Vol. 136, No. 30 — July 27, 2002

GOVERNMENT NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of Part 7, Division 3, of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Permit No. 4543-2-06194 is approved.

1. Permittee: Quin Sea Fisheries Ltd., Cupids, Newfoundland and Labrador.

2. Type of Permit: To load and dispose of fish waste and other organic matter resulting from industrial fish processing operations.

3. Term of Permit: Permit is valid from August 26, 2002, to August 25, 2003.

4. Loading Site(s): 47°32.90' N, 53°14.10' W, Cupids, Newfoundland and Labrador.

5. Disposal Site(s): 47°34.23' N, 53°13.60' W, at an approximate depth of 134 m.

6. Route to Disposal Site: Most direct navigational route from the loading site to the disposal site.

7. Equipment: Vessels, barges or other floating equipment complying with all applicable rules regarding safety and navigation and capable of containing all material to be disposed of during loading and transit to the disposal site.

8. Method of Disposal: The material to be disposed of shall be discharged from the equipment or vessel while steaming within 300 m of the approved disposal site. Disposal will take place in a manner which will promote the greatest degree of dispersion. All vessels will operate at maximum safe speed while discharging material.

9. Rate of Disposal: As required by normal operations.

10. Total Quantity to Be Disposed of: Not to exceed 1 500 tonnes.

11. Waste and Other Matter to Be Disposed of: Fish waste and other organic matter resulting from industrial fish processing operations.

12. Requirements and Restrictions:

12.1. It is required that the Permittee report, in writing, to Mr. Rick Wadman, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment, 6 Bruce Street, Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador A1N 4T3, (709) 772-5097 (Facsimile), rick.wadman@ ec.gc.ca (Electronic mail), at least 48 hours prior to the start of the first disposal operation to be conducted under this permit.

12.2. A written report shall be submitted to Mr. Rick Wadman, identified in paragraph 12.1., within 30 days of either the completion of the work or the expiry of the permit, whichever comes first. This report shall contain the following information: the quantity and type of material disposed of pursuant to the permit and the dates on which the loading and disposal activities occurred.

12.3. It is required that the Permittee admit any enforcement officer designated pursuant to subsection 217(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to any place, ship, aircraft, platform or anthropogenic structure directly related to the loading or disposal at sea referred to under this permit, at any reasonable time throughout the duration of this permit.

12.4. The loading and transit of material to be disposed of at the disposal site must be conducted in such a manner that no material enters the marine environment. Material spilled at any place other than the permitted disposal site must be retrieved. All wastes must be contained on shore while the barge is away from the loading site.

12.5. The material to be disposed of must be covered with netting or other material to prevent access by gulls.

12.6. This permit must be displayed in an area of the plant accessible to the public.

12.7. Vessels operating under the authority of this permit must carry and display a radar-reflecting device at all times mounted on the highest practical location.

12.8. The loading or disposal at sea conducted under this permit shall not be carried out without written authorization from the Permittee.

12.9. Material loaded for the purpose of disposal at sea may not be held aboard any vessel for more than 96 hours without the written consent of an enforcement officer designated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

K. G. HAMILTON
Environmental Protection
Atlantic Region

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Federal Government Response to Comments Received on the Notice of Intent to Recommend That Ozone and its Precursors Be Added to the List of Toxic Substances Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

Introduction

On June 9, 2001, the ministers of the Environment and of Health published their intent to recommend that ozone and its precursors (nitrogen oxides (NO_x) [nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂)] and volatile organic carbons (VOCs)) be added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). The Notice of Intent was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for a 60-day comment period. This report summarizes the comments received and the federal response.

The Notice of Intent on ozone and its precursors builds on the Science Assessment Document (SAD) for Ground-Level Ozone, which was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on October 14, 2000. The SAD concludes that there is a significant association between ambient ozone and adverse health effects and that significant adverse effects to human health and vegetation are occurring at ozone levels currently experienced across Canada. The SAD further specifies that ground-level ozone is formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions involving precursors, namely nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Without the listing of ozone and its precursors by name on Schedule 1, the ministers would not have the legislative mechanism in place to control ozone and its sources.

Response to Comments

A total of 14 submissions were received. Of the 14 submissions, one was from a province and 13 were from industry or industry associations. Ten of these submissions supported or did not specifically object to the recommendation for ozone itself. All of the submissions received were against adding the precursors to ozone to Schedule 1. Concerns with the process and uncertainties in the science were the most frequent issues raised. These submissions are mentioned in the Order Adding Toxic Substances to Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 which appears in the proposed Regulations section on page 2320.

A summary of the most frequently raised comments and the responses of the federal government are outlined in the table below.

No.	COMMENT	RESPONSE
1	PROCESS
1A	The ministers did not conduct a rigorous scientific assessment under CEPA 1999 (e.g., a Priority Substances List (PSL) assessment, screening of the Domestic Substances List (DSL), or review of another jurisdiction); therefore, the process isn't legal under CEPA 1999. Declaring ozone and its precursors toxic based upon a creative legal interpretation sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the scientific basis of CEPA 1999.	Under subsection 90(1) of CEPA 1999, "the Governor in Council may, if satisfied that a substance is toxic, on the recommendation of the ministers, make an order adding the substance to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1." In developing this recommendation, the ministers may use a number of approaches to be satisfied that a substance is "toxic or capable of becoming toxic". These include, in addition to the processes prescribed for substances on the DSL and PSL, the use of other appropriate assessments to satisfy the Governor in Council that a substance is CEPA toxic. The ministers' recommendation is based on sound science conducted over the past decade. The Ozone SAD went through a scientific peer-review and a consultation process with federal, provincial and territorial representatives. Supporting studies from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the World Health Organization have consistently demonstrated the impacts of ozone on public health. The Ozone SAD is considered to be a scientifically sound assessment of the effects of ozone on human health and the environment, and combined with the CEPA definitions of "toxic" and of "substance" in section 64 and subsection 3(1) respectively, it provides the ministers with an appropriate basis for proceeding with a recommendation under subsection 90(1). In the case of precursors to ozone, the ministers are confident that a formal PSL science assessment is not required and that the existing science supports the conclusion that the precursors participate in chemical reactions in the environment that result in the formation of ozone, which is toxic. The precursors to ozone satisfy the conditions of section 64 of CEPA, which defines a substance as "toxic" if, among other possibilities, it may enter the environment under conditions that may constitute a danger to human health. In addition, there already exists a precedent for adding precursors to a toxic substance to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999. Non-chlorinated dibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran, while not assessed for the risks posed by their direct exposure, were added to Schedule 1 because they can lead to the formation of polychlorinated dioxins and polychlorinated furans, which are toxic under CEPA 1999.
1B	If the legal argument is valid, then precursors of precursors of precursors could be declared toxic.	Technically, this may be true for some substances if they are capable of "being transformed" or "causing such transformation". However, in practical terms, as noted in the SAD, NOx and VOCs are considered to be the primary precursors of ozone, management of which will be the most effective to reduce ground-level ozone concentrations.
1C	The Government should undertake a PSL or science assessment. It would help to establish priorities and issues of concern.	In making a recommendation under subsection 90(1) of CEPA 1999, the minister may use a number of approaches to be satisfied that a substance is "toxic or capable of becoming toxic". In making this determination, appropriate scientific assessments other than those prescribed for the PSL process may be used. Ministers are confident that the SAD supports the conclusion that ozone is toxic and that the precursors to ozone satisfy the definition of toxic. A PSL assessment, which does not assess options or set priorities for risk management, would add little to current knowledge and would result in significant delays to the risk management process. The federal government has already outlined some of its priorities to improve air quality in its Interim Plan 2001 on Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. The Interim Plan sets out measures where the federal government is best suited to act including a 10-year agenda for cleaner vehicles, engines and fuels (aligned with those in the United States), an upgraded air monitoring network across Canada and an expanded National Pollutant Release Inventory to ensure more reporting of emissions. Currently, analytical approaches to multi-pollutant emission reduction strategies (MERS) are being developed in consultation with provinces and stakeholders. MERS activities are advancing for key industrial sectors. This analytical work will feed jurisdictional implementation plans to be completed in the 2002-2003 timeframe.
1D	Research, investigation, and evaluation in section 68 was not followed.	The ministers' recommendation is based on sound and appropriate science. Section 68 is not mandatory but allows the ministers to conduct research.
1E	Ozone cannot be dealt with under Part 5 since it does not meet the definition of section 64. Ozone is not released into the environment, rather formed in the atmosphere from precursors.	Environment Canada is satisfied that the terms "enter" or "may enter" are sufficiently broad enough to capture ground-level ozone. Ozone satisfies the conditions of section 3 of CEPA 1999, which defines a "substance" as "any matter that is capable of being dispersed in the environment." Furthermore, based on the evidence in the SAD, ozone meets the criteria in section 64, which sets out that a substance is "toxic" if, among other possibilities, it is "entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger to human life or health".
1F	Ozone is not on the DSL. Toxicity under Part 5 is intended for commercial, manufactured, or imported substances.	Toxicity declarations under Part 5, which concerns the control of toxic substances, are not limited to substances on the DSL.
1G	The Canada-wide Standard calls for a review of new information by the end of 2005. It is premature to add VOCs as a group to Schedule 1 prior to the completion of this review.	The review of the Canada-wide Standard is intended to determine whether the CWS target should be revised for the year 2015. While it may also provide some new information to assist in the design of risk management measures for NOx and VOCs, it is not expected to alter the long-standing fact that VOCs and NOx are the two primary substances contributing to ozone formation.
1H	What is the process to de-list VOCs from Schedule 1?	The process to amend the listing of VOCs on Schedule 1 is the same process used to list a substance on Schedule 1.
2	OVERLAP AND DUPLICATION
2A	The Notice causes an unnecessary regulatory burden. It causes overlap and duplication with existing programs and undermines the CWS process.	Adding ozone and its precursors to Schedule 1 does not, in itself, control the substances in any way; therefore, it does not cause overlap and duplication with existing programs. It establishes the additional legal authority for the federal government to take the actions under CEPA 1999 that it has already committed to work towards under these programs. The federal government is committed to the CWS for PM and Ozone and has published its proposed actions to help achieve these standards in the Interim Plan 2001 on PM and Ozone. Together with the provinces and territories, the federal government will continue the current process of mapping out emission reduction strategies for key industrial sectors. Action is expected to be taken by the jurisdiction best situated. While the federal government may be best situated to act in some cases, many of the actions required are expected to be implemented by provinces and territories.
2B	The development of an instrument within two years is not consistent with CWS timelines.	The CEPA requirement to develop an instrument within two years (section 91) does not apply to ozone and its precursors since they were not subject to CEPA paragraph 77(6)(b). Nonetheless, early actions will be needed if governments are to collectively achieve the CWS target by 2010.
2C	Creates confusion by adding VOCs that were previously found to be not-toxic under CEPA 1999 (e.g., toluene, xylenes).	The previous science assessments for toluene and xylene assessed their direct toxicity to human health and did not assess the contribution of these substances to the formation of PM and ozone. The federal government doesn't believe that this will cause confusion; however, it will manage communications as necessary.
3	NECESSITY
3A	Provinces, under existing management regimes, can adequately address ozone.	Although provinces and territories have effective initiatives in place, experience has shown that even the combined efforts of all levels of government and industry have not been adequate to manage smog. In fact, several comments that were received recognized the need for further actions to improve air quality and supported the federal government's Clean Air Agenda. Canada needs a concerted, cooperative effort by all jurisdictions to achieve the PM and Ozone CWS. The federal, provincial, and territorial governments have committed to further actions under the CWS and it is now incumbent upon all jurisdictions to deliver on these commitments. The federal government has committed to do its part to help achieve the CWS and has outlined its initial actions in its Interim Plan 2001 on PM and Ozone. It is imperative that the federal government has access to the full range of "CEPA tools" to be able to deliver these commitments.
3B	The Government should deal with ozone under CEPA 1999, Part 3 (environmental quality objectives).	Part 3 of CEPA 1999 is available if needed, but may not be sufficient. The federal government needs access to all "CEPA tools", such as pollution prevention plans and regulations, which are only available if a substance is listed on Schedule 1.
3C	Rather than declaring ozone and its precursors toxic, the government should pursue voluntary reductions (e.g., from mobile and point sources and consumer products in geographical areas where they will be most effective).	The Government recognizes and commends the significant achievements that industry has made towards reducing emissions of PM10, ozone, and their precursors and will continue to work with industry to achieve additional reductions, where necessary; however, more needs to be done to protect the health of Canadians.
3D	The majority of Canada is NOx-limited thus reducing VOCs in NOx-limited areas may have little impact on ozone.	NOx emitted during daylight hours in the summer is the primary cause of elevated ambient ozone levels, not just in urban areas, but on large regional scales. Acceptance of this conclusion by many jurisdictions in the world has resulted in the establishment of aggressive NOx reduction programs to address ozone. Reducing VOCs in urban areas has the potential to reduce ozone in local urban situations which are VOC limited. Generalizations cannot be made between airsheds regarding efficacy of NOx or VOC control.
3E	Large amounts of biogenic (natural) VOCs in Canada mean reductions in anthropogenic (human-made) emissions are of questionable effectiveness.	Although total biogenic emissions are greater on a national or regional scale, local urban anthropogenic VOC emissions are far greater than biogenic emissions. Local anthropogenic VOC emissions show up as "hot-spots" that are up to 10 times higher than the regional biogenic levels and can contribute significantly to local urban ozone concentrations.
4	CONSULTATIONS
4A	There was no advance opportunity to comment as in the PSL process. The surprise of this action is inconsistent with the ministers "partnership" approach and the concept of inclusiveness in the Framework for Science and Technology Advice.	The federal government is committed to meaningful involvement of stakeholders and has carefully considered comments received throughout the process. The ministers' conclusions are based on the SAD, which involved full consultations. The ministers published the Notice of Intent and this response to comments to initiate the consultation process and provide an additional opportunity for comment before following the formal consultation process under CEPA 1999. Additional opportunities for stakeholder involvement will be available when planning risk management options. It should also be noted that there have been opportunities for consultation for more than a decade on various scientific assessments and risk management efforts on ozone, all of which recognized or focused on the two primary precursors to ozone — NOx and VOCs. Examples include the SAD for Ground-Level Ozone, the Canadian 1996 NOx/VOC Science Assessment, international protocols under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) to reduce NOx and VOCs, the Ozone Annex to the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement, and the Ozone CWS.
4B	The Regulatory Policy and the Cabinet Directive on Law Making commits to "full advantage of opportunities for coordination with other governments and agencies." Advice and comments from the CEPA National Advisory Committee (NAC) were ignored.	Environment Canada consulted with the NAC about the federal government's intention to add ozone and its precursors to the List of Toxic Substances. Despite the concerns of several provinces, in view of the serious adverse effects that ozone at current levels is having on human health and the environment and the need to have the full range of "CEPA tools" available to take action where necessary to resolve the ozone problem, the ministers decided to proceed with the publication of the Notice of Intent. The ministers are fully committed to continued cooperation and collaboration with provincial and territorial governments on smog through efforts to implement the CWS for PM and ozone. While the federal government may be best situated to act in some cases, many of the actions required are expected to be implemented by provinces and territories.
5	COMMUNICATIONS
5A	There is a stigma around the "toxic" label as seen by the public. There is also potential for public confusion with stratospheric ozone.	The public is well aware of the health effects of smog and the need to improve Canada's air quality. Although a certain amount of public confusion between tropospheric and stratospheric ozone has existed for more than a decade, careful communications with the public will continue to be a component in the path forward.
6	ECONOMICS
6A	A blanket toxic declaration puts an unfair burden on small sources (e.g., the use of VOCs has already been significantly decreased in the paints and coatings and chemical industries ) and may affect the viability of some industries. It will be difficult for industry to focus on VOCs of most concern if all are deemed toxic.	The addition of ozone and its precursors to Schedule 1 does not, in itself, control the substances in any way. Therefore, there are no costs or benefits associated with adding ozone and its precursors to Schedule 1, as this initiative is solely based on science. Preliminary economic analyses to support risk management actions for reductions in precursor emissions were conducted jointly with the provinces and territories when developing the ozone CWS. Additional economic analyses will be conducted as required when developing appropriate strategies and control instruments. If the federal government proposes regulations or other instruments for these substances, it will undertake an assessment of the impacts associated with the proposed instruments. CEPA 1999 provides for an open and transparent process when developing regulations or instruments.
6B	The Expert Panel noted that costs associated with reducing emissions may be underestimated and human health benefits overestimated. The Panel also concluded that more and better cost-benefit analyses are required before standards are set and policy is made.	The analysis clearly demonstrates benefits for Canadians. The numbers generated were based on the best information available at the time that the analyses were performed. Work is already underway to address issues raised in the Expert Panel report. In addition, both Government and industry are working to improve the methodologies and tools for future economic analyses, including improved benefit and cost quantification.
6C	Detailed regional modelling is needed but is not available for most of Canada.	Regional modelling is a relevant tool for assessing the human health and economic effects of any emission changes at the regional, national and international level. Also, in developing implementation plans for the achievement of the CWS, local jurisdictions may have to consider modelling. Depending on the subject at hand, modelling will be pursued as a collaborative effort between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. A number of modelling efforts have been conducted or are underway in such areas as the Lower Fraser Valley (British Columbia), Alberta and Ontario.
6D	The declaration of toxicity may cause potential trade impacts. The competitiveness of Canadian industry could be jeopardized.	The addition of precursors to ozone to Schedule 1 does not, in itself, control the substances in any way. Therefore, there are no trade impacts in adding the precursors to Schedule 1. Impacts of any control measure will be analyzed and considered during the risk management phase.
6E	The declaration of toxicity could have implications on emissions trading for NOx (and potentially VOCs).	Adding ozone and its precursors to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 does not preclude the use of emissions trading, if it is deemed an appropriate tool during the risk management phase.
7	UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
7A	Controlling NOx in VOC-limited areas may increase ozone formation downwind.	The phenomenon of NOx titration implies the potential for small or even moderate decreases in NO to be insufficient or result in temporary localized increases in ozone concentrations. In regions of very high local NO emissions (such as urban weekday NO emissions), NO scavenging (reaction 5) will dominate over ozone forming reactions (reactions 1 & 2)*. Many urban regions may exhibit an ozone "donut" effect, in which the highest NO emitting regions have lower ozone than the surrounding areas. Weekend NO emissions in some urban regions are lower, and the resulting increase in ground-level ozone concentrations has been observed. These counter-productive results only occur for low to moderate NOx reductions, and it is recognized that even greater reductions in NO emissions will result in regional ozone decreases. *Refer to Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 of "Precursor Contributions to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in Canada" May 2001.
8	RISK MANAGEMENT
8A	A sense of source attribution is required to identify the proportional share of the cost burden for each sector.	Source attribution and cost impacts are relevant to the risk management stage. A number of provincial initiatives are already in place to determine the source attributions and cost impacts in some provinces. Federal program initiatives will mostly focus on providing these figures on a national scale.
8B	At present, there is no one control technology that can adequately address all precursors.	It is not expected that one control measure or technology will meet all aspects of managing ozone and precursors. A balance of control measures and technologies will be required.
8C	Will the needed atmospheric science be prepared and where in the process will this be done?	Analysis of regional ozone problems is currently underway with key jurisdictions. It is anticipated that this work will continue throughout the implementation of the CWS for PM and Ozone. Current regional analysis will assist in the design of jurisdictional implementation plans, including emission reduction measures for key industrial sectors. As part of the Review of the CWSs for PM and Ozone by end of year 2005, a Report to ministers will be prepared in 2003 on the findings of PM and Ozone environmental, atmospheric and health science, including a recommendation on a PM 10-2.5 CWS.
8D	Transboundary pollution needs to be addressed.	The federal government is committed to addressing transboundary pollution through the CWSs and the Ozone Annex to the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement.
9	SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION
9A	The toxicity of ozone is not clearly demonstrated in the SAD. Causality has not been established.	The toxicity of ozone and causality are clearly established in the SAD. The population-based epidemiological studies provide consistent and coherent evidence of a population-level exposure-response relationship. Non-accidental mortality, hospital admissions, emergency department visits and other adverse effects increase monotonically as ozone concentration increases. These epidemiological relationships are given significant support from work with human volunteers and animals. Controlled human exposure studies have identified a dose-response relationship for lung function changes, symptoms and airway inflammation under a variety of conditions. Field (camp and panel) studies with children and controlled human exposure studies have identified several sensitive sub-groups, such as asthmatics. Animal studies provide evidence of mechanisms for acute and chronic effects of ozone, including mortality. While it is possible to establish causality with epidemiological evidence alone, it is quite clear that the causality of ozone-induced health effects is not based solely or even primarily on epidemiological relationships.
9B	The SAD did not conclude that ozone and the listed precursors are toxic.	The SAD did draw this conclusion for ozone. In its conclusions the SAD states that "Combining the information, there is convincing evidence of a significant association between ambient ozone and adverse health effects." Based on the evidence presented in the SAD, which is supported by the previous NOx/VOC Health Objective Working Group report, it is quite clear that ozone is toxic. The SAD further specifies that ground-level ozone is formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions involving precursors, namely nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Refer to comment #1A regarding the process to add the precursors to Schedule 1.
9C	The declaration of toxicity should not be based on the SAD as it was not a consensus document.	The SAD is accepted as a credible review of scientific information available at that time and was agreed to by all provinces and territories except Alberta. Alberta's position has been identified in the SAD.
9D	The degree to which ozone is responsible for effects caused by exposure to mixtures of compounds is not clear.	The science provides clear evidence of ozone-induced injury to human health. Based on the camp, panel, clinical and animal toxicological evidence, there is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that ozone, at current levels of exposure, causes adverse health effects in humans. While the epidemiological studies are carried out in an environment of multiple pollutants, the models used in these studies are designed to provide some indication of the independence of effects of the various pollutants. Combined, the scientific evidence provides clear evidence of ozone-induced injury to human health.
9E	Recent publications indicate ambiguous findings on the association between ozone and daily mortality.	It is unnecessary to prove mortality when drawing conclusions on the toxicity of a substance. Under section 64, a substance is toxic if it constitutes or may constitute "a danger in Canada to human life or health". The SAD provides a coherent picture of a variety of adverse health impacts attributable to ozone based on epidemiological, clinical, panel and toxicological studies. Additionally, Health Canada has continued to monitor and analyze the literature on ozone and other air pollutants since the time of the publication of the SAD. New work has demonstrated strong associations with specific disease states and recent work on mechanistic issues is of significance in findings on lung damage, blood clotting factors, and inflammatory mechanisms.
9F	Non-linear chemistry needs to be explicitly considered—reduction of NOx does not guarantee reduction of ozone.	The robust scientific analyses of many jurisdictions all indicate that the listed precursors have the potential to contribute to ozone formation, that the formation process is non-linear, and that broad categories of NOx and VOC limited areas exist. This non-linear chemistry is considered in evaluation tools such as 3D regional air quality models and reactivity scales, which are being used in the development of risk management actions. NOx is the primary cause of elevated ambient ozone levels not just in urban areas but on large regional scales. Acceptance of this conclusion by many jurisdictions in the world has resulted in the establishment of aggressive NOx reduction programs to address ozone.
9G	The extent of ozone formation is complex and varies under different conditions and in different parts of the country. The Government should evaluate and prioritize the degree to which different VOCs and NOx contribute to the formation of smog and PM under differing conditions before adding them to Schedule 1. The proposal should identify relative contributions of mobile and large industrial point sources, whether anthropogenic or biogenic.	The federal government recognizes that ozone formation is complex and varies under different conditions and in different parts of the country; however, this does not refute the conclusion that the precursors participate in chemical reactions that result in the formation of ozone, which is toxic. All VOCs have the potential to contribute to ozone formation as defined in the Notice of Intent. Risk assessments are not intended to identify options for control or priorities. Rather, such issues are relevant to the risk management stage and will be considered when identifying priorities for action and developing specific control instruments to reduce emissions of ozone and its precursors. In identifying priorities and control strategies, methodologies are already available (e.g., reactivity scales, 3D air quality models, and other established methodologies) that can be used to determine relative NOx and VOC contributions. Available modeling tools have been shown to characterize ozone formation sufficiently well, based on studies in all Canadian problem areas. One of these tools — Environment Canada's 3D model (CHRONOS) — is being used in air quality forecasting across Canada.
9H	Carbon monoxide (CO) is not listed but is a significant contributor to ozone.	In urban regions, CO is not a significant contributing factor to ozone formation, therefore it is not included in the list of precursors recommended. CO may be a significant influence on ozone concentrations in remote areas, but its reactivity and concentrations are too low to be a significant contributor on the urban to rural scale.
9I	Methane is exempted but it is a significant contributor due to abundance.	Although methane, and also ethane, are abundant on a national scale, the relative contribution of methane and ethane to ozone formation is minor on a local scale (particularly in the urban regions that are VOC limited); therefore, in the proposed listing on Schedule 1 of "VOCs that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions", these substances are among those specifically excluded by definition.
9J	Water vapor, oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen (N2), and various free radical intermediates also lead to ozone formation.	Though participants in ozone formation, water vapor, O2 and N2 cannot be regulated as there are no significant anthropogenic sources of these natural components of the atmosphere. Control of NOx and VOCs influences the free radicals which are key to ground-level ozone formation.
9K	There is no incentive to switch to alternative VOCs with lower toxicity since all VOCs appear equally toxic.	The appropriate control instruments and alternatives, if needed, will be identified during the risk management phase, whereby the proper incentives will be created to control the various toxics accordingly.
9L	The Government should assess processes, rate, sequence and synergistic effects of atmospheric chemical reactions prior to declaring ozone and its precursors toxic.	These issues have already been appropriately addressed in scientific assessments and reviews (NOx/VOC Science Assessment 1996, NARSTO Ozone Assessment, 2000, and Precursor Contributions to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in Canada, 2001), which illustrate that both observations and atmospheric processes, as defined in air quality models, confirm the relationship between the precursors (NOx and VOCs) and ozone formation.
10	PRECURSOR DEFINITIONS
10A	The proposed definitions for precursors of PM10 and precursors of ozone are confusing and duplicative. The current definitions do not identify which precursors need to be dealt with for which problem (e.g., PM, ozone or both).	There is significant commonality in the atmospheric processes responsible for ground-level ozone formation and secondary organic aerosol formation. NOx plays a major role in both as do VOCs. The VOCs of most interest to secondary PM formation are those with 7 or greater carbon atoms, while those that affect ground-level ozone formation also include the lower molecular weight VOCs. It is not currently possible to identify separate classes of VOCs in the context of ozone or secondary PM formation. By dealing with the precursors to PM10 and the precursors to ozone together, risk management actions will address those precursors which the science shows will result in effective reduction of ozone and/or PM2.5. However, it is important to note that the List of Toxic Substances is just a list; it is the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) that accompanies the proposed Order that will set out the reasons for each new addition to the List.
11	NOx DEFINITION
11A	For nitrogen oxides, are only NO and NO2 addressed by the notice?	The Notice of Intent identifies nitrogen oxides as NO and NO2. Other oxides of nitrogen have small concentrations in the lower troposphere and are not significant reservoirs or are only temporary reservoirs of NOx, lost through deposition, or conversion to particulate matter. Organic nitrates are expected to deposit or enter particulate matter and are not precursors of ozone. Control of NO and NO2, results in the control of all other nitrogen containing compounds relevant to atmospheric chemistry and ozone formation.
11B	Why is NO categorized as an ozone precursor — because it is a precursor of a precursor?	Both NO and NO2 contribute to ozone formation either directly or indirectly. The well understood chemistry of NOx shows that NO and NO2 are in a very fast (time scales of minutes or less) reactive mass exchange from the moment of emission. At night, the absence of photolysis of NO2 allows oxidation of NO by ozone: new NO emissions are transformed into NO2; NO2 then contributes to secondary PM formation via nitric acid (HNO3) or is photolyzed the next morning.
12	VOC DEFINITION
12A	Declaring VOCs toxic, as a class of substances, is not appropriate. Regulatory Policy calls for clear definition of the problem but the definitions of the precursors are too ambiguous.	The addition of a broad class of chemicals to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 is appropriate and not unprecedented. For example, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls were all added to Schedule 1. Furthermore, Canada and other countries around the world have considered VOCs as a class in managing ozone for many years. VOCs are included as a class in national emission inventories and forecasts, in domestic ozone management plans (e.g. 1990 NOx/VOC Management Plan, Ontario Anti-Smog Plan), in the Ozone CWS, in various individual control measures (e.g. vehicle emission standards, solvent content limits for products) and in international agreements (e.g. UN ECE VOC Protocol, Ozone Annex to the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement). It is impractical to attempt to manage ozone by dealing individually with each of the contributing VOCs.
12B	The SAD section 2.3.2 provides a clearer definition of VOCs than the Notice of Intent.	The definitions presented in the SAD and the Notice of Intent are consistent, and the latter meets the legal requirements for listing on Schedule 1.
12C	An exclusion list in the definition is not appropriate or legal. The definition of toxic in CEPA compels a listing based on VOCs that enter the environment, not by exclusion. Some VOCs are already listed on Schedule 1.	The proposed wording for the definition of VOCs describes a class of substances, of which a certain number are excluded as they are believed to be a less significant contribution to ozone formation. This in no way modifies other items on the List of Toxic Substances.
12D	VOCs from biogenic sources would be captured under the proposed definition.	The CEPA definition of toxic does not intend to distinguish between biogenic and anthropogenic sources. There are already numerous substances on Schedule 1 that have both natural and anthropogenic sources (e.g., mercury, lead).
12E	The resulting inclusion of unknown numbers and species of VOCs is scientifically inappropriate. The proposed definition includes VOCs that make no significant contribution to ozone while excluding others that do. The proposal to list all VOCs should be reconsidered in light of substantial scientific evidence that shows that ozone creating potential of individual VOCs is highly variable, not all VOCs are contributors, and some VOCs are ozone scavengers.	All VOCs have the potential to contribute to ozone formation. The proposed definition excludes species that are known to have relatively low potential to contribute to ozone formation. It should also be noted that some VOCs with low OH reactivity with respect to ozone may undergo photolysis, producing a more reactive intermediate. The relative contributions of individual VOCs or VOC classes can only be determined using reactivity scales or air quality modelling specific to the airshed of interest.
12F	Several paraffins whose maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) are less than acetone (excluded from the definition) are not excluded.	The MIRs cited are location and time specific and based on California data; therefore, they are not appropriate to the Canadian situation. These reactivity scales must be applied in the context of the airshed of interest, and the intent with this listing is to provide all regions of Canada with the potential to manage the relevant VOCs.
12G	The Government should adopt the California approach, which prioritized VOCs using MIR and maximum ozone reactivity (MOR).	Prioritization of VOC management is part of the risk management phase. Prioritization based upon reactivity scales can be a valid tool; however, it should be noted that MIR or MOR scales are location and time specific. The applicability of California results for the Canadian environment is by no means guaranteed.
12H	The definition incorrectly includes some VOCs that do not have a significant role because they are not abundant or their reactivity is low.	Low abundance or low reactivity do not, in isolation of each other, determine a VOC's contribution to ozone formation in Canada. For example, a low reactivity compound that is emitted in large quantities may have more of an impact than a high reactivity compound that is emitted in small quantities. Similarly, a single source that has a low abundance on a national scale may have a significant local or regional impact.
12I	VOC exclusions can inadvertently encourage their use and some have high global warming potential.	Excluding certain VOCs from this listing does not preclude their management for other reasons, such as climate change or their own inherent toxicity to human health or the environment.
12J	The SAD states that a ranking scale is a better approach than treating all VOCs equal.	Priorities for action will be established during the risk management phase.

Referenced Documents

Clean Air Agenda (http://www.ec.gc.ca/air/pdfs/Cleanair_e.pdf)

Interim Plan 2001 on Particulate Matter and Ozone (www.ec.gc.ca/air/pdfs/200104_e.pdf)

NARSTO Ozone Assessment, 2000 (www.cgenv.com/Narsto/)

NOx/VOC Science Assessment, 1996 (www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/saib/noxvoc/Summaryeng.pdf)

National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Ground-Level Ozone Science Assessment Document, 1999 (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/bch_pubs/ozone.htm)

Priority Substances List Assessment Report for Respirable Particulate Matter Less than or Equal to 10 Microns (www.ec. gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/psap/final/reports/PM-10_fin_e.pdf)

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Federal Government Response to Comments Received on the Notice of Intent to Recommend that Precursors to Particulate Matter Be Added to the List of Toxic Substances Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

Introduction

On July 15, 2000, the ministers of the Environment and of Health published their intent to recommend that the precursors to particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM₁₀) (sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NO_x) [nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂)], ammonia (NH₃), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) be added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, (1999) [CEPA 1999]. The Notice of Intent was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on July 15, 2000, for a 60-day comment period. This report summarizes the comments received and the federal response.

The Notice of Intent on precursors to PM₁₀ is associated with the May 9, 2001 final order in the Canada Gazette adding PM₁₀ to Schedule 1 of the List of Toxic Substances under section 64 of CEPA 1999.

The Priority Substances List Assessment Report for PM₁₀ was published on May 27, 2000. The report specifies that PM₁₀ can be released directly into the atmosphere or formed secondarily in the atmosphere from precursors as a result of physical or chemical transformations. The report further identifies the principal precursor gases to PM_2.5 to be sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds and recommends that stakeholders be consulted on the need to add precursors to PM₁₀ to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 and on the form of the Schedule 1 listing. The Notice of Intent initiated such consultations. Without the listing of the precursors by name on Schedule 1, the ministers would not have the legislative mechanism in place to control the sources contributing to PM₁₀.

Response to Comments

A total of 42 submissions were received. Thirty-five submissions were received from industry representatives, one from another federal department, three from provinces, one from a public health authority and two from environmental groups. Four submissions supported the intent to add the precursors to PM₁₀ to Schedule 1, while the others expressed various concerns with the process and uncertainties in the science. These submissions are mentioned in the Order Adding Toxic Substances to Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 which appears in the proposed Regulations section on page 2320.

A summary of the most frequently raised comments and the responses of the federal government are outlined in the table below.

No.	COMMENT	RESPONSE
1	PROCESS
1A	The ministers did not conduct a full science assessment under CEPA 1999 (e.g., a Priority Substances List (PSL) assessment, screening of the Domestic Substances List (DSL), or review of another jurisdiction) and did not follow the legal requirements of CEPA, sections 77, 90, and 91. Therefore, the process is not legal under CEPA. Declaring the precursors to PM10 toxic on such a fast-tracked approach based on legal interpretation, rather than a full scientific assessment, sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the scientific basis of CEPA 1999.	Under subsection 90(1) of CEPA 1999, "the Governor in Council may, if satisfied that a substance is toxic, on the recommendation of the ministers, make an order adding the substance to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1." In developing this recommendation, the ministers may use a number of approaches to be satisfied that a substance is "toxic or capable of becoming toxic." These include, in addition to the processes prescribed for substances on the DSL and PSL, the use of other types of assessments to satisfy the Governor in Council that a substance is CEPA toxic. The ministers' recommendation is based on sound science conducted over the past decade. The PSL assessment of PM10 indicates that the precursors can transform in the environment into PM10, which is toxic. The PM SAD went through a scientific peer-review and a consultation process with federal, provincial and territorial representatives. These documents are considered to be scientifically sound assessments of the effects of PM10 on human health and the environment, and combined with the CEPA definitions of "toxic" and of "substance" in section 64 and subsection 3(1) respectively, provides the ministers with the basis for proceeding with a recommendation under subsection 90(1). In the case of precursors to PM10, the ministers are confident that a formal PSL science assessment is not required and that the existing science supports the conclusion that the precursors can transform in the environment into PM10, which is toxic. The precursors to PM10 satisfy the conditions of section 64, which defines a substance as "toxic" if, among other possibilities, it may enter the environment under conditions that may constitute a danger to human health.
		The CEPA requirement to develop an instrument within two years (section 91) does not apply to PM10 precursors since they were not subject to CEPA, paragraph 77(6)(b). Nonetheless, early actions will be needed if governments are to collectively achieve the CWS target by 2010. In addition, there already exists a precedent for adding precursors to a toxic substance to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999. Non-chlorinated dibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran, while not assessed for the risks posed by their direct exposure, were added to Schedule 1 because they can lead to the formation of polychlorinated dioxins and polychlorinated furans, which are toxic under CEPA 1999.
1B	The justification for the proposal is unclear. The proposal is based solely on inference, with no document on which the public could base its comments. A report is needed that, for each substance, documents how they meet the definition of CEPA, section 64.	The Notice of Intent contained the required justification for the proposal, namely that: • PM10 is toxic • that the PSL Assessment Report for PM10 specifies that this substance can be released directly into the atmosphere or formed secondarily in the atmosphere from precursors as a result of physical or chemical transformations • that the Report identifies the principal precursors to this substance to be sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia and volatile organic compounds
1C	Using the same logic, precursors of precursors could be declared toxic (e.g., sulphur, oxygen, and carbon).	Technically this may be true for some substances if they are capable of "being transformed" or "causing such transformation." However, in practical terms, as noted in the PSL Assessment Report for PM10 and supported by the recent report "Precursor Contributions to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in Canada," the four substances in the Notice are considered to be the primary precursors of PM10.
1D	The Government should develop guidelines under CEPA, section 69, which clearly articulate the interpretation and application of this type of approach.	This suggestion will be taken under consideration.
1E	The precursors are not persistent, bioaccumulative and are not on Track 1 under the CEPA process.	The List of Toxic Substances is not limited to Track 1 substances (substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, and predominantly anthropogenic) targeted for virtual elimination under the Act or under the federal government's Toxic Substance Management Policy.
2	OVERLAP AND DUPLICATION
2A	It will cause overlap and duplication with and may hinder the large number of management programs already underway to reduce emissions of PM10 and its precursors. The proposal undermines the Harmonization and Canada-wide Standards (CWS) process under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), which provides the framework to develop a cohesive national approach to the division of jurisdictional responsibility for the management of clean air issues.	The addition of PM10 precursors to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 does not, in itself, control the substances in any way; therefore, it does not cause overlap and duplication with existing programs. It establishes the additional legal authority for the federal government to take the actions under CEPA 1999 that it has already committed to work towards under these programs. The federal government is committed to the CWS for PM and Ozone and has published its proposed actions to help achieve these standards in the Interim Plan 2001 on Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. Together with the provinces and territories, the federal government will continue the current process of mapping out emission reduction strategies for key industrial sectors. Action is expected to be taken by the jurisdiction best situated. While the federal government may be best situated to act in some cases, many of the actions required are expected to be implemented by provinces and territories.
3	NECESSITY
3A	The legal necessity for listing the precursors on the List of Toxic Substances is not clear and should be communicated.	To reduce ambient levels of PM10, it is necessary to reduce emissions of precursors in addition to direct emissions of PM since, on average, one-half to two-thirds of PM2.5 mass can be attributed to formation from precursor gases. For the federal government, CEPA 1999 is the most important tool available for reducing ambient levels of PM. To control the precursors, the Government needs access to the full range of "CEPA tools," including regulations and pollution prevention plans, which are only available when the precursors are listed by name on Schedule 1.
3B	Declaring the precursors to PM10 toxic is unnecessary since there are numerous federal, provincial and industrial programs underway that address PM10 and that can be amended or extended to cover new requirements.	Although there are effective frameworks and initiatives in place, experience has shown that even the combined efforts of all levels of government and industry have not been adequate to manage smog. In fact, many comments that were received recognized the need for further actions to reduce ambient levels of PM10 and supported the federal government's Clean Air Agenda. Canada needs a concerted, cooperative effort by all jurisdictions to achieve the PM and Ozone CWS. The federal, provincial, and territorial governments have committed to further actions under the CWS and it is now incumbent upon all jurisdictions to deliver on these commitments. The federal government has committed to do its part to help achieve the CWS and has outlined its initial actions in its Interim Plan 2001 on PM and Ozone. It is imperative that the federal government has access to the full range of "CEPA tools" to be able to deliver these commitments.
3C	Many industries are already working to reduce emissions through various programs, including voluntary initiatives.	The Government recognizes and commends the significant achievements that industry has made towards reducing emissions of PM10, ozone, and their precursors and will continue to work with industry to achieve additional reductions, where necessary; however, more needs to be done to protect the health of Canadians.
3D	Canada is out of step with other western jurisdictions who have not listed these precursors as toxic.	Every country has a different framework of legislative tools and may use a process other than a declaration of toxicity to control the precursors to PM. Regardless of the legislative tool or process, many western countries, e.g. most in the European Union, the United States and the United Kingdom, are required to implement more stringent measures to reduce PM precursors, such as SO2 and NOx, than are currently required in Canada. In the case of CEPA, the legal authority to use the full range of tools, including regulations or pollution prevention plans and environmental emergency plans, are available only when a substance is listed by name on Schedule 1. It should be noted again (see response to 2A) that adding a substance to Schedule 1 in itself is not a measure to reduce emissions, and the extent to which PM10 precursor emissions may have to be reduced using this tool is not determined at this point.
3E	As an alternative approach, the proposed CEPA Guideline for VOCs in Consumer Products should be implemented to harmonize VOC limits with those in the United States.	The CEPA guideline, while a useful measure, will only deal with a small portion of the emissions of VOCs. Many other sources of VOCs as well as the other precursor pollutants need to be considered in managing the risks associated with PM10.
3F	As an alternative approach, the Government should carry out a multistakeholder process to identify fast-track, cost-effective actions, develop PM reduction strategies that would be most effective and efficient, and identify and coordinate research programs to improve science.	The proposal does not preclude such actions. Similar actions are already underway through the PM and Ozone CWS process. Currently, analytical approaches to multi-pollutant emission reduction strategies (MERS) are being developed in consultation with provinces and stakeholders. MERS activities are advancing for key industrial sectors. This analytical work will feed jurisdictional implementation plans to be completed in the 2002-2003 timeframe. The CWS also commits governments to conduct and coordinate science activities as part of its commitment to the Joint Initial Actions to reduce pollutants contributing to PM and Ozone.
3G	Emissions of PM10 and its precursors are more appropriately addressed under CEPA Part 3 (ambient objectives and guidelines) and under Part 7 (international air pollution).	Part 7 of CEPA is only applicable in situations of transboundary air pollution. Part 3 of CEPA is available if needed, but may not be sufficient. The federal government needs access to all "CEPA tools," such as pollution prevention plans and regulations, which are only available if a substance is listed on Schedule 1.
3H	The rationale for declaring precursors toxic has not been followed in other cases of CEPA-toxics (e.g., for acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, acrolein).	CEPA 1999 provides for the use of processes other than PSL assessments, which was the process used for the substances mentioned, for determining that a substance is toxic. The rationale is followed in specific cases when it is necessary to reduce precursor emissions to a toxic substance, such as was the case for dioxins and furans.
4	CONSULTATIONS
4A	The ministers did not conduct full consultations or give advance notice prior to publishing the intent to declare the precursors to PM10 toxic. The surprise of the proposal is in contravention to the Government's stated "new architecture of environmental management" to partner with industry.	The federal government is committed to meaningful involvement of stakeholders and has carefully considered comments received throughout the process. The ministers published the Notice of Intent and this response to comments to initiate the consultation process and provide an additional opportunity for comment before following the formal consultation process under CEPA 1999. Additional opportunities for stakeholder involvement will be available when planning risk management options. It should also be noted that there have been opportunities for consultation for more than a decade on various scientific assessments and risk management efforts on PM10 and its precursors. Examples include the PSL Report for PM, the PM SAD, the Canadian 1996 NOx/VOC Science Assessment, international protocols under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) to reduce NOx and VOCs, and the PM CWS.
4B	The CEPA National Advisory Committee (NAC) should have been given the required opportunity to advise the ministers prior to gazetting the proposal rather than using the public 60-day comment period to obtain provincial feedback.	The federal government considered and responded to written comments on PM10 and advised the NAC of the ministers' intent. The federal government acknowledged the limited time for NAC input prior to the Notice of Intent on the precursors to PM10 and agreed that a more extensive process for obtaining advice from NAC would be followed in the future.
5	COMMUNICATIONS
5A	There is a stigma around "toxic" as seen by the public. It creates strong negative perceptions that make it appear that there is a greater problem than there really is.	Careful communications with the public will be a critical component in the path forward. It should be noted, however, that the public is well aware of the adverse effects of smog and the need to improve Canada's air quality. It is worth noting that studies conducted as part of the CWS process suggest that the adverse effects of PM and ozone on human health in Canada far exceed that of most of the other pollutants already declared toxic.
6	ECONOMICS
6A	There has been no evaluation of the economic implications of declaring the precursors to PM10 toxic, which is a Treasury Board requirement. It could cause an unnecessary financial burden and impact on industries (e.g., small business, agriculture).	The addition of precursors to PM10 to the List of Toxic Substances does not, in itself, control the substances. Therefore, there are no costs or benefits associated with adding the precursors to Schedule 1, as this initiative is solely based on science. Preliminary economic analyses to support risk management actions were conducted jointly with the provinces and territories when developing the PM CWS. Additional economic analyses will be conducted as required when developing appropriate strategies and control instruments. If the federal government proposes regulations or other instruments for these substances, the Government will undertake an assessment of the impacts associated with the proposed instruments. CEPA 1999 provides for an open and transparent process when developing regulations or instruments.
6B	The proposal will reduce international competitiveness.	The addition of precursors to PM10 to Schedule 1 does not, in itself, control the substances in any way. Therefore, there are no trade impacts in adding the precursors to Schedule 1. Impacts of any control measure will be analyzed and considered during the risk management phase.
6C	Since the Government has not indicated its long-term plans for management of PM10 and its precursors, it is impossible to identify the impacts of this proposal.	Impacts will be addressed in the risk management stage when developing specific regulations or instruments. Since the publication of the Notice of Intent, the federal government released its Interim Plan 2001 on PM and Ozone which sets the federal agenda on smog for the coming years. Through the PM and Ozone CWS process, analytical approaches to multi-pollutant emission reduction strategies (MERS) are currently being developed in consultation with provinces and stakeholders. MERS activities are advancing for key industrial sectors. This analytical work will feed jurisdictional implementation plans to be completed in the 2002-2003 timeframe.
7	UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
7A	Declaring the precursors to PM10 toxic will have unintended impacts on other legislation (e.g., Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System), existing permits, and strategies (e.g., emissions trading).	The addition of PM10 precursors to Schedule 1 does not, in itself, control the substances in any way. Therefore, there are no impacts on existing management initiatives or legislation. It does not preclude the use of emissions trading, if it is deemed an appropriate tool during the risk management phase.
7B	Declaring the precursors to PM10 toxic may result in increases in other pollutants (e.g., ozone and greenhouse gases), and may discourage the development of advanced technologies (e.g., selective catalytic reduction (SCR), which uses and releases small amounts of ammonia).	It is well recognized that certain emission control measures for one given pollutant can cause some increase, usually minor, in another due to energy penalties associated with emission control technologies (e.g., scrubbers for SO2 will cause slight increases in carbon dioxide (CO2), NOx and PM emissions) or phenomenon such as localized ozone scavenging by NOx. Such issues, including the use of multi-pollutant control programs, will be addressed in the risk management stage.
8	RISK MANAGEMENT
8A	There are concerns about the continued usage of manganese-based fuel additives (such as MMT) in Canada, which have been shown to poison the catalyst, reduce fuel economy, and increase PM emissions.	Results from studies on MMT in both Canada and the United States are expected to become available in the coming months and years. The federal government's recently published Notice of Intent for Cleaner Vehicles, Engines and Fuels is projected to result in significant reductions in emissions of various pollutants from the transportation sector, including particulate emissions.
8B	An absence of suitable measuring devices should not be considered an impediment to controlling emissions of these gases.	As specific control measures are developed, the ability to measure and verify emission levels will be taken into account.
9	SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION
9A	There are scientific uncertainties with respect to personal exposure, the relative contributions of precursors to the formation of PM10, geographic and seasonal variabilities, and conditions under which PM10 is formed. The PSL assessment for PM10 does not provide a sense of priority or focus for their control so it is premature to declare the precursors toxic.	While there are some uncertainties in the science, these uncertainties do not refute the conclusion that the precursors can transform into PM10, which is toxic. Risk assessments are not intended to identify options for control or priorities. Rather, these uncertainties are related to such things as source-receptor relationships and relative effectiveness of reducing one precursor compared to another. As such, these uncertainties are relevant to the risk management stage and will be considered when identifying priorities for action and developing specific control instruments to reduce emissions of PM10 and its precursors. The federal government has already outlined some of its priorities to improve air quality in its Interim Plan 2001 for PM and Ozone. The Interim Plan sets out measures where the federal government is best suited to act including a 10-year agenda for cleaner vehicles, engines and fuels (aligned with those in the United States), an upgraded air monitoring network across Canada and an expanded National Pollutant Release Inventory to ensure more reporting of emissions. In addition, analytical approaches to multi-pollutant emission reduction strategies (MERS) are being developed in consultation with provinces and stakeholders. MERS activities are advancing for key industrial sectors. This analytical work will feed jurisdictional implementation plans to be completed in the 2002-2003 timeframe. To support these risk management discussions, the recent report "Precursor Contributions to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in Canada" (May 2001) has been completed. The report lays out the current ambient data available characterizing the contributions of precursors to fine PM mass across Canada. On average, one-half to two-thirds of PM2.5 mass can be attributed to contributions from precursor gases in Canada.
9B	The Government should conduct a science assessment, screening assessment, or review another jurisdictions' assessment.	Recommending that the precursors be added to Schedule 1is based on the fact that they contribute to the formation of PM10, which is toxic, not on their direct effects on human health and the environment. A PSL assessment, which does not assess options or set priorities for risk management, would add little to current knowledge and would result in significant delays to the risk management process. Refer to comment #1A for details on the rationale for adding these substances to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999.
9C	Since the causal linkage has not been scientifically demonstrated between PM and mortality or morbidity, and the specificity of the toxicity of the PM components has not been established, the Government could regulate the wrong thing for the wrong reason.	As stated in the PSL report, the epidemiological evidence for mortality and morbidity in response to current levels of particulate air pollution meets a number of the criteria for causality, including consistency, dose-response relationship, coherence, temporal relationship and specificity (of both outcome and agent). With respect to the biological plausibility of the association, the results of animal studies and, to a lesser extent, controlled human studies provide support for the target tissues and susceptible populations and preliminary indications of possible mechanisms. These particulate matter-related adverse health effects are observed at concentrations currently occurring in Canada. Results worldwide were highly consistent under the widely varying climatic exposure conditions and pollutant mixtures encountered in the different locations. The database supports, therefore, a causal relation between current ambient PM10 and PM2.5 exposure and adverse health effects and provides a reasonable basis for preventive action.
9D	The Order is not based on credible causal evidence but on air pollution epidemiology. The proposed Notice of Intent is being made despite a strong lack of information on both the particulate composition and on the identity of the particulate components that may be harmful to health.	As discussed in 9C, there are numerous sources of information to provide support for a causal link between PM10 levels and mortality and morbidity. In addition, the inorganic composition of PM is qualitatively well understood across Canada, and there are estimates of the carbonaceous fraction for Toronto and Vancouver.
9E	The Government should conduct further research and coordinate efforts with other organizations.	The federal government is committed to improving the science to support risk management actions. In May 2001, Environment Canada compiled existing evidence into a new report titled "Precursor Contributions to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in Canada." Through participation and support of Canadian and international research associations such as NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council), TSRI (Toxics Substances Research Initiative), PERD (Program on Energy Research and Development), NARSTO (North American consortium for ozone and aerosol research), GAW (Global Aerosol Watch program) and CFCAS (Canadian Federation for Climate and Atmospheric Science), Environment Canada is able to access a broad spectrum of knowledge and expertise and modify its own research program to fill the gaps most relevant to Canada. This new science will continue to be shared with stakeholders as the science tools are evaluated and applied in the development of emission reduction strategies and specific control instruments. It should also be noted that through the process to review the CWS for PM and Ozone by end of year 2005, Environment ministers agreed that additional scientific, technical and economic analysis would be completed to reduce information gaps and uncertainties. As part of this review, a report to ministers will be prepared in 2003 on the findings of PM and Ozone environmental, atmospheric and health science, including a recommendation on a PM10-2.5 CWS. Through the Joint Initial Actions to reduce pollutants contributing to PM and Ozone, ministers also agreed to enhance the mechanisms for coordination of science activities and research programs. This work will assist in informing the 2005 review of the CWS for PM and Ozone and is ongoing through consultation with stakeholders on science activities.
10	DEFINITION OF PRECURSORS
10A	The process of selecting the precursors and rationale is unclear. There are a number of other substances that can also contribute to PM formation that have not been considered in this process (e.g., heavy metals, phosphates, carbonates, oxygen, water).	The ministers based their decision on the PSL Assessment Report for PM10, which identifies the four principal precursors to PM2.5. PM10, which covers direct PM emissions that contain heavy metals, are already listed on Schedule 1.
10B	NO is not considered a substance of concern and is not a National Ambient Air Quality Objective (NAAQO).	The PSL assessment for PM10 identifies NOx (NO and NO2) as primary precursors of PM2.5. Having a NAAQO is not a requirement for a declaration of toxicity.
11	DEFINITION OF VOCs
11A	Listing the precursors as broad classes of compounds is not appropriate. Not all VOCs, which comprise thousands of different chemicals, react to produce PM10. Each VOC reacts differently in the atmosphere and contributes differently to PM formation.	The addition of a broad class of chemicals to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 is appropriate and not unprecedented. For example, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls were all added to Schedule 1. All VOCs with seven or more carbon atoms have the potential to contribute to PM formation. The federal government recognizes the varying potential of VOCs to form secondary PM10; however this does not refute the conclusion that VOCs can transform into PM10, which is toxic. Rather, such issues are relevant to the risk management stage and will be considered when identifying priorities for action and specific control measures to reduce emissions of PM10 and its precursors.
11B	The proposal will result in common compounds being declared toxic such as isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol), acetic acid (vinegar), and ethanol.	The proposal will not result in such substances being added to Schedule 1 as these substances do not participate significantly in the atmospheric chemical processes of secondary PM formation.
11C	The proposal goes against the purpose of the List of Toxic substances, which is to target the highest priority toxics. Fragrance materials and certain consumer products should receive separate and appropriate consideration.	The List of Toxic Substances is not intended to prioritize substances or actions. Priorities for action are identified in the risk management phase.
11D	Some of the precursors have previously undergone PSL assessments and were declared non-toxic under CEPA (e.g., toluene, xylenes).	The previous science assessments for toluene and xylene assessed their direct toxicity to human health and did not assess the contribution of these substances to the formation of PM10 or ozone.

Referenced Documents

Clean Air Agenda (http://www.ec.gc.ca/air/pdfs/Cleanair_e.pdf)

Interim Plan 2001 on Particulate Matter and Ozone (www.ec.gc.ca/air/pdfs/200104_e.pdf)

Priority Substances List Assessment Report for Respirable Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 10 Microns (www.ec.gc.ca/ substances/ese/eng/psap/final/reports/PM-10_fin_e.pdf)

Precursor Contributions to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in Canada, MSC Report, May 2001 (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/saib/ summary-pm2.5-Eng.pdf)

Notice of Intent for Cleaner Vehicles, Engines and Fuels (http://canada.gc.ca/gazette/part1/pdf/g1-13507.pdf)

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Notice Respecting an Administrative Agreement Between the Governments of Canada and Quebec Pertaining to the Pulp and Paper Sector

Notice is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have negotiated with the province of Quebec the annexed proposed agreement entitled "Administrative Agreement Between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada Regarding the Implementation in Quebec of the Regulations Pertaining to the Pulp and Paper Sector." The Minister of the Environment is publishing the proposed agreement in accordance with subsection 9(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33 (hereafter referred to as "CEPA 1999").

The proposed agreement recognizes Quebec as the principal interlocutor for receiving from the pulp and paper sector data and information required pursuant to the following three federal regulations: Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations and Pulp and Paper Mill Defoamer and Wood Chip Regulations made pursuant to CEPA 1999 and Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations made pursuant to the Fisheries Act. Each level of government will retain full responsibility for verifying compliance and enforcing their respective regulations. The governments of Canada and Quebec intend to sign the proposed agreement in the fall of 2002. The signatories to the proposed agreement for Canada are the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the province of Quebec the "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement" and the "ministre délégué aux Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes."

Interested persons requiring additional information should refer to the Web site of the CEPA Environmental Registry at http:// www.ec.gc.ca/ceparegistry or contact Cynthia Wright, Director General, Strategic Priorities Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment, 351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard, Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3 (DGSPD@ec.gc.ca).

Interested persons may, within 60 days after the publication of this notice, file with the Minister comments or a notice of objection with respect to the proposed agreement. All such comments and notices must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Cynthia Wright, Director General, Strategic Priorities Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment, 351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard, Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3 (DGSPD@ec.gc.ca).

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

DAVID ANDERSON
Minister of the Environment

ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC AND THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION IN QUEBEC OF THE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE PULP AND PAPER SECTOR

ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC, represented by the "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement" and the "ministre délégué aux Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes," hereinafter referred to as "Quebec," for the first part, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, represented by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, hereinafter referred to as "Canada," for the second part.

WHEREAS Quebec and Canada recognize the need and priority to ensure the cleanup of effluents from the pulp and paper sector in order to better protect the environment, in particular, by reducing the effects of effluents on the aquatic environment including fish and its habitat, as well as to protect human health against deleterious substances;

WHEREAS Quebec and Canada have each enacted regulations to reduce the release of toxic and deleterious substances resulting from the operations of the pulp and paper sector;

WHEREAS Quebec and Canada regulations contain comparable provisions;

WHEREAS the Governments of Quebec and of Canada signed an agreement entitled "Agreement between the Governments of Quebec and Canada Regarding the Implementation in Quebec of Federal Regulations Respecting Pulp and Paper Mills" on November 24, 1997, and this Agreement expired on March 31, 2000;

WHEREAS Quebec and Canada recognize the benefit of adopting a cooperative approach to reduce administrative duplication resulting from comparable regulatory provisions and that there is a need to specify the procedures of this approach in an agreement;

WHEREAS Quebec is better positioned to collect information from pulp and paper sector operators as well as to monitor the quality of such information, particularly because of the geographical locations of its regional offices;

WHEREAS subsection 1 of section 12 of An Act respecting the Ministère de l'environnement (R.S.Q., c. M-15.2.1) provides that, in accordance with the Act, the "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement" may enter into an agreement with a government, other than the Government of Quebec, a department of such a government, an international organization, or agency of such a government or organization;

WHEREAS this Agreement constitutes an intergovernmental agreement as defined in section 3.7 of An Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif (R.S.Q., c. M-30);

WHEREAS pursuant to section 3.8 of An Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif, intergovernmental agreements within Canada must be approved by the Government of Quebec and signed by the "ministre délégué aux Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes" in order to be valid;

WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and pursuant to section 5 of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, enter into agreements with the Government of Quebec respecting the carrying out of programs for which the Minister is responsible;

WHEREAS the Minister of the Environment may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and pursuant to section 9 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, enter into agreements with the Government of Quebec with respect to the administration of this Act;

WHEREAS by order of the Governor in Council __________ dated ___________, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are authorized to sign this Agreement for the Government of Canada; and

WHEREAS the Government of Quebec, pursuant to order __________, has approved the terms of this Agreement and has authorized the "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement" to sign jointly with the "ministre délégué aux Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, QUEBEC AND CANADA AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. DEFINITION

For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "pulp and paper sector" includes pulp and paper mills and plants as well as off-site treatment facilities.

2. RELEVANT REGULATIONS

This Agreement pertains to the following regulations of Quebec and Canada:

For Canada

— The Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations, SOR/92-269 and its subsequent amendments, enacted under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-15 and its subsequent amendments;

— The Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations, SOR/92-267 and its subsequent amendments, enacted under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33 and its subsequent amendments;

— The Pulp and Paper Mill Defoamer and Wood Chip Regulations, SOR/92-268 and its subsequent amendments, enacted under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33 and its subsequent amendments.

For Quebec

— The Regulation respecting pulp and paper mills, enacted by decree 1353-92 of September 16, 1992, published in Part 2 of the Gazette officielle du Québec of October 7, 1992, on page 6035 and its subsequent amendments;

— The Regulation respecting industrial depollution attestations, enacted by decree 601-93 of April 28, 1993, published in Part 2 of the Gazette officielle du Québec of May 12, 1993, on page 3377 which is applicable, as of May 26, 1993, pursuant to decree 602-93, to industrial establishments that produce pulp for the purposes of sale or a paper product as defined by section 1 of the Regulation respecting pulp and paper mills, enacted by the Environment Quality Act.

3. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE AGREEMENT

3.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Agreement is to define the procedures for cooperation between Quebec and Canada regarding the implementation in Quebec of the regulations pertaining to the pulp and paper sector.

3.2 ADMINISTRATIVE OBJECTIVES

In order to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the government administrations involved by ensuring the best possible use of resources and minimizing the ensuing administrative responsibilities, the parties agree on the following administrative objectives:

(a) reduce the administrative duplication resulting from comparable regulatory provisions;
(b) improve the protection of the environment by optimizing the resources required to verify compliance with the regulations of Canada and of Quebec governing the pulp and paper sector;
(c) ensure the collection, processing, and quality control of information gathered by Quebec and exchanged between Quebec and Canada;
(d) recognize Quebec as principal interlocutor, for the receipt of information to be exchanged pursuant to this Agreement, without restricting Quebec and Canada from their respective obligations to administer their acts and regulations;
(e) recognize Quebec as the main contact with the pulp and paper sector in Quebec, without restricting Quebec and Canada from their respective obligations to administer their acts and regulations;
(f) specify the procedures for the exchange of information collected by Quebec, and required by Canada and Quebec, to verify compliance with their respective regulations and to fulfill their respective parliamentary responsibilities; and
(g) ensure that the exchange of information will occur within reasonable time frames as established by the Management Committee.

4. RESPONSIBILTY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC

Quebec undertakes to carry out the following tasks in accordance with the procedures established by the Management Committee set out in Appendices 2 and 3:

(a) as principal interlocutor for the receipt of information, collect and transfer to Canada the data in Appendix 1 that are provided by the pulp and paper sector pursuant to the federal and Quebec regulations;
(b) prepare and provide to Canada the information set out in the follow-up procedures and listed under Appendix 2;
(c) carry out the annual deposits control program of pulp and paper mills of Quebec, namely, the characterization of the components of the effluent of five mills and measurement of the toxicity of effluent from twenty mills, prepare reports and present them to Canada;
(d) carry out a systematic inspection program for the pulp and paper sector in accordance with the Quebec regulations providing for at least one annual inspection per mill.

5. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

Canada undertakes the following:

5.1 prepare and provide to Quebec information set out in the follow-up procedures and listed under Appendix 2;

5.2 as of April 1, 2000, provide Quebec with the use of $225,000 of equipment annually for the duration of the Agreement to cover part of the costs expended in carrying out the tasks outlined in Appendix 3.

6. DATA MANAGEMENT

The parties agree to the following:

6.1 the Management Committee will assess the possibility of updating or replacing the current "Indmon Mef" system of management and electronic transmission of data. If the system is updated or replaced, the Committee will predetermine a time frame, a means of financing, intellectual property rights, and the user rights for such a system.

6.2 in the interim, Quebec will ensure the maintenance of the present system and make the required improvements, in particular those related to amendments which may be made to the federal and Quebec regulations.

7. ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Data collected pursuant to this Agreement are subject to the provisions of An Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information (R.S.Q., c. A-2.1), the Environment Quality Act (R.S.Q., c. Q-2), as well as the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33 and their subsequent amendments.

8. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

The parties entrust the management of this Agreement to a bipartite committee. The Committee is made up of six representatives of the signing parties, three of whom are appointed by Quebec and three by Canada. The Committee is jointly chaired by a representative of the federal government and a representative of the Quebec government appointed by the respective ministers of the environment. The Quebec government is responsible for the Secretariat of the Committee.

8.1 OPERATION OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

(a) The Management Committee shall meet at least twice yearly or upon the written request of one of the parties, at a place and time mutually agreed to by the co-chairs.
(b) A member of the Management Committee may authorize another person to replace him or her at Management Committee meetings and make decisions on his or her behalf.
(c) All Management Committee decisions require a consensus among its members. Where the Management Committee cannot reach a consensus, the outstanding issue shall be submitted to the Quebec Deputy Minister of the Environment and to the Regional Director General of the Quebec Region of the Department of the Environment, Canada.
(d) The Management Committee shall cease its activities no later than six (6) months after the expiry date of the Agreement.

8.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Management Committee:

(a) shall ensure the implementation of this Agreement and the compliance with its objectives and terms and conditions;
(b) shall develop and modify, as required, procedures and mechanisms required for the effective management of this Agreement;
(c) shall ensure the free and complete flow of information regarding this Agreement between Quebec and Canada;
(d) shall prepare and present yearly to the Minister of the Environment of Canada, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Quebec "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement", at the latest three (3) months after the end of the year, a report on the progress of activities and tasks set out in this Agreement and the funds allocated to those activities and tasks;
(e) shall suggest to the Minister of the Environment of Canada, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Quebec "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement" changes to this Agreement in accordance with the terms set out in Article 10;
(f) shall suggest to the Minister of the Environment of Canada, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Quebec "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement" amendments to the current regulations;
(g) shall ensure that the parties consult one another in matters of public communications and requests for information from the media concerning the Agreement;
(h) shall establish procedures to allow the parties to share with one another information on enforcement action taken and to be taken under their respective regulations;
(i) shall analyze reports on verification of compliance by the pulp and paper sector as well as the actions taken by Quebec and Canada;
(j) shall provide a new draft agreement to the Minister of the Environment of Canada, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Quebec "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement," six (6) months before the expiry of this Agreement;
(k) shall ensure the procedures for the acquisition and management of the equipment provided to Quebec under subsection 5.2;
(l) shall set up specific projects to facilitate the implementation of this Agreement; and
(m) shall prepare an evaluation report on the Agreement and its management that shall be tabled before March 1, 2004.

9. INTERPRETATION

9.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as:

(a) having an impact on the distribution of powers between the two parties;
(b) restricting in any way the respective obligations of Quebec and Canada to enforce their laws and regulations; and
(c) modifying the application of any act or regulation in effect in Quebec.

9.2 The French and English versions of this Agreement are equally authoritative.

10. AMENDMENTS

This Agreement may be amended by mutual written consent of the signatories.

11. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT

11.1 Subject to subsection 11.2, this Agreement is in force effective as of April 1, 2000, and ending on March 31, 2005.
11.2 Quebec or Canada may terminate this Agreement at any time subject to a minimum of three (3) months written notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement is signed on _______________ 2002, for Canada by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and for Quebec, by the "ministre d'État à l'Environnement et à l'Eau et ministre de l'Environnement" and the "ministre délégué aux Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes."

APPENDIX 1

DATA TO BE PROVIDED TO CANADA

— Under the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations:

— Ownership information for mills and off-site treatment facilities;

— Daily flow of each effluent outfall (m³/d);

— Daily concentration of suspended solids of each effluent outfall (mg/L);

— Daily concentration in BOD₅ matter of each effluent (mg/L);

— Daily monthly average of the deposits of suspended solids (kg/d);

— Daily monthly average of the deposits of BOD₅ matter (kg/d);

— Total monthly release of suspended solids (kg);

— Total monthly release of BOD₅ matter (kg);

— Daily production data (tons/d);

— Monitoring reports of the monthly or weekly tests and of accelerated frequency tests to determine the acute lethality of each effluent outfall on rainbow trout and Daphnia magna;

— Reference production rate (RPR);

— Emergency Response Plan (ERP) and the annual report on emergency measures taken in the previous year;

— Environmental effects monitoring studies;

— Reports required under the Pulp and Paper Mill Defoamer and Wood Chip Regulations;

— Analysis results of chlorinated dioxins and furans and reference method information required under the Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations.

APPENDIX 2

FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES

1. FOLLOW-UP ON REPORTS

(A) REFERENCE PRODUCTION RATE (RPR), EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND AUTORIZATION
(B) MONTHLY AND ANNUAL REPORTS ON MILL EFFLUENTS AND OFF-SITE TREATMENT FACILITIES (OSTF)
(C) REPORTS ON "DIOXINS AND FURANS"
(D) REPORTS ON "DEFOAMERS"
(E) REPORTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING STUDIES (EEM)
(F) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
(G) INFORMATION ON EFFLUENT OUTFALLS

2. FOLLOW-UP ON REGULATORY COMPLIANCE OF MILLS AND OSTF

(A) MONTHLY REPORTS
(B) QUARTERLY REPORTS
(C) ANNUAL REPORTS

3. ANNUAL DEPOSITS CONTROL PROGRAM OF MILLS

(A) ANNUAL PLAN FOR THE CONTROL PROGRAM
(B) TOXICITY ASSESSMENTS
(C) ASSESSMENT OF SELF-MONITORING DATA

4. LEGAL ACTIONS

5. REPORTS OF DEPOSITS OUT OF THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS

APPENDIX 3

TASKS TO BE COMPLETED BY QUEBEC FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS AGREEMENT

— Collect, analyze and transfer information set out in Appendix 1

— Prepare quarterly reports using information from the follow-up of regulatory compliance stated in Appendix 2

— Carry out the annual deposits control program of mills

— Compile results and prepare reports:
— Effluent — 5 mills
— Toxicity — 20 mills

— Compile and transmit information to Canada

— Maintain Indmon Mef electronic data management system and assess needs for updating the system

— Provide secretariat to MCPPA

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

CANADA-CZECH REPUBLIC INCOME TAX CONVENTION ACT, 2001

Entry into Force of the Tax Convention Between Canada and the Czech Republic

Notice is hereby given, (a) pursuant to section 37(see footnote a)  of the Canada-Czech Republic Income Tax Convention Act, 2001,(see footnote b)  of the May 28, 2002 entry into force of the Convention Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Czech Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income(see footnote c)  signed on May 25, 2001; and
(b) pursuant to section 12(see footnote d)  of the Canada-Czechoslovakia Income Tax Convention Act, 1991,(see footnote e)  that the Convention Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital,(see footnote f)  signed on August 30, 1990, ceases to apply as between Canada and the Czech Republic in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the Convention Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Czech Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income(see footnote g)  signed on May 25, 2001.

July 12, 2002

JOHN MANLEY
Minister of Finance

[30-1-o]

NOTICE OF VACANCY

CANADA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS

Director (Full-time Position)

The Canada Council for the Arts was established in 1957 as a national arm's length agency to foster and promote the study and enjoyment of, and the production of works in, the arts. To fulfil this mandate, the Council offers a broad range of grants and services to professional Canadian artists and arts organizations in dance, interdisciplinary and performance art, media arts, music, theatre, visual arts, and writing and publishing. The Council administers the Killam Program of scholarly awards, the Governor General's Literary Awards and the Governor General's Awards in Visual and Media Arts. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO and the Public Lending Right Commission operate under its aegis. In 2001-2002, the Council awarded over 6 300 grants to artists and art organizations and made payments to 13 269 authors through the Public Lending Right Commission. Grants, payments and awards totaled $137 million. The Council reports to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Location: National Capital Region

The successful candidate will have a university degree in a relevant field of study, or a combination of equivalent education, job-related training and experience. The preferred candidate should also have extensive management experience, at the senior level, with demonstrated experience in a variety of senior administrative positions in the arts or in the public and private sectors. A clear vision of the Council and its current and future role as well as a broad knowledge of the arts and familiarity with a range of artistic disciplines are required.

The ideal candidate will be an informed and articulate spokesperson, possess superior interpersonal skills, including the capacity to act as liaison between the Council and the artistic community and between the Council and the public. Awareness of, and exposure to, the multicultural realities of Canada, sensitivity to the artistic expression of diverse Canadian cultural communities and a good understanding of how government operates are also requisite.

The selected candidate will be innovative, dynamic, a strategic thinker and will have integrity and sound judgement. In addition, the successful candidate will be an advocate for the arts and will have the capacity to ensure that regional concerns are reflected within a national artistic framework.

The chosen candidate must be prepared to relocate to the National Capital Region, or to a location within reasonable commuting distance. The salary range for this position is from $151,400 to $178,200.

Proficiency in both official languages is essential.

The selected candidate will also be subject to the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders. Before or upon assuming their official duties and responsibilities, public office holders appointed on a full-time basis must sign a document certifying that, as a condition of holding office, they will observe the Code. They must also submit to the Office of the Ethics Counsellor, within 60 days of appointment, a Confidential Report in which they disclose all of their assets, liabilities and outside activities. To obtain copies of the Code and Confidential Report, visit the Office of the Ethics Counsellor's Web site at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/ethics.

This notice has been placed in the Canada Gazette to assist the Governor in Council in identifying qualified candidates. It is not, however, intended to be the sole means of recruitment. Applications forwarded through the Internet will not be considered for reasons of confidentiality.

Please send your curriculum vitae by August 19, 2002, to the Director of Appointments, Prime Minister's Office, Langevin Block, 80 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2, (613) 957-5743 (Facsimile).

Further information is available on request.

Bilingual notices of vacancies will be produced in alternative format (i.e. audio cassette, diskette, braille, large print, etc.) upon request. For further information, please contact Canadian Government Publishing, Communication Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9, (819) 956-4800 or 1-800-635-7943.

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

CANADA MARINE ACT

Fraser River Port Authority Supplementary Letters Patent

BY THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT

WHEREAS Letters Patent were issued by the Minister of Transport for the Fraser River Port Authority (the "Authority") under the authority of the Canada Marine Act, effective May 1, 1999;

WHEREAS Schedule B of the Letters Patent describes the federal real property managed by the Authority;

WHEREAS a parcel of federal real property (Parcel 12) comprising .06 acres was inadvertently not included in Schedule B;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Authority has requested the Minister of Transport to issue Supplementary Letters Patent to correct the omission;

NOW THEREFORE under the authority of section 9 of the Canada Marine Act, the Letters Patent are amended by adding to the end of the list of properties described in paragraph 2 of Schedule B of the Letters Patent and before the "save and except" provision that concludes paragraph 2 the federal real property described as follows:

Number	Description
003-616-657	Parcel 12, Section 19, Block 4 North, Range 4 West, New Westminster District, Plan 27262

ISSUED under my hand the 9th day of July 2002.

________________________________________

The Honourable David M. Collenette, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Transport

[30-1-o]

BANK OF CANADA

Balance Sheet as at July 10, 2002

ASSETS	Amount
1. Gold coin and bullion
2. Deposits in foreign currencies:
(a) U.S. Dollars $	306,986,449
(b) Other currencies	5,464,133
Total $	312,450,582
3. Advances to:
(a) Government of Canada
(b) Provincial Governments
(c) Members of the Canadian Payments Association	363,155,906
Total	363,155,906
4. Investments
(At amortized values):
(a) Treasury Bills of Canada	12,461,462,163
(b) Other securities issued or guaranteed by Canada maturing within three years	8,508,597,697
(c) Other securities issued or guaranteed by Canada not maturing within three years	18,648,178,240
(d) Securities issued or guaranteed by a province of Canada
(e) Other Bills
(f) Other investments	2,633,197
Total	39,620,871,297
5. Bank premises	142,245,015
6. All other assets	418,189,820
Total $	40,856,912,620

LIABILITIES	Amount
1. Capital paid up $	5,000,000
2. Rest fund	25,000,000
3. Notes in circulation	38 257,364,101
4. Deposits:
(a) Government of Canada $	1,360,125,818
(b) Provincial Governments
(c) Banks	394,400,439
(d) Other members of the Canadian Payments Association	17,462,554
(e) Other	318,035,288
Total	2,090,024,099
5. Liabilities in foreign currencies:
(a) To Government of Canada	147,392,675
(b) To others
Total	147,392,675
6. All other liabilities	332,131,745
Total $	40,856,912,620

NOTES	Amount
MATURITY DISTRIBUTION OF INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES ISSUED OR GUARANTEED BY CANADA NOT MATURING WITHIN 3 YEARS (ITEM 4(c) OF ABOVE ASSETS):
(a) Securities maturing in over 3 years but not over 5 years	$	4,844,134,578
(b) Securities maturing in over 5 years but not over 10 years		9,621,413,985
(c) Securities maturing in over 10 years		4,182,629,677
	$	18,648,178,240
TOTAL VALUE INCLUDED IN ALL OTHER ASSETS RELATED TO SECURITIES PURCHASED UNDER RESALE AGREEMENTS	$
TOTAL VALUE INCLUDED IN ALL OTHER LIABILITIES RELATED TO SECURITIES SOLD UNDER REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS	$

I declare that the foregoing return is correct according to the books of the Bank.

L. RHÉAUME
Acting Chief Accountant

I declare that the foregoing return is to the best of my knowledge and belief correct, and shows truly and clearly the financial position of the Bank, as required by section 29 of the Bank of Canada Act.

DAVID A. DODGE
Governor

Ottawa, July 11, 2002

[30-1-o]

BANK OF CANADA

Balance Sheet as at July 17, 2002

ASSETS	Amount
1. Gold coin and bullion
2. Deposits in foreign currencies:
(a) U.S. Dollars $	308,960,441
(b) Other currencies	4,490,039
Total $	313,450,480
3. Advances to:
(a) Government of Canada
(b) Provincial Governments
(c) Members of the Canadian Payments Association	735,300,007
Total	735,300,007
4. Investments
(At amortized values):
(a) Treasury Bills of Canada	12,474,564,410
(b) Other securities issued or guaranteed by Canada maturing within three years	8,508,723,122
(c) Other securities issued or guaranteed by Canada not maturing within three years	18,933,013,993
(d) Securities issued or guaranteed by a province of Canada
(e) Other Bills
(f) Other investments	2,633,197
Total	39,918,934,722
5. Bank premises	142,832,118
6. All other assets	450,711,609
Total $	41,561,228,936

LIABILITIES	Amount
1. Capital paid up $	5,000,000
2. Rest fund	25,000,000
3. Notes in circulation	38,363,109,396
4. Deposits:
(a) Government of Canada $	1,593,928,094
(b) Provincial Governments
(c) Banks	709,081,162
(d) Other members of the Canadian Payments Association	75,835,244
(e) Other	321,034,299
Total	2,699,878,799
5. Liabilities in foreign currencies:
(a) To Government of Canada	147,228,870
(b) To others
Total	147,228,870
6. All other liabilities	321,011,871
Total $	41,561,228,936

NOTES	Amount
MATURITY DISTRIBUTION OF INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES ISSUED OR GUARANTEED BY CANADA NOT MATURING WITHIN 3 YEARS (ITEM 4(c) OF ABOVE ASSETS):
(a) Securities maturing in over 3 years but not over 5 years	$	4,844,050,455
(b) Securities maturing in over 5 years but not over 10 years		9,621,492,602
(c) Securities maturing in over 10 years		4,467,470,936
	$	18,933,013,993
TOTAL VALUE INCLUDED IN ALL OTHER ASSETS RELATED TO SECURITIES PURCHASED UNDER RESALE AGREEMENTS	$
TOTAL VALUE INCLUDED IN ALL OTHER LIABILITIES RELATED TO SECURITIES SOLD UNDER REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS	$

I declare that the foregoing return is correct according to the books of the Bank.

L. RHÉAUME
Acting Chief Accountant

I declare that the foregoing return is to the best of my knowledge and belief correct, and shows truly and clearly the financial position of the Bank, as required by section 29 of the Bank of Canada Act.

DAVID A. DODGE
Governor

Ottawa, July 18, 2002

[30-1-o]

Footnote a 
S.C. 2001, c. 30

Footnote b 
S.C. 2001, c. 30

Footnote c 
S.C. 2001, c. 30

Footnote d 
S.C. 1992, c. 3

Footnote e 
S.C. 1992, c. 3

Footnote f 
S.C. 1992, c. 3

Footnote g 
S.C. 2001, c. 30

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).