Vol. 132, No. 36— September 5, 1998

Regulations Amending the Dairy Products Regulations

Statutory Authority

Canada Agricultural Products Act

Sponsoring Agency

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The Dairy Products Regulations under the Canada Agricultural Products Act prescribe standard container sizes for dairy products including container sizes for various forms of cheese. The wording of the provision that lists the cheese products that must be packaged in prescribed container sizes includes the words "grated cheese and related types". The reference to "related types" is ambiguous. It is not clear whether "related types" refers to grated cheese or to other types of cheese also listed in the provision. Discussions between the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and industry representatives failed to clarify the intent of this wording and it is recommended that these words be removed.

In conjunction with the ambiguous wording of this provision of the Regulations, the need for and fairness of having federally regulated container sizes for grated cheese has been questioned. The standardization of container sizes for prepackaged food products may benefit consumers in certain cases, making it easier to compare products. These federal regulations apply where products are marketed in import, export and interprovincial trade but not if the products are packaged at the retail level for direct sale to consumers. A wide range of food products are being offered to consumers in random sizes or are packaged by consumers themselves in the retail store and are priced by weight. Consumers are accustomed to seeing food products sold on a catch-weight basis which is often the case with grated cheese. The benefits afforded consumers by the standard containers are questionable since the sizes that can be packed from bulk and sold at retail are unregulated. This is also an unfair situation for registered dairy processors who must operate under federal regulations and have to supply their product in a limited number of container sizes which are different from those available to retailers.

In addition, retailers are asking registered establishments to supply prepackaged products in random sizes to give consumers the same choice of quantity and price that is available with in-store packaging but with the cost savings of central packaging. This amendment will allow registered establishments to provide their product in the same container sizes as retailers or in random sizes. To simplify the marketing of grated cheese at all levels of trade, it is recommended that containers for grated cheese be deregulated.

Alternatives

The existing wording of this particular provision of the Regulations is confusing and has created compliance problems for some dairy processors. CFIA discussed the issue with industry representatives, but a meaningful explanation of the current wording was not found. In the absence of a common understanding of the provision as currently written, the only option is to delete the ambiguous words.

The standardization of container sizes for retail packed products to harmonize them with federally regulated container sizes for grated cheese is not within the scope of the federal statute or its regulations. This is not a viable option.

Maintaining the existing standard container provision does not appear to benefit consumers who purchase a significant quantity of grated cheese on a catch-weight basis.

Including the retail packed sizes as standard sizes for grated cheese in the Dairy Products Regulations is possible but would be of little benefit, given consumers' willingness to purchase non-standard sizes already available at supermarket deli catessen counters. The CFIA sees no need to continue federal regulation of container sizes for grated cheese.

Benefits and Costs

Benefits

Ambiguous wording will be removed from the Regulations, which will facilitate compliance.

Consumers will be able to purchase brand name grated cheese products in the same sizes of containers as are available as unlabelled store-packed products.

Registered dairy processors will be able to compete for sales of grated cheese on the same basis as retail packers.

Deregulation of container sizes for grated cheese will allow market forces to determine package sizing, which will allow federally registered establishments to respond to changing consumer demands.

Costs

The only direct costs are those of the regulatory process to amend the Regulations.

Some retailers offering store-packed grated cheese may encounter greater price competition from name brand products packed in registered establishments. Such competition could be reflected in lower retail prices for consumers or decreased sales of store-packed grated cheese. In any case, market demand will be allowed to determine the balance of sales.

This amendment has no impact on the year 2000 computer issue.

Consultation

This proposal has been extensively discussed with industry and consumer representatives through the National Dairy Council of Canada and the Consumers' Association of Canada. There were no objections to the amendments.

Compliance and Enforcement

There are no particular compliance or enforcement issues.

Contact

J. Wakelin, Associate Director, Meat and Processed Animal Products Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0Y9, (613) 225-2342, extension 4722 (Telephone), (613) 228-6632 (Facsimile), jwakelin@em.agr.ca (Electronic mail).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council proposes, pursuant to section 32 of the Canada Agricultural Products Act (see footnote a), to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Dairy Products Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed amendments to Mr. J. Wakelin, Associate Director, Meat and Processed Animal Products Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0Y9, within 30 days after 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. The representations should stipulate the parts thereof that should not be disclosed pursuant to the Access to Information Act, in particular pursuant to sections 19 and 20 of that Act, the reason why those parts should not be disclosed and the period during which they should remain undisclosed. The representations should also stipulate the parts thereof for which there is no objection to disclosure pursuant to the Access to Information Act.

August 26, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DAIRY PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. The portion of item 6 of Schedule I to the Dairy Products Regulations (see footnote 1) in column II (see footnote 2) is replaced by the following:

Item	Column II Dairy product contained in container
6.	Cheese including process (naming the variety) cheese, process cheese food, process cheese spread and cream cheese

COMING INTO FORCE

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

[36-1-o]

Regulations Amending the Livestock and Poultry Carcass Grading Regulations

Statutory Authority

Canada Agricultural Products Act

Sponsoring Agency

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The Canada Agricultural Products Act provides the authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing grades and standards for agricultural products. Pursuant to this Act, the Livestock and Poultry Carcass Grading Regulations specify the national grade standards for poultry carcasses graded in Canada. Presently, poultry carcasses eligible for grading includes only chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks. Recently, a request was made to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) that the Regulations be amended by adding guinea fowl to the list of poultry species eligible for the application of Canada grade names. This amendment responds to the request.

The grading program and the Regulations facilitate trade and marketing by establishing a basis for product quality and pricing. The application of Canada grade names to poultry carcasses is a voluntary service performed by industry personnel under the monitoring of CFIA inspectors. Grading is restricted to poultry establishments registered under the federal, or a provincial, meat inspection program. Establishments wishing to grade poultry carcasses are charged an annual fee plus an hourly rate of $44 for the monitoring service provided by Agency inspectors.

In the United States, guinea fowl may be officially graded. A Canadian company wishing to export to the United States is at a competitive disadvantage if the American buyer insists on purchasing graded product. The establishment of Canadian grade names for guinea fowl by this amendment will eliminate this inequity. Grade standards would be the same as for ducks and geese.

The amendment also clarifies certain labeling requirements and allows kidneys to remain in duck carcasses weighing less than 3 kg provided that the label clearly indicates that the carcasses "may contain kidneys". Presently, kidneys may remain in chicken and Rock Cornish hens if the label indicates the necessary declaration.

Certain processes such as basting and stuffing may be performed by poultry establishments on graded poultry carcasses provided the poultry is graded prior to the process and a declaration is made on the label indicating the process. Preseasoned whole poultry carcasses are being slowly introduced to the market. To facilitate this marketing practice, the amendment introduces the term "graded before seasoning" to be identified on te label of graded preseasoned poultry.

Alternatives

The status quo is not an option because it does not allow for the application of Canada grade names to guinea fowl.

In the case of the company requesting the amendment, they are the largest producer of guinea fowl in North America. The majority of their sales are to the United States. They have an opportunity to supply a major grocery chain, but this chain only purchases Grade A poultry. In the absence of Canadian grades, one alternative for the Canadian guinea fowl producer to supply this chain would be to export the live birds to an American abattoir to be slaughtered and graded with American grade names. The other alternative, suggested by the Canadian producer, would be to move their operations to the United States. Neither alternative is in the best interests of the Canadian economy.

Benefits and Costs

Guinea fowl production in Canada is relatively minor in comparison to the typical poultry species. The company requesting the amendment is, however, the largest producer of guinea fowl in North America. Establishing grade names for guinea fowl will enable this company to market graded product to those clients wishing to purchase graded guinea fowl. Marketing of graded product will be particularly important to export markets such as the United States where clients are able to purchase guinea fowl bearing American grade names. The majority of the sales of the Canadian producer are to the United States. The annual United States poultry market is approximately 29 billion pounds. In France, guinea fowl is a growing part of the poultry market and constitutes 4 percent by weight of the market. A comparable market penetration in the United States would translate into a market of over one billion pounds.

Benefits will also accrue to the extent that guinea fowl production and processing activities will remain in Canada instead of any displacement to the United States.

Costs associated with the amendment are minimal. It is anticipated that the grading service will be provided in only one establishment on a cost recovery basis. The Agency will be responsible for grade monitoring to ensure grading accuracy.

This amendment has no impact on the year 2000 computer issue.

Consultation

The proposed amendments have been distributed to the national poultry associations and the provincial governments. Given the minor nature of the amendments, very few comments have been received. The Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing indicated their support. The Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council also supports the proposed amendments although they recommend that the allowance for kidneys in poultry be extended as well to roaster chickens and turkeys. This issue is still under review.

Portions of the amendment are provided in the 1997 Federal Regulatory Plan under the heading of Future Initiatives. A 30-day prepublication period is envisaged.

Compliance and Enforcement

Poultry grading is the responsibility of the establishment in which the poultry is slaughtered or processed. The establisment must be registered on a federal or provincial meat inspection program. Poultry grading is monitored by Agency inspectors on a cost recovery basis. In the event of non-compliance, inspectors have the authority to seize and detain product, initiate prosecutions, and issue administrative monetary penalties in the near future.

Contact

Richard Robinson, Chief, Livestock Identification and Legislation, Meat and Processed Animal Products Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0Y9, (613) 225-2342 (Telephone), (613) 228-6636 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 32 of the Canada Agricultural Products Act (see footnote b), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Livestock and Poultry Carcass Grading 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 Richard Robinson, Chief, Livestock Identification and Legislation, Meat and Processed Animal Products Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0Y9, (613) 225-2342, extension 3771 (Telephone), (613) 228-6636 (Facsimile) and cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of this notice.

August 26, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY CARCASS GRADING REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) The definition "poultry" (see footnote 3) in section 2 of the Livestock and Poultry Carcass Grading Regulations (see footnote 4) is replaced by the following:

"poultry" means a bird of the species Gallus domesticus, a turkey, a duck, a goose or a guinea fowl; (volaille)

(2) The definition "common name" in section 2 of the Regulations is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) and by replacing paragraph (d) (see footnote 5) with the following:

(d) in respect of geese, "young goose" and "mature goose", and

(e) in respect of the species Numida meleagris, "young guinea" and "mature guinea"; (nom usuel)

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

"mature guinea" means a guinea fowl that does not have flexible cartilage at the posterior end of the breast or keel bone, tender meat or soft skin of smooth texture; (pintade adulte)

"seasoning" means a substance listed in Division 7 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations; (assaisonnement)

"young guinea" means a guinea fowl that has flexible cartilage at the posterior end of the breast or keel bone, tender meat and soft skin of smooth texture; (jeune pintade)

2. (1) Paragraph 57(b) (see footnote 6) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(b) in the case of a young duck, mature duck, young goose, mature goose, young guinea and mature guinea, not more than the wing tips and the flat wings have been removed from the carcass;

(2) Paragraph 57(e) (see footnote 7) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(e) in the case of poultry, other than a turkey, the breast, thighs and back show evidence of fat cover;

3. (1) Subparagraph 64(1)(e)(v) (see footnote 8) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Paragraph 64(2)(c) (see footnote 9) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(c) the words "may have parts missing — des parties peuvent manquer", if the poultry is graded Canada Utility;

(3) Paragraph 64(2)(e) (see footnote 10) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(e) the words "May Contain Kidneys" and "Peut contenir les reins", if the kidneys have not been removed and

(4) Subsection 64(2) of the Regulations is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (e), by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (f) and by adding the following after paragraph (f):

(g) the words "Seasoned" and "Assaisonné" and the words "Graded Before Seasoning" and "Classé avant assaisonnement", if the processed poultry has been seasoned.

(5) Paragraph 64(4)(e) (see footnote 11) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(e) the words "May Contain Kidneys" and "Peut contenir les reins", if the kidneys have not been removed and

4. Section 67 (see footnote 12) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

67. L'étiquetage de la volaille transformée ne peut porter aucune mention signalant ou suggérant que celle-ci est d'une qualité supérieure au nom de catégorie indiqué.

COMING INTO FORCE

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

[36-1-o]

Regulations Amending the Immigration Regulations, 1978

Statutory Authority

Immigration Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of Citizenship and Immigration

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

Subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act requires every visitor to apply for and obtain a visa before appearing at a Canadian port of entry, except in such cases as are prescribed. Schedule II of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 exempts certain persons from the requirement to obtain a visitor visa.

The 11th session of the Facilitation Division of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) convened in Montréal in June of 1995, where ICAO adopted, as standards and as recommended practices, proposals that contracting states extend visitor visa exemptions to a number of categories of persons engaged in work related to aviation safety. These included flight operations and cabin safety inspectors, accident and incident investigators and experts in the repair or salvage of damaged aircraft. None of these categories are currently mentioned in Schedule II of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, thus they are not visa exempt. The ICAO resolutions with respect to these categories of safety personnel became effective on August 31, 1997. The standards and practices have been published as part of Chapter 8 of the Facilitation Annex (Annex 9) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (often referred to as the "Chicago Convention").

Many individual investigators and safety experts are already exempt from the requirement to obtain a visa by virtue of the blanket exemptions for nationals of certain countries by Schedule II. This change would simply grant the same entry without visa privilege to aviation safety personnel from countries not covered by existing exemptions.

1. Flight operations and cabin safety inspectors engaged in international commercial air transport inspection duties.

Canada proposed the adoption of this standard. Random in-flight inspections on international commercial air transport operations are required under the Chicago Convention, as participating states must certify operators and undertake continuing surveillance of their operations to ensure that required standards are maintained. Therefore, inspectors must travel on international flights and remain with the flight crew at the point of destination pending the return flight. In proposing that a visa exemption be extended to these inspectors, Canada pointed out that delays of up to three to four months have been encountered in obtaining necessary visas to enter other states for in-flight inspection purposes. Delays caused by the processing of visa applications can be detrimental to flight and cabin safety.

The resolutions adopted by the Facilitation Division called upon contracting states to:

"ensure that flight operations inspectors and cabin safety inspectors of another Contracting State, when engaged in inspection duties, are treated in the same manner as crew members,"

and to,

"... extend the privileges of temporary admission to flight operations inspectors and cabin safety inspectors of another Contracting State who are engaged in inspection duties, provided that the departure on the next flight inspection of the inspector's itinerary is after not more than a normal period of rest."

2. Experts required for search, rescue, accident and incident investigations and repair or salvage of damaged aircraft.

Canada supported the adoption of this standard and the amendments proposed by the European Civil Aviation Conference for facilitating the entry, into the States, of accredited representatives and their advisers, when participating in accident or incident investigations. A decisive determination of the cause of an accident sometimes depends on the immediate presence of foreign investigators on the accident site. The full participation of all parties from the very beginning of an investigation contributes to the quality and the credibility of collected information. Delays in the arrival of investigators at an accident site due to the necessity of obtaining a visa could prove detrimental to an investigation.

The standard adopted by the Facilitation Division reads: "In arranging for the entry without delay of the personnel referred to in section 8.3 (of Annex 9), when such a document is necessary, States shall not require any other travel document than a passport." (The personnel referred to in section 8.3 are experts required for search, rescue, accident and incident investigation and repair or salvage of damaged aircraft.)

Alternatives

Members of International Civil Aviation Organization agree to abide by ICAO's standards and recommended practices. However, ICAO procedures do permit contracting states to file "differences" concerning standards and recommended practices. Filing such a difference would allow Canada to adopt a lesser standard of compliance or not to enforce either or both of these new standards at all. Thus, Canada could advise ICAO that the federal government is not prepared to amend its immigration requirements to facilitate admission of the groups in question.

However, failure to adhere to at least the key elements of the new standards does not appear to be a viable option for a number of reasons. Canada is the home of the headquarters of the ICAO and this places upon us a certain obligation to live up to and support the highest goals and objectives of the organization. Secondly, Canada either proposed or supported adoption of the standards in question. Failure to amend our immigration legislation to implement a standard that was proposed by Canadian representatives would send a mixed signal which might lead other governments to draw unfortunate and erroneous conclusions about our level of commitment to the Organization and about the ability of Canadian representatives to commit their country to action. Thirdly, neither the public, the commercial aviation industry, nor the immigration program appear to have anything to gain by Canada's failure to adopt the Facilitation Division resolutions in so far as these have a direct impact on safety issues.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) fully accepts and supports the goals of the Facilitation Committee with respect to facilitating entry of personnel essential for aviation safety. These regulations will exempt from the visitor visa requirement any employee of a national aeronautical agency who seeks entry for the purpose of conducting cabin safety or flight practices inspections. A second visa exemption category is introduced for accredited national representatives or advisers who are seeking entry to participate in an aviation accident or incident investigation being conducted under the authority of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, also known as the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

Indeed, Canada is going beyond the Facilitation Division recommendations in exempting both of these categories of aviation safety personnel from the requirement to obtain an employment authorization. Paragraph 10(c) of the Immigration Act and subsection 18(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 require persons seeking to engage in employment in Canada to obtain an employment authorization before they begin working. Except in such cases as are prescribed, the Regulations require immigration officers to refuse to issue an employment authorization in circumstances where the employment opportunities of Canadians would be adversely affected. The process of assessing the impact of hiring a foreign worker on the Canadian labour market is known as employment validation.

While the Facilitation Division resolutions do not specifically call upon members to remove national employment authorization requirements, CIC has interpreted such action as being consistent with Canada's leading role in the adoption of these new practices and with the spirit of facilitation. The grant of entry without a visa privilege would do little to advance the cause of aviation safety if other documentary impediments remained in place which continued to prevent safety personnel from entering Canada to perform their functions.

Personnel involved in search, rescue and emergency repairs to damaged aircraft are already covered by Regulations paragraph 19(1)(j). However, full implementation of the recommendations of the Facilitation Division committee with respect to repair and salvage personnel is not being pursued. Internal discussions and consultations with officials of Transport Canada and the Safety Board concluded that salvage is a purely commercial activity and that aircraft repair is largely so. Therefore, exempting members of these two groups from the requirement to obtain either a visa or an employment authorization will not contribute to aviation safety and potentially could have a negative impact upon the Canadian labour market.

Although CIC views aircraft repair as being primarily commercial in nature, it is recognized that there may be instances where safety depends upon the making of such repairs. Thus, where there are no persons in Canada qualified to repair a particular type of aircraft (such as certain Russian aircraft), qualified technicians will be permitted to work in Canada without the need to go through the usual employment validation process. The current provisions for temporary entry permit the entry of repair technicians without validation under existing validation exemption code R20(5)(b). Operational manuals will be amended to reflect the inclusion of such aircraft repair personnel.

Benefits and Costs

The costs associated with this amendment to Schedule II of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 are minimal. No new requirements are being imposed and by eliminating the visa requirements for such personnel, we are simply removing procedural impediments to existing agreements and practices intended to enhance the safety of air travel. There will be a very small reduction in the revenue (estimated at no more than $5,000 annually) generated by the Department from visitor visa processing fees. However, the amount of revenue that may be lost will be far outweighed by benefits to the traveling public through improved safety, as a result of the freer movement of flight operations and cabin safety inspectors and also possibly from the decisive determination of the cause of an accident. The decision not to extend document-free entry to salvage and repair personnel is based primarily on the potential loss of employment opportunities to Canadians. There are no additional requirements imposed on the airline industry and hence, no additional costs to the private sector.

Consultation

The Department of Transport, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Human Resources Development have been consulted and agree with this recommendation. As these amendments have no discernible impact on the industry or the traveling public, consultations with the private sector were not conducted.

Compliance and Enforcement

Since we are removing a requirement rather than imposing one, there is no need for a compliance strategy per se. Notification to visa officers and immigration examining officers as well as to the airline industry, which enforces visa requirements by means of pre-boarding documentation checks, will be initiated as required. This will take place through direct liaison with Canadian representatives of airline industry organizations by departmental officials and through publication in electronic and paper formats in the departmental Operations Memoranda system.

Contact

Janeth Crosby, Manager Transportation, Enforcement Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Jean Edmonds Tower North, 8th Floor, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario KIA 1L1, (613) 954-4563 (Telephone), (613) 954-2381 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council proposes, pursuant to paragraphs 114(1)(j) (see footnote c) and (jj) of the Immigration Act, to amend the Immigration Regulations, 1978, made by Order in Council P.C. 1978-486 of February 23, 1978 (see footnote d), in accordance with the schedule hereto.

The proposed effective date of these amendments is the date of registration thereof with the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Any interested person may make representations concerning the proposed amendment within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be addressed to the Director General, Enforcement Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Jean Edmonds Tower North, 8th Floor, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1, and cite the Canada Gazette Part I and the date of this notice.

August 26, 1998

MICHEL GARNEAU
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS, 1978

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) Subsection 19(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 (see footnote 13) is amended by the adding the following after paragraph (e):

(e.1) as a civil aviation inspector of a recognized national aeronautical authority, conducting inspections of flight operation procedures or cabin safety of a commercial air carrier operating international flights;

(2) Subsection 19(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (j):

(j.1) as an accredited representative or an adviser participating in an aviation accident or incident investigation conducted under the authority of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board;

2. Schedule II to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 18:

19. Persons who are in possession of valid documentation establishing that they are civil aviation inspectors of a recognized national aeronautical authority, who are seeking entry for the purpose of conducting inspections of flight operation procedures or cabin safety of a commercial air carrier operating international flights.

20. Persons who are in possession of valid documentation establishing that they are seeking entry as accredited representatives or as advisers in order to participate in an aviation accident or incident investigation conducted under the authority of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board.

COMING INTO FORCE

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

[36-1-o]

Footnote a

R.S., 1985, c. 20 (4th Supp.)

Footnote 1

SOR/79-840

Footnote 2

SOR/93-328

Footnote b

R.S., 1985, c. 20 (4th Supp.)

Footnote 3

SOR/95-216

Footnote 4

SOR/92-541; SOR/95-216

Footnote 5

SOR/95-216

Footnote 6

SOR/95-216

Footnote 7

SOR/95-216

Footnote 8

SOR/95-216

Footnote 9

SOR/95-216

Footnote 10

SOR/95-216

Footnote 11

SOR/95-216

Footnote 12

SOR/95-216

Footnote c

R.S., 1985, c. 28 (4th Supp.), ss. 29(2)

Footnote d

SOR/78-172, 1978 Canada Gazette Part II, p. 757

Footnote 13

SOR/78-172

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).