toxic materials that are washable, be properly fitted and hung and be maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

(2) Doors in an establishment that is constructed after the coming into force of this Schedule

(a) shall be located so that person may not enter directly into a processing area, with the exception of holding rooms, from outside the establishment; and

(b) if the doors are emergency exits from a processing area, shall be clearly marked “Emergency Use Only” and be equipped with emergency door opening devices or panic bars.

10. (1) Frames and legs of equipment and surfaces of equipment that are in contact with fish or ice shall be constructed of smooth, non-corrodible, non-absorbent and non-toxic materials that are washable, and shall be maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

(2) Despite subsection (1), frames and legs of dryer flakes and dried squid storage bins may be constructed of wood if all surfaces in contact with fish meet the requirements of that subsection.

(3) Despite subsection (1), bloater drying canes may be constructed of wood if they are clean and in a sound condition.

(4) Despite subsection (1), boxes, carts or bins used to hold fresh fish intended for further processing may be made of planed lumber or waterproof plywood and be coated with a material approved by the President if the interiors are also lined with material approved by the President.

(5) Despite subsection (1), screws that are in contact with ice may be constructed of galvanized metal. 11. Packaging and labelling materials shall be stored in dry and sanitary storage rooms that are intended for that purpose and are constructed to provide protection from weather, contamination and the entry of insect and animal pests.

12. (1) Ingredients and additives such as salt and vinegar used in the processing of fish shall be stored in sanitary storage rooms that are intended for that purpose and are constructed to provide protection from weather, contamination and the entry of insect and animal pests.

(2) Despite subsection (1), bulk storage of ingredients and additives in an enclosed area is permitted if the area meets the requirements of sections 3 to 8 of this Schedule.

(3) Doors to areas referred to in subsection (2) shall be constructed of smooth, non-absorbent and non-toxic materials that are washable, properly fitted and hung, maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection, and so located that ingredients or additives may be unloaded and delivered or conveyed to a processing area in a sanitary manner.

(4) Despite subsection (1), salt may be stored in bags outside of an establishment if the bags are sound, kept off of the ground and are covered with clean, waterproof coverings that protect the salt from contamination, weather and insect and animal pests.

13. (1) Adequate supplies of water that meet one of the following requirements shall be provided in every establishment under a minimum operating pressure of 7.0 kPa for fish processing, establishment cleaning and disinfection, ice making, employee sanitation and personal hygiene and the operation of toilets:

(a) the water has a coliform bacteria count, determined by a method acceptable to the President, of not more than 2 per 100 millitres; or

(b) the water is derived from a source approved by the President.

(2) For the purpose of providing a safe and sanitary supply of water to an establishment, an inspector may require that water supply sources be chlorinated or otherwise treated.

(3) Despite subsection (2), the President may allow live shellfish to be held in an establishment in untreated water derived from a source approved by the President if

(a) the median or the geometric mean of the faecal coliform most probable number in the water does not exceed 14 per 100 millilitres and not more than 10% of the water samples exceed a faecal coliform most probable number of 43 per 100 millilitres, as determined by a method acceptable to the President; and

(b) the use of the water poses no threat of cross-contamination in the establishment.

(4) Steam

(a) directly in contact with fish shall not contain any substance that is a hazard, and

(b) shall be supplied in adequate quantites for retorting and any other purpose as specified in the establishment’s quality management program.

(5) Ice making or ice storage facilities shall

(a) be operated in a manner that minimizes frost build-up;

(b) be maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection; and

(c) if constructed after the coming into force of this Schedule, be built in accordance with sections 3 to 8 of this Schedule.

(6) No ice making facility or ice storage facility constructed after the coming into force of this Schedule shall use wood on any surface that makes contact with ice.

(7) Ice that is for use in an establishment shall be handled and transported in a manner that prevents its contamination.

(8) No ice shall be used in an establishment unless it has been made from water that meets the requirements of this Schedule and is stored in a manner that prevents its contamination.

(9) An establishment may use water that does not meet the requirements of subsections (1) to (3) for fire protection, boilers or auxiliary services if there is no connection between the other water systems providing water to the establishment and all feed lines and pipes are clearly labelled or coloured so that the purpose of each is readily discernable by an inspector.

(10) Adequate supplies of hot water at a temperature of at least 43°C shall be provided throughout processing areas for cleaning and disinfection and at all handwash stations.

(11) Hoses and other water delivery devices shall be equipped with backflow preventers or vacuum breakers.

(12) Each operator of an establishment constructed after the coming into force of this Schedule shall keep and make available to an inspector, blueprints or other suitable drawings or sketches that show all water supply and water waste disposal systems, including sources of supply, intake locations, piping runs, treatment systems employed, location of water sampling valves for the taking of water samples before and after its treatment and the outfall or sewage hook-up locations.

14. (1) Receptacles for the effective disposal of fish offal shall be provided, clearly marked “For Offal Only”, and be

(a) equipped with tight-fitting covers, as applicable;

(b) constructed of non-absorbent and non-corrodible materials and kept in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection; and

(c) if stored outside the establishment, placed on a concrete pad sloped to a drain.

(2) Continuous offal handling systems that carry offal on conveyors or flumes to offal bins shall be constructed so that they pose no threat of contamination to the processing areas or to fish being processed and must

(a) be equipped with tight-fitting covers;

(b) if located inside the processing areas, be constructed of non-absorbent and non-corrodible materials and kept in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection;

(c) if located outside the processing areas, be kept in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection and may be constructed of mild steel or other suitable non-absorbent metal; and

(d) if delivering offal to the interior of the offal bin, be located over or surrounded by a concrete pad of suitable size sloped to a drain.

(3) Vessels, barges or conveyances may be used to store or transport offal to designated gurry grounds or fish meal plants if they are operated in a clean and sanitary manner.

15. Natural or artificial lighting shall be provided at intensities adequate to ensure the effective delivery to the processing operation being conducted, and the light fixtures shall have appropriate covers and be installed for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

16. Natural and mechanical ventilation systems shall provide clean air, prevent condensation and maintain conditions that are free from smoke, steam or foul odours.

17. (1) Refrigeration facilities and equipment shall be built in accordance with good engineering practices and with respect to freezing equipment shall

(a) contact freeze a 25 mm-thick block of unpackaged fillets to -18°C in two hours or less; or

(b) air blast freeze fish until the thickest section of the fish is at a temperature of -18°C.

(2) Refrigerated storage facilities or refrigeration equipment shall be operated in a manner that minimizes frost build-up and shall be equipped with automatic temperature recording devices.

(3) Temperature recording devices shall record the temperature in a refrigeration facility at least once every 24 hours.

(4) An operator of a registered establishment shall keep a record of each temperature recorded there for a period of three years.

18. Equipment that is used to perform product preservation processes shall meet the applicable requirements set out in the establishment’s quality management program.

19. Devices that are used to monitor the effectiveness of product preservation processes or the performance of equipment used in product preservation processes shall be calibrated and function in accordance with the applicable requirements set out in the establishment’s quality management program.

20. All facilities and equipment shall be maintained in a sound condition so as to minimize the risk of contamination to fish and facilitate cleaning and disinfection, and shall be installed in such a manner as to allow adequate cleaning of the surrounding area.

21. Flush toilets shall be

(a) present in adequate numbers for both sexes;

(b) conveniently located adjacent to processing areas;

(c) designed so that toilet areas do not lead directly into processing areas; and

(d) equipped with floor drains that will prevent any overflow of water or sewage from entering or contaminating a processing area, unless an inspector determines that there is no risk of serious contamination.

22. Washbasins that are equipped with non-hand-operated taps and other facilities or materials necessary for employee hygiene shall be provided in adequate quantities and be conveniently located either in or visible from processing areas.

23. Changing facilities for personnel and visitors shall be provided in every establishment that is constructed after this Schedule comes into force.

24. Utensils and cutting surfaces shall be constructed of noncorrodible, non-absorbent, smooth, impervious and washable material that is maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

25. (1) Conveyors in contact with fish shall be maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection, be constructed of non-corrodible, smooth, impervious, non-absorbent and non-toxic materials or non-corrodible, impervious, nonabsorbent and non-toxic wire mesh and be equipped with appropriate scrapers or spray washers.

(2) Conveyors that are used for loading finished and packaged products into conveyances may be made of mild steel or other similar material and shall be maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

26. Vessels with enclosed processing areas shall have, in addition to meeting other applicable requirements of this Schedule,

(a) a clean and sanitary system for conveying fish from the reception area to the processing area;

(b) storage areas for finished products that are large enough and designed so that they are easy to clean and, if a fish meal plant operates onboard, a separate hold must be designated for the storage of fish meal and other by-products;

(c) adequate equipment for pumping or disposing of processing effluent, cleanup water, waste or fish that are unfit for human consumption directly into the sea or in accordance with any laws regarding ocean dumping, into a watertight tank reserved for that purpose;

(d) adequate equipment for delivering pressurized clean and sanitary seawater for processing, the intake for which must be situated in a position where it is not possible for the water being taken in to become contaminated or affected by discharges into the sea of waste water, waste and engine coolant;

(e) walls, ceilings and non-slip floors that are easy to clean, in particular if there are pipes, chains or electrical conduits;

(f) hydraulic systems arranged or protected in such a way as to ensure that any leakage that could contaminate fish is minimized; and

(g) marine type toilet facilities or other sanitary facilities acceptable to an inspector.

SCHEDULE II
(Section 15)

ESTABLISHMENT SANITATION REQUIREMENTS

1. Every establishment shall implement and comply with its sanitation program.

2. (1) Equipment and material used to clean and disinfect an establishment and processing equipment shall be provided in adequate quantities and be conveniently located adjacent to processing areas.

(2) Any material used for cleaning and disinfection shall be clearly labelled as to its use, stored in an appropriate location and only used by a person trained in their use or application in a manner that prevents contamination of fish or contact surfaces.

3. (1) Employees shall wear protective clothing such as coveralls, aprons, sleeves, smocks, gloves, hair nets or beard nets that are in a clean and sound condition and suitable for the tasks employees are charged to perform.

(2) No person shall enter a processing area unless the person

(a) wears clean, sound, protective clothing that is appropriate to the tasks they will do;

(b) washes their hands with single service soap and disinfects their hand coverings and waterproof protective clothing;

(c) ensures that their footwear is clean and sanitary and, if appropriate, uses a footdip to do so; and

(d) wears a hair net and, if appropriate, a beard net.

(3) No person shall leave a processing area unless the person removes any protective clothing and stores it in a manner that prevents contamination.

(4) Any person who, after having engaged in the handling or processing of fish, leaves the production line shall wash and disinfect their hands and disinfect their hand coverings before returning to the production line.

4. Pesticides or any other animal control products shall be applied in a manner that prevents the contamination of fish, packaging, labelling materials and ingredients.

5. Animals are not permitted in a processing areas.

6. Fish offal shall be

(a) collected in handling systems, receptacles or conveyances that are not used for the holding or transport of fish intended for processing;

(b) disposed of or stored, before disposal, in a manner that will not attract insect and animal pests, allow the build-up of offensive odours or contaminate the area surrounding the establishment; and

(c) removed from the establishment or grounds under the control of the operator of the establishment as frequently as necessary to maintain the sanitation of the establishment, and as specified in the quality management program of the establishment.

7. Equipment and material provided to clean and disinfect protective clothing and footwear such as handdips and footdips shall be provided in adequate quantities and be conveniently located in processing areas.

8. Doors into and out of an establishment shall be kept closed and may be opened only when necessary to allow personnel, fish, equipment and other materials to enter or leave the establishment unless air curtains or other devices as specified in the establishment’s quality management program that prevent the entry of insect and animal pests are in operation.

9. No person who is a carrier of a disease that is likely to be transmitted through food or who is afflicted with an infected wound, skin infection, sore, diarrhoea or any communicable disease, shall work in a processing area if there is a possibility of contaminating fish with pathogenic organisms.

10. A person engaged in the handling or processing of fish shall not wear any jewellery, fingernail polish or personal adornments that could contaminate or become incorporated into fish being processed.

11. (1) No person shall smoke, spit, eat, chew gum or store food or other personal items not used in fish processing in processing areas.

(2) Unnecessary material or equipment shall not be stored in a processing area.

12. Handwash and toilet facilities shall be maintained in good operating order and be properly equipped with single service towels and toilet tissue, and all grey water and sewage shall be disposed of in accordance with local ordinances or, if none exist, in a manner satisfactory to an inspector.

13. (1) The grounds under the control of an operator of an establishment shall be kept clean, free from debris and unnecessary material and be landscaped to minimize harbourages for insect and animal pests.

(2) Areas where fish is loaded, unloaded or handled and other high traffic areas shall be paved with asphalt, covered with concrete or other impervious material and equipped with appropriate drains.

14. Forklifts and other devices used for moving fish and materials inside an establishment shall be clean and maintained in a sound condition.

15. (1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall use wooden pallets in an establishment for any purpose other than

(a) to handle or transport boxed or otherwise containerized raw material in a holding room;

(b) to transport ingredients, additives, packaging material, raw material, labels or semi-processed saltfish into or out of a processing or storage area; or

(c) to transport packaged, boxed or otherwise containerized finished products and non-food materials or equipment into and out of an establishment.

(2) Pallets used as equipment in a processing area such as foot stands, stands for vats and pan racks shall be constructed of smooth, non-corrodible, non-absorbent and non-toxic materials that are washable and be maintained in a sound condition for ease of cleaning and disinfection.

(3) Wooden pallets may be used for the press piling of saltfish or the processing of salmon roe if a plastic barrier that may be perforated with small holes for drainage purposes is placed between the wooden pallet and the fish.

(4) Every pallet shall be clean and maintained in a sound condition.

16. (1) Fish shall be kept iced or chilled and protected from contamination before processing in the establishment and, if the type of process operation conducted so requires, shall be washed before processing.

(2) Cold storages shall maintain the temperature of fish at -18°C or colder.

(3) Coolers shall maintain fish at a temperature from 4°C to -1°C.

17. (1) Processed fish shall be stored in locations designated in the quality management program.

(2) No odiferous or toxic substance shall be stored in a processing area.

18. Frozen fish shall be handled and protected in an establishment to ensure that the temperature of the fish does not increase more than 5.5°C during the time the fish

(a) is removed from cold storage and returned to it; or

(b) placed on a conveyance equipped with cold storage capability.

9. The reference after the heading “Schedule III” in Schedule III to the Regulations and the heading (see footnote 6) of that Schedule are replaced by the following:

(Sections 14.1 and 14.3)

REQUIREMENTS FOR VESSELS USED FOR FISHING OR TRANSPORTING FISH

10. Schedule IV (see footnote 7) to the Regulations is repealed.

11. The heading (see footnote 8) of Schedule V to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVEYANCES AND EQUIPMENT
USED FOR UNLOADING, HANDLING, HOLDING AND
TRANSPORTING FRESH FISH

12. Schedule VI (see footnote 9) to the Regulations is repealed.

COMING INTO FORCE

13. These Regulations come into force on the date on which they are registered.

[31-1-o]

Regulations Amending the Wildlife Area Regulations

Statutory Authority

Canada Wildlife Act and Financial Administration Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of the Environment

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, located approximately 50 kilometres east of Québec, is the most significant migratory stop-over in North America for the greater snow goose population. This National Wildlife Area (NWA) provides public awareness programs for the tens of thousands of people who visit each year.

Admission fees to the Cap Tourmente NWA were first implemented in 1985. The last admission fee increase was in 1991. Revenues generated by these fees are used to ensure that the public awareness program and visitor services are self-financing. For the first ten years, the public awareness program was managed by a variety of non-governmental organizations. In 1995 management of the public awareness program was transferred to the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the admission fees were incorporated into the Wildlife Area Regulations. Admission fees cover naturalists’ services and access to public buildings and facilities (e.g. hiking trail network, public washrooms and parking areas).

This amendment to the Wildlife Area Regulations would raise the admission fees currently charged. The one-day admission fees, in each category, would be raised by $1. Annual access rates would be raised from $9 to $15 for adults, from $8 to $12 for students, and from $6 to $10 for local residents. The fee charged for use of a bird identification guidebook or binoculars is being eliminated. Finally, as a result of numerous requests from individuals and groups, this amendment would make available the personalized service of a naturalist, if requested.

This amendment also will streamline the admission fees by modifying certain categories of users. The number of individuals admitted under group rates will increase from five persons or more, to groups of 10 persons or more. In addition, certain categories of visitors will be eliminated because they have proven, over time, to be under-utilized (such as the resident fee charged for one-day access, and the senior fee for one-day and one-year access).

Under the current admission fee structure, Environment Canada is having difficulty in ensuring a self-financing, highquality program that attracts visitors to the Cap Tourmente NWA. Budget items, such as naturalists’ salaries, have risen significantly. As a result, only a minimum level of services is currently offered, which does not enable Environment Canada to maintain interpretative materials, to update exhibits or to develop new public activities. The proposed fees are necessary in order to recover the costs associated with delivering public-awareness program and reception services of high quality at Cap Tourmente NWA. The proposed changes will simplify the Regulations, allow the program to better meet the needs and expectations of the public and make it easier for the program to be self-financing.

This proposed amendment is consistent with the federal government’s policy to implement user charges for services that provide identifiable recipients with direct benefits beyond those received by the general public.

Alternatives

Improving program services presently offered at Cap Tourmente NWA in response to public requests is not possible without an increase in admission fees. Renewing certain exhibits or developing new activities for the public has become increasingly difficult, as budgetary items such as naturalists’ wages have increased significantly. The continued increase of fixed expenditures is threatening the self-financing nature of the program.

In order to ensure that the program continues to be selffinanced and viable, a reasonable increase in the entrance fees is being proposed at this time. This also will enable the Department to improve the level of services, thereby attracting more visitors to Cap Tourmente NWA.

The new fees proposed are comparable to similar fees charged at other facilities in the region, including Québec’s aquarium, the Québec zoological garden, and other Quebec interpretation centres, museums, and parks.

Benefits and Costs

Environment Canada’s objective is to develop commercial opportunities at the Cap Tourmente NWA by distinguishing the Wildlife Area through the superior quality of services and activities. This can only be achieved, however, by recovering the costs associated with delivering a public awareness program and reception services of high quality at the NWA.

From a broader perspective, Environment Canada is actively working to conserve and protect the natural habitats of plants and animals in the eight national wildlife areas in the Quebec Region. The Department also wants to continue to provide high-quality services for the public in order to ensure that Canadians and foreign visitors have access to protected sites. The public awareness program offers activities of a high calibre, while enabling Environment Canada to better meet its goals and objectives.

Admission fees were implemented at Cap Tourmente NWA in 1985, and have not been raised since 1991. The Department is having difficulty establishing a high-quality program under the current admission fees. As noted earlier, budget items such as naturalists’ salaries have risen significantly in recent years. The Department has been unable to maintain or to update informative material, or to advertise services offered in order to attract more visitors. It has become necessary to make drastic cuts in services to ensure the financial self-sufficiency of the public awareness program.

Net revenue from admission fees for 1996–97 was $111,405 for 46 566 visitors. Costs for the public awareness program in 1996–97 were $152,212. Costs for the program in 1998–99 are forecasted to be $166,000. Even with the increased number of visitors projected for 1998–99 of 53,000, the current fee structure would result in net revenue of $123,926, making it impossible to provide the level of service that the public is requesting.

The new fee structure will generate revenues that will permit more efficient services to be implemented at the best possible cost to the public, taking into account the real needs of visitors. Simplifying the fee structure will facilitate collection by the Department while eliminating items that have proven, in time, to be redundant.

Improved services and programs at the Cap Tourmente NWA should attract more visitors. This will, in turn, generate positive economic spin-off effects for the local economy, including hotel and restaurant owners, and for other suppliers of goods and services in the region.

The new admission fees for visitors will be applied and maintained at no added cost to Environment Canada.

Consultation

When the public awareness program was first implemented at Cap Tourmente NWA, a comprehensive review was carried out of all the other institutions offering similar services in the Québec region. This study, which has continued, has familiarized the Department with the operating methods, admission fees and programs run by government and private-sector organizations.

In addition, the Aquarium de Québec, the Jardin zoologique de Québec, the Chutes Sainte-Anne, the Sept-Chutes and Jacques-Cartier Park were visited in order to compare their operating methods, fee structures and activity programs with the program offered at Cap Tourmente NWA. Meetings at these institutions, which took place in November and December 1995, confirmed that the fees of the simplified fee structure being proposed are lower than or equal to those at other sites (group rates, annual passes, discount rates for students and senior citizens).

The proposed new admission fees take into account the many requests from the public for improved services at Cap Tourmente NWA during the last two years. Comments from the public have been conveyed to the naturalists on location, and by means of a suggestion box located in the interpretation centre. Teachers, when contacted by naturalists regarding school group programs, have urged that the public awareness program be updated, and have indicated their willingness to pay for a good quality program. As mentioned earlier, there have been numerous requests from individuals and groups that the personalized service of a naturalist be offered, in addition to the regular services already provided.

Bird watchers and other groups interested in the environment and ecotourism have always been very open and positive regarding the manner in which the Department manages the Cap Tourmente NWA. Verbal and written comments, as well as spontaneous reactions by visitors to the Cap Tourmente NWA, have encouraged the Department to pursue a fee increase in order to provide an improved level of service to the public.

The NWA should continue to receive very strong local and regional popular support (Quebec City Region Tourism and Convention Bureau, Chambre de commerce de Beauport—Côté-de-Beaupré, groups of bird watchers and wildlife enthusiasts). These organizations and the general public are fully aware that revenues from admission fees to the Cap Tourmente NWA are used to fund the public awareness program. These stakeholders agree that the admission fees should be raised moderately, because the additional revenues generated will be used to improve services and programs at this NWA.

Compliance and Enforcement

Anyone who contravenes a provision of the Wildlife Area Regulations is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Officers of the Canadian Wildlife Service and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are responsible for the enforcement of the Wildlife Area Regulations.

All guides hired for the season at the Cap Tourmente NWA must have game officer training. They are required to report all offences to on-site personnel.

This amendment to the Wildlife Area Regulations will not entail any additional enforcement costs.

Contact

Serge Labonté, Manager, Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Saint-Joachim, Quebec G0A 3X0, (418) 827-3776; or Terry Mueller, Regulatory Analyst, Program Analysis and Coordination, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3, (819) 997-1272.

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 12(see footnote b) of the Canada Wildlife Act(see footnote c) and paragraph 19(1)(a)(see footnote d) of the Financial Administration Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Wildlife Area Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations to the Minister of the Environment within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the Director, Biodiversity Protection, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3.

July 15, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE WILDLIFE AREA REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) The definitions “family”(see footnote 10), “general interpretation services”(see footnote 11) and “special-activity interpretation services”(see footnote 12) in section 2 of the Wildlife Area Regulations(see footnote 13) are repealed.

(2) The definitions “adult”(see footnote 14), “child” (see footnote 15) and “student”(see footnote 16) in section 2 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

"adult” means a person who is 18 years of age or over; (adulte)
“child” means a person who is 12 years of age or under; (enfant)
“student” means a person who is 13 years of age or over but under 18 years of age, or a person who holds a valid student identification card from a recognized educational institution; (étudiant)

(3) Section 2 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“interpretation services” means an activity that involves the interpretation of wildlife and is carried out in the Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area; (services d’interprétation)

2. Section 8.3(see footnote 17) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

8.3 (1) Every person who enters Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area shall pay the applicable fee set out in item 1, 2, or 3 of Schedule II.

(2) Every person who requests naturalist services shall pay the fee set out in item 4 of Schedule II.

3. Section 8.4(see footnote 18) of the Regulations is repealed.

4. Schedule II(see footnote 19) to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

SCHEDULE II
(Section 8.3)

CAP TOURMENTE NATIONAL WILDLIFE AREA FEES

Item	Column I	Column II
	Description	Fee (includes the Goods and Services Tax and the Quebec sales tax)
1.	One-day access on days on which interpretation services are offered:
	(a) adult	$5.00
	(b) student	$4.00
	(c) child accompanied by an adult	Free
	(d) adults’ group (minimum 10 persons)	$4.50 per person
	(e) seniors’ group (minimum 10 persons)	$3.50 per person
	(f) students’ group and children’s group (6 to 12 years) (minimum 10 persons)	$3.50 per person
	(g) children’s group (under 6 years) (minimum 10 persons)	$2.00 per person
2.	Annual access:
	(a) adult	$15.00
	(b) student	$12.00
3.	One-day access on days on which interpretation services are not offered:
	(a) adult and student	$2.00
	(b) child accompanied by an adult	Free
4.	Private naturalist services (in addition to individual or group fees)	$45.00 per hour

COMING INTO FORCE

5. These Regulations come into force on the date on which they are registered.

[31-1-o]

Regulations Amending the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, 1996

Statutory Authority

Fisheries Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

These amendments to the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, 1996, include: a repeal of the prohibition on fishing for halibut with more than one line; a reduction in the fee for a five-day non-resident sport fishing licence; a change in the requirement to record salmon on a sport fishing licence; and an amendment to the daily quota for shrimp.

The definition of “tidal waters” is being amended in the English version only, to correct a reference to the Pacific Fishery Management Areas Regulations.

The prohibition against any person angling with more than one fishing line for halibut is being lifted, because it has not been effective in the managing effort in the halibut fishery. Anglers fishing for other species, such as salmon, can use more than one fishing line, and they often incidentally catch halibut with their gear. In such cases, it is difficult for Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) enforcement staff to prove that anglers intended to catch halibut when using more than one fishing line and to enforce the regulation. In consequence of this amendment, the offence of fishing for halibut with more than one line is also being removed from Schedule VIII.

The licence fee for a five-day non-resident sport fishing licence is being reduced from $36 to $31. Previously, the cost of a fiveday licence was greater than the cost of two one-day licences and one three-day licence combined. This anomaly resulted in the sale of multiple licences to one fisher for a single five-day trip and additional costs to DFO for payment of commissions to licence vendors.

This amendment also corrects an error in the Regulations by requiring that only catches of chinook salmon, and not all catches of salmon, be recorded on the licence. Only chinook salmon has an annual limit and thus it is the only species of salmon that needs to be recorded on the sport fishing licence.

Schedule VIII is being further amended to accurately reflect the wording of subsection 13(2) of the Regulations, which is referred to in item 20. In accordance with that subsection, the offence should be for possessing more than three halibut, not for possessing more than the daily quota.

The description of the daily quota for partly shelled shrimp is being amended to read “2.5 kg with the head and the thorax removed”. The daily quota for shrimp in the shell remains unchanged at 5 kg. Previously, the daily quota for shrimp with the shell removed was 2 kg. However, the expression “shell removed” was unclear. Initially, it was intended to mean that the head and the thorax would be removed, which would leave the edible portion of the tail or abdomen as the portion to be weighed for purposes of the daily quota. The abdomen, however, is also covered by a portion of the exoskeleton or cuticle, which is considered a type of “shell” and which is not removed before the shrimp is processed for consumption. Fishers argued that shrimp with heads off were still in the shell, and thus should be considered for the higher daily quota of 5 kg rather than 2 kg.

Alternatives

There are no alternatives to a regulatory amendment for correcting anomalies or errors in the Regulations.

Benefits and Costs

Benefits

The removal of the restriction of one line when fishing for halibut, the amendment to the description of the daily limit for shrimp and the amendment to the recording requirement for salmon will facilitate enforcement of the Regulations.

The reduction in the licence fee for a five-day non-resident sport fishing licence will eliminate the incentive for vendors to sell, and fishers to purchase, multiple shorter term licences for a single trip. The benefit is twofold. First, DFO costs for vendor commissions will drop by approximately $7,000. Second, DFO will hold more accurate statistics on the number of sport fishers in British Columbia.

Costs

There are no costs to the amendments respecting halibut, shrimp and chinook salmon.

It is estimated that there may be a loss of $25,000 in licence revenue from the decrease in the cost of a five-day licence. With reduced costs in vendor commissions, the net effect of the regulation amendment may be $18,000 or less in lost revenue.

Consultation

The amendments have been discussed with and approved by the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB). The SFAB represents the concerns of sport fishers and the sport fishing industry in making recommendations to DFO and the Province of British Columbia on matters affecting sport fishers. No adverse reaction is anticipated from the sport fishing community.

Contact

Terry Gjernes, Acting Chief, Recreational Fisheries Division, Operations Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 300– 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 5G3, (604) 666-3271 (Telephone), (604) 666-7369 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 43(see footnote e) of the Fisheries Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, 1996.

Any interested person may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be addressed to Terry Gjernes, Acting Chief, Recreational Fisheries Division, Operations Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 300– 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 5G3, (604) 666-3271 (Telephone), (604) 666-7369 (Facsimile), and cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of this notice.

July 15, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BRITISH COLUMBIA
SPORT FISHING REGULATIONS, 1996

AMENDMENTS

1. The definition “tidal waters” in subsection 2(1) of the English version of the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, 1996(see footnote 20) is replaced by the following:
“tidal waters” means the waters of the Areas set out in Schedule II to the Pacific Fishery Management Area Regulations. (eaux à marée)

2. Paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(b) for white sturgeon.

3. The portion of item 9 of the table to section 17 of the Regulations in column II (see footnote 21) is replaced by the following:

Item	Column II
	Fee ($)
9.	31.00

4. Section 22 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

22. Where a licence holder catches and retains a lingcod or a chinook salmon, the licence holder shall immediately record the catch in ink on the licence.

5. The portion of item 15 of Schedule V to the Regulations in column II is replaced by the following:

Item	Column I	Column II
	Species	Daily Quota
15.	Shrimp	5 kg in the shell or 2.5 kg with the head and the thorax removed

6. Item 7 of Schedule VIII to the Regulations is repealed.

7. Item 20 of Schedule VIII to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Item	Column I	Column II	Column III
	Provision of Regulations	Offence	Fine ($)
20.	13(2)	Possess more than 3 halibut	100, plus 50 per fish in excess of 3 up to a maximum of 1,000

COMING INTO FORCE

8. These Regulations come into force on the date on which they are registered.

[31-1-o]

Leamy Lake Navigation Channel Regulations

Statutory Authority
National Capital Act

Sponsoring Agency
National Capital Commission

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The proposed Leamy Lake Navigation Channel Regulations (the proposed Regulations) are made under the authority of the National Capital Act. The National Capital Commission (the Commission) is the owner of the bed of Leamy Lake, in the City of Hull, and all the lands surrounding the lake. The proposed Regulations, in conjunction with the Boating Restriction Regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act, would govern activities in a navigation channel for motorized vessels that is located on the west side of the lake.

Leamy Lake Park has been the site of recreational activities for many years. In the early 1960s, the Commission created a beach on the east side of the lake and opened the lake to the general public. The beach has been well used since that time, and more and more facilities have been provided to users over the years. The presence of the beach invites users to engage in a variety of aquatic activities, including swimming, canoeing, kayaking and windsurfing. As well, a recreational pathway that runs alongside the lake is frequented by pedestrians, cyclists and in-line skaters.

Historically, Leamy Lake was fed by the Gatineau River and drained directly into the Ottawa River through the Leamy Lake Outlet. However, in the early 1970s, when it was determined that pollution from the two rivers was having a deleterious effect on the quality of the water in Leamy Lake, the water flow into and out of the lake was obstructed by the erection of dikes.

In the fall of 1995, the Commission decided to re-open Leamy Lake to the Gatineau River at the north end and to join the lake to Lac de la Carrière at the south end. Lac de la Carrière was created in 1975, when an abandoned quarry to the south of Leamy Lake was flooded, but before 1995, had never been connected to the waters in Leamy Lake. At the same time, the Commission replaced the valve in the dike located at the mouth of the Leamy Lake Outlet in order to prevent water from flowing from the Outlet and the Ottawa River back into the lake.

The opening of the Leamy Lake Park waterway was undertaken to

— improve the quality of the water in the lake;
— encourage greater use of Leamy Lake Park for recreational activities; and
— increase opportunities for tourism in the area.

Although the obstruction to the flow of water from the rivers decreased pollution levels in Leamy Lake, the lake was becoming stagnant, and by 1995, the water quality in Leamy Lake was actually worse than that of the Gatineau River. By allowing water to flow into and out of the lake once again, the process of stagnation was reversed, resulting in cleaner and healthier water in the lake.

It was hoped that improving the quality of the water in the lake would in turn encourage greater use of Leamy Lake Park for recreational activities and possibly lead to the Park remaining open throughout the year.

The creation of a navigable waterway from the Gatineau River through Leamy Lake to Lac de la Carrière was seen, as well, as an opportunity to encourage tourism in the area by providing access to boaters from the Gatineau River to the Casino de Hull on Lac de la Carrière. A Commission-operated control booth, traffic signals and a channel marked by lighted buoys was created along the west end of Leamy Lake to allow persons operating motorized vessels to traverse the lake in an orderly fashion without interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and safe use of the lake by other persons.

The Commission, as owner of the lake bed and the lands surrounding the lake, is anxious to protect the environment of the area. An environmental impact assessment study undertaken prior to the opening of the lake indicated that some access by power boats would be acceptable if appropriate control measures, including a restriction on the number of boats and their speeds and a prohibition on the dumping of sewage and other matter in the channel, were put in place.

Other issues of concern to the Commission are the safety of other users of the lake and the continuing peaceful enjoyment of the lake and the Park by all users. The Commission wishes to safely balance the use of Leamy Lake by power boaters and other persons who engage in recreational activities in the area.

As a result, the proposed Regulations would prohibit the following activities in the navigation channel:

— operating a vessel other than a motorboat or shuttle boat;
— swimming;
— interfering with another person’s use of the channel or behaving in a manner that endangers public safety;
— stopping or anchoring a vessel;
— dumping sewage or other waste, fuel or oil; and
— selling or supplying fuel or oil or fuelling a vessel with fuel or oil.

In addition, the following rules would apply:

— a person operating a motorized vessel would be required to wait for permission from the control booth operator before entering the channel;
— if the condition of a vessel is such that it may endanger public safety or delay or obstruct navigation, the vessel would not be permitted in the channel;
— the operator of a vessel in the channel would be required to obey instructions issued by the control booth operator or any other person charged with enforcing the safe operation of the channel, and obey the traffic signals in the channel;
— the operator of a vessel in the channel would be required to operate the vessel in a manner that avoids endangering public safety or causing damage to the shoreline, another vessel or other object;
— only 20 motorboats would be permitted in the channel, and only 25 motorboats in total would be permitted in the channel and Lac de la Carrière at any one time; and
— only one shuttle boat would be permitted in the channel, and only two shuttle boats would be permitted in total in the channel and Lac de la Carrière at any one time.

Finally, the proposed Regulations would require the control booth operator to deny permission to enter the channel to a person operating a vessel where

— the control booth operator believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person is impaired by drugs or alcohol;
— the person is behaving in a manner that endangers public safety;
— the channel is blocked by a disabled vessel; or
— an emergency exists in the channel or in Lac de la Carrière.

The operation of the navigation channel and the actions of boaters in the channel are also governed by the Boating Restriction Regulations, made under the Canada Shipping Act. The Boating Restriction Regulations limit the speed of boats in the channel, set out periods when the channel is closed to boaters, and include restrictions on the types of activities that may occur in the channel.

Alternatives

1. No restrictions on power boating

The Leamy Lake Park waterway was opened in order to improve the quality of water in Leamy Lake, to encourage greater use of the Park for recreational activities and to increase access to the area by tourists. These benefits could be jeopardized if unrestricted power boating were permitted. In addition to having a deleterious effect on the water quality, unrestricted power boating could be a hazard to other users of the lake, cause erosion of the shoreline, lead to environmental damage to the lake as a result of the dumping of sewage, motor fuel or other waste, and undue noise levels resulting from the operation of many power boats could disturb persons enjoying the facilities in Leamy Lake Park, as well as threaten nesting colonies of birds in the Park.

2. Encouraging voluntary compliance with guidelines for conduct in the channel

Since the opening of Leamy Lake to the passage of vessels, power boaters have been encouraged to voluntarily abide by the rules that are proposed in the Regulations. Although most boaters recognize that compliance with the rules benefits all users of the lake, the operators of some vessels have been found engaging in activities that are the subject of restrictions or prohibitions in the proposed Regulations.

Such actions could ultimately damage the environment of the lake and lead to a decline in enjoyment of the area by other users, as well as jeopardizing public safety. It has also become apparent to the Commission in other circumstances where the Commission has attempted to regulate conduct through a program of voluntary compliance with guidelines that when it becomes clear to persons that there is no penalty for a breach of the rules, the level of compliance by all persons drops.

3. Complete prohibition on power boats on the lake with penalties for breaches of the prohibition

A complete prohibition on motorized vessels would remove any threat to the environment, public safety or the peaceful enjoyment of the park by other users resulting from the presence of power boats on the lake. Such a prohibition could be enforced through the application of penalties for its breach.

However, as Leamy Lake is now part of a navigable waterway, the Commission cannot prohibit passage by members of the public on the lake. Moreover, such a measure would defeat the aim of encouraging tourism in the area.

Benefits and Costs

The proposed Regulations would benefit all users of Leamy Lake by regulating access to the lake in order to attenuate any deleterious effects that might result from the presence on the lake of motorized vessels. By improving opportunities for recreational activities and tourism through regulated access, while safeguarding the environment, the enactment of the proposed Regulations could lead to economic benefits for the area.

The costs that would flow from the enactment of the proposed Regulations would be the result of enforcement measures, including the commitment of enforcement personnel to the area, the publication of information for distribution to persons using the channel and the production of signs to inform the users of the rules contained in the proposed Regulations. It should be noted, however, that peace officers already patrol the channel as a result of the application of provisions in the Boating Restriction Regulations to Leamy Lake.

Consultation

A meeting was held on November 6, 1996, in the City of Hull to explain both the proposed Regulations and proposed amendments to the Boating Restriction Regulations that would apply to Leamy Lake, and to seek comments from members of the public on these Regulations. A notice of the meeting was published in three local newspapers 30 days before the day of the meeting. As well, a letter of invitation to the meeting was sent to 76 individuals and to the following groups who had demonstrated an interest in the opening of Leamy Lake to navigation:

Ville de Hull
Bureau du tourisme et des congrès de la Ville de Hull
Casino de Hull
L’Association touristique de l’Outaouais
Club des ornithologues de l’Outaouais
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Canadian Coast Guard
Fondex

A total of 15 people attended the public meeting. Although there was a fair amount of comment from the participants on the subject of the opening of the waterway, only two of the questions posed at the meeting concerned the proposed Regulations.

One participant asked whether the limitation on the number of shuttle boats in the channel would effectively restrict the number of companies that could operate shuttle boats on the waterway. In response, staff from the Commission indicated that the number of companies permitted to operate shuttle boats through the channel would in no way be limited by the proposed Regulations. Companies would merely be required to abide by a schedule that governs the times when a particular shuttle boat may enter the channel.

The second question raised the issue of the limitation on the number of motorboats permitted in the channel at any one time. Some participants suggested that the number was too high, while others indicated that they felt that the number was too low. Commission staff reiterated that the number of motorboats permitted in the channel is limited in order to balance the interests of persons operating motorized vessels and other users of the lake, while safeguarding and preserving the environment of the area.

Two letters commenting on the proposed Regulations were received by the Commission following the public meeting. In the first letter, from Bombardier Inc., the company indicated that while it supported the proposed regulation in the main, it felt that a ban on personal watercraft (Sea-Doos) in the navigation channel that was originally in the proposed Regulations was unfair and discriminatory. Bombardier Inc. noted that these vessels are no more unsafe or noisy than other vessels when operated properly and with respect for other users of the waterway. The company pointed out that personal watercraft would be subject to the same rules regarding speed as any other vessel and for this reason should not be singled out for prohibition. As a result, the ban on personal watercraft was deleted from the proposed Regulations.

In the second letter, the Club des ornithologues de l’Outaouais (the Club) indicated its agreement in principle with the proposed Regulations, but suggested some changes to the wording of the regulation. The Club proposed that provisions be added that would permit a body other than the Commission to manage the navigation channel and charge a fee for entry to the channel. The Club also recommended that the channel be blocked between the end of the boating season and the freezing over of the lake.

In its response to the Club, the Commission noted that the definition of “Commission employee” in the proposed Regulations is sufficient to allow another body to manage the activities in the navigation channel. The Commission rejected the Club’s suggestion to draft the proposed Regulations with an eye to the possibility of charging a fee for entry to the channel because of the fact that Leamy Lake is now part of a navigable waterway and thus open to passage by members of the public. With respect to blocking the channel between the end of the boating season and the freezing of the lake, the Commission noted that it would be quite difficult to do so, and the potential problem is too small to justify the expense.

Early notice of the proposed Regulations was given in the 1997 Federal Regulatory Plan, under Proposal No. NCC / 97-1-L.

Compliance and Enforcement

These Regulations will be enforced by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Hull Police Service and Conservation Officers of the National Capital Commission.

A person who contravenes the Regulations is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of $500, imprisonment for six months, or both penalties.

Contact

Karen McNeil, Legal Counsel, National Capital Commission, 40 Elgin Street, Suite 202, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C7, (613) 239-5477 (Telephone), (613) 239-5404 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 20 of the National Capital Act, proposes to make the annexed Leamy Lake Navigation Channel Regulations.

Any interested person may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be addressed to Karen McNeil, Legal Counsel, National Capital Commission, 202–40 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C7, and cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of this notice.

July 15, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

LEAMY LAKE NAVIGATION CHANNEL REGULATIONS

INTERPRETATION

1. The definitions in this section apply in these Regulations.

“authorized vessel” means a motorboat or a shuttle boat. (embarcation autorisée)

“channel” means the Leamy Lake navigation channel described in Schedule 1. (chenal)

“Commission employee” includes a person acting on behalf of the Commission under a contract or other agreement. (employé de la Commission)

“control booth operator” means the Commission employee operating the control booth situated at the Gatineau River entrance to the channel. (préposé du poste de contrôle)

“motorboat” means a motorized vessel that

(a) is used exclusively for pleasure; or
(b) is designed to carry fewer than 10 passengers and is used for remuneration. (bateau à moteur)

“motor fuel” includes gasoline, fuel oil and diesel fuel. (carburant)

“peace officer” means

(a) a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, designated as a peace officer under paragraph 7(1)(d) of that Act;

(b) a police officer in the police department of the City of Hull, in the Province of Quebec; and

(c) a supernumerary special constable appointed under paragraph 7(1)(c) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act for the purposes of these Regulations and designated as a peace officer under paragraph 7(1)(d) of that Act. (agent de la paix)

“shuttle boat” means a motorized vessel that is designed to carry 10 or more passengers and is used for remuneration. (bateaumouche)

“waiting area” means the area of the channel described in Schedule 2. (aire d’attente)

APPLICATION

2. These Regulations do not apply to peace officers or Commission employees acting in the course of their employment or duties, other than the control booth operator acting under sections 10 to 12.

PROHIBITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS

3. No person may use a vessel other than an authorized vessel in the channel, except in the case of an emergency.

4. No person may, in the channel,

(a) swim;

(b) do anything that unreasonably interferes with another person’s use of the channel;

(c) behave in a manner that endangers public safety;

(d) stop an authorized vessel anywhere outside the waiting area, except in the case of an emergency;

(e) anchor an authorized vessel, except in the case of an emergency;

(f) dump sewage or other waste;

(g) dump motor fuel or motor oil;

(h) sell motor fuel or motor oil or supply an authorized vessel with motor fuel or motor oil; or

(i) fuel an authorized vessel with motor fuel or add motor oil to an authorized vessel’s engine, except in the case of an emergency.

5. No person may operate an authorized vessel in the channel if the dimensions, configuration, draught or condition of the vessel or the goods or equipment on it could

(a) endanger public safety; or

(b) delay or obstruct navigation.

6. Every person operating an authorized vessel in the channel shall

(a) comply with the instructions of a peace officer, the control booth operator or any other Commission employee acting in the course of their employment or duties in respect of the safe and orderly use of the channel; and

(b) obey the traffic lights in the channel, unless otherwise instructed by a peace officer, the control booth operator or any other Commission employee acting in the course of their employment or duties.

7. Every person operating an authorized vessel in the channel shall control the vessel in a manner that minimizes its wake in order to avoid endangering public safety or causing damage to the shoreline, to any other vessel or to any structure or object.

PERMISSION TO ENTER CHANNEL

8. Sections 9 to 12 apply during the hours of operation of the control booth set out by the Commission on a sign posted on the booth.

9. No person operating an authorized vessel may enter the channel from the Gatineau River unless the control booth operator has given the person permission to enter the channel.

10. Subject to section 12, the control booth operator shall give a person operating a motorboat permission to enter the channel if

(a) there are fewer than 20 motorboats in the channel; and

(b) there are fewer than 25 motorboats in total in the channel and Lac de la Carrière.

11. Subject to section 12, the control booth operator shall give a person operating a shuttle boat permission to enter the channel if

(a) there are no shuttle boats in the channel; and

(b) there is not more than one shuttle boat in Lac de la Carrière.

12. The control booth operator shall deny a person operating an authorized vessel permission to enter the channel if

(a) the control booth operator believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person is impaired by alcohol or drugs;

(b) the person is behaving in a manner that endangers public safety;

(c) the channel is blocked by a disabled vessel; or

(d) an emergency exists in the channel or in Lac de la Carrière.

PENALTIES

13. Every person who contravenes any of sections 3 to 7 and 9 is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.

COMING INTO FORCE

14. These Regulations come into force on the date on which they are registered.

SCHEDULE 1
(Section 1)

LEAMY LAKE NAVIGATION CHANNEL

That portion of Leamy Lake, in the City of Hull, in the Province of Quebec, the north passage linking Leamy Lake to the Gatineau River and the part of the south passage linking Leamy Lake to Lac de la Carrière, delineated by a line drawn from a point at coordinates 45°27′21″ 75°43′11″ to a point at coordinates 45°27′13″ 75°43′16″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°27′8″ 75°43′19″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°27′9″ 75°43′23″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°27′7″ 75°43′31″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°27′2″ 75°43′33″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°26′59″ 75°43′30″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°26′59″ 75°43′20″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°26′51″ 75°43′22″ and thence in a southerly direction to the concrete abutment supporting the steel arches of the bridge crossing the south passage linking Leamy Lake to Lac de la Carrière, on the east side of the passage, and a line drawn from a point at coordinates 45°27′21″ 75°43′12″ to a point at coordinates 45°27′14″ 75°43′16″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°27′11″ 75°43′18″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°27′7″ 75°43′32″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°27′2″ 75°43′35″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°26′58″ 75°43′30″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°26′58″ 75°43′23″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°26′57″ 75°43′21″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°26′52″ 75°43′22″, thence in a southerly direction to the concrete abutment supporting the steel arches of the bridge crossing the south passage linking Leamy Lake to Lac de la Carrière, on the west side of the passage.

SCHEDULE 2
(Section 1)

WAITING AREA

That portion of Leamy Lake delineated by a line drawn from a point at coordinates 45°27′09″ 75°43′20″ to a point at coordinates 45°27′09″ 75°43′23″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°27′10″ 75°43′19″ and thence to the starting point.

[31-1-o]

Regulations Amending the Assessment of Financial Institutions Regulations

Statutory Authority

Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act

Sponsoring Agency

Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, section 23, requires that the Superintendent ascertain, on or before December 31 of each year, the expenses for supervising banks and trust and loan companies (BTL companies) for the preceding fiscal year. The Superintendent is required to assess the above expenses against BTL companies based on the Regulations.

At present, the Regulations divide BTL companies into ten tiers based on average assets. Each institution pays a basic assessment amount relative to the tier in which it belongs. However, a loan company that is a subsidiary of a bank pays a basic assessment of $10,000 regardless of its size. The balance, which is the total supervisory expense for BTL companies minus the total amount raised from basic assessments, is subsequently prorated to all BTL companies based on their average total assets.

The Regulations also specify that these rules are effective for three fiscal years only (i.e., 1994–95 to 1996–97). The intention was to review the Regulations and make any necessary amendments subsequent to fiscal 1996–97.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) has commenced discussions with the financial services industry regarding the introduction of a user pay system in addition to other modifications to the current assessment methodology. It is anticipated that more equitable and permanent rules will be agreed to by the later part of fiscal 1998–99. In the meantime, OSFI needs interim measures in order to continue to assess its supervisory costs to the BTL industry.

Alternatives

1. An alternative to these amendments is to maintain the existing Regulations (status quo).

2. To extend the existing Regulations for one year (i.e., to fiscal 1997–98).

3. To extend the existing Regulations for two years (i.e., to fiscal 1998–99).

Analysis

1. Maintaining the status quo would prevent OSFI from assessing its supervisory costs to the BLT industry for a period of two years.

2. Extending the Regulations for one year would be inefficient, since OSFI would have to amend the Regulations once again in a few months for fiscal 1998–99.

3. The two-year extension would enable OSFI to assess its supervisory costs for fiscal 1997–98 and 1998–99. This alternative would facilitate the smooth transition to more equitable and permanent assessment rules which are planned for introduction after fiscal 1998–99.

Costs

Alternative 1 would result in OSFI being unable to collect assessments from BTL after fiscal 1996–97. These assessments are estimated at approximately $16 million per year.

Implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 would generate minimal additional costs to OSFI. However, implementation of Alternative 2 would be less efficient and more costly given the need for two regulatory amendments.

Consultation

In an assessment bulletin, dated September 15, 1997, OSFI advised all BTL companies of its plan to extend the present Regulations for one year. As a result of the time elapsed due to industry consultations regarding the introduction of a user pay system, OSFI is now required to extend the present Regulations for two years.

On February 25, 1998, OSFI sent letters to the Canadian Bankers Association (CBA), the Trust Companies Association of Canada and to Canada Trust soliciting their comments, by March 31, 1998, on the proposed two-year extension. OSFI also sent copies of the letter to the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc. and the Insurance Council of Canada for information purposes.

OSFI received a response from the CBA indicating their acceptance of the two-year extension. No negative comments were received from the other industry associations. Consequently, we believe the industry is supportive of the two-year extension.

Compliance and Enforcement

These amendments will not require any significant change in OSFI procedures and no additional personnel resources are required. Assessments levied against regulated financial institutions constitute debts due to Her Majesty and may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Contact

Mr. Charles P. Johnston, Legislation Officer, Legislation and Precedents Division, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H2, (613) 990-7472 (Telephone), (613) 998-6716 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 23(3) of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act(see footnote f), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Assessment of Financial Institutions Regulations.

Any interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be addressed to Mr. Charles P. Johnston, Regulations Officer, Legislation and Precedents Division, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H2, and cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice.

July 15, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ASSESSMENT OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS

AMENDMENT

1. The portion of section 3(see footnote 22) of the Assessment of Financial Institutions Regulations(see footnote 23) before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

3. For the purpose of subsection 23(3) of the Act, the amount assessed by the Superintendent against each financial institution that is a bank or a trust and loan company in respect of the fiscal years beginning on April 1, 1997 and April 1, 1998 shall be equal to

COMING INTO FORCE

2. These Regulations come into force on the date on which they are registered.

[31-1-o]

Order Declaring the Pickering Lands as an Airport Site

Statutory Authority
Aeronautics Act

Sponsoring Department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The declaration of the Pickering Lands as an airport site is a legal prerequisite under the Aeronautics Act to allow for enactment of airport zoning regulations. These Regulations, when enacted, would help preserve the compatibility of the surrounding land with a possible airport in the future. The declaration of the Pickering Lands as an airport site does not imply any commitment by any party to build an airport on the Pickering Lands. Airport construction would require substantial review and approvals at all levels of Government.

Consistent with the National Airports Policy announced in 1994, the federal government will no longer develop or operate airports. Consequently, development at Pickering would have to be undertaken by local interests.

Alternatives

There are no other alternatives. Prior to the protective measure of enacting airport zoning regulations, the property must be declared an airport site under the authority of the Aeronautics Act.

Until federal airport zoning regulations are enacted, the Province of Ontario has been restricting development of the surrounding lands through a Provincial Minister’s Order as an interim measure. Over the years, the effectiveness of the Provincial Order has eroded through the granting of amendments and exemptions. Meanwhile, urban development in the area has been rapidly expanding. Taking steps now to protect the integrity of the site would ensure the safe operation of a possible airport in the future for a local authority. Once federal airport zoning regulations are in place, the provincial Order would be allowed to lapse.

Benefits and Costs

The cost of acquiring the Pickering Lands in 1972 was about $120 million. As the federal government retains stewardship of the lands, Transport Canada has agreed to pay the cost of implementing certain measures necessary to protect the public’s investment in the land as a possible airport site for the future. Total cost to implement protective measures, including enactment of airport zoning, is approximately $800,000.

The benefit of declaring the Pickering Lands as an airport site is that it would allow for the enactment of airport zoning regulations. These Regulations would prevent the surrounding lands from being used or developed in a manner that could be incompatible with the safe operation of a possible airport in the future. Federal airport zoning regulations limit the height of buildings, structures and objects (including natural growth), and protect aircraft from potential hazards by prohibiting electronic signal interference and the disposal of waste which could attract birds.

Consultation

Support for this Order Declaring the Pickering Lands as an Airport Site and enacting airport zoning regulations has been received from both regional governments, the Regional Municipality of York and the Regional Municipality of Durham.

Local interests will receive fair and equitable consideration through public information sessions, as well as through distribution of written notices to local governments, tenants, and interested parties.

Public consultation would occur as part of the normal process of enacting airport zoning regulations.

Compliance and Enforcement

There are no compliance or enforcement considerations for the Order.

Contact

Patricia Short, Regional Manager, Greater Toronto Area Programs, 4900 Yonge Street, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario M2N 6A5, (905) 649-5725 (Telephone), (416) 952-3328 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council proposes, pursuant to the definition “airport site” in subsection 5.4(1) of the Aeronautics Act, to declare that the lands whose land titles are set out in the schedule hereto are required for use as an airport.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed declaration to the Minister of Transport within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. All such representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Patricia Short, Regional Manager, Greater Toronto Area Programs, 4900 Yonge Street, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario M2N 6A5, (905) 649-5725 (Telephone), (416) 952-3328 (Facsimile).

July 15, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

SCHEDULE

The lands of the Pickering airport site, to which the land titles are set out in this schedule, excepting the lands described in instruments registered under the numbers D165716 and D494890 in the Registry Division of Durham, being lands in the Province of Ontario, are shown outlined in blue on a plan indexed as Item No. 97-30-1, dated July 30, 1997, on record at Public Works and Government Services Canada at North York, Province of Ontario.

Item	Land Title	Registration Number	Registry Division
1.	Confirmation of Intention to Expropriate	234213	Durham
2.	Confirmation of Intention to Expropriate	Markham 80925	York Region
3.	Notice of Abandonment	D52911	Durham
4.	Confirmation of Intention to Expropriate	D12895	Durham
5.	Deed	262073	Durham
6.	Deed	D102366	Durham
7.	Deed	256423	Durham
8.	Deed	D32026	Durham
9.	Deed	Markham 83479	York Region
10.	Quit Claim Deed	Markham 108560	York Region
11.	Quit Claim Deed	Markham 109273	York Region
12.	Deed	Markham 101224	York Region
13.	Deed	Markham 93722	York Region
14.	Deed	Markham 102163	York Region
15.	Notice of Abandonment	454388	York Region
16.	Deed	D67493	Durham
17.	Deed	D67494	Durham
18.	Deed	D67495	Durham
19.	Deed	LT805942	Durham

[31-1-o]

Footnote a

S.C. (1997), c. 6, s. 53

Footnote b

S.C. (1994), c. 23,s. 14(3)

Footnote c

S.C. (1994), c.23, s. 2

Footnote d

S.C. (1991), c.24, s. 6

Footnote e

S.C. (1991), c. 1, s. 12

Footnote f

R.S. (1985), c. 18 (3rd Supp.), Part I

Footnote 1

C.R.C., c. 802

Footnote 2

SOR/98-2

Footnote 3

SOR/95-58; SOR/96-364; SOR/82-829

Footnote 4

SOR/83-110

Footnote 5

SOR/89-375

Footnote 6

SOR/82-829

Footnote 7

SOR/81-374

Footnote 8

SOR/82-829

Footnote 9

SOR/92-75

Footnote 10

SOR/95-78

Footnote 11

SOR/95-78

Footnote 12

SOR/95-78

Footnote 13

C.R.C., c. 1609; SOR/94-594

Footnote 14

SOR/95-78

Footnote 15

SOR/95-78

Footnote 16

SOR/95-78

Footnote 17

SOR/95-78

Footnote 18

SOR/95-78

Footnote 19

SOR/95-78

Footnote 20

SOR/96-137

Footnote 21

SOR/96-138

Footnote 22

SOR/96-365

Footnote 23

SOR/94-528; SOR/97-483

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).