Vol. 150, No. 18 — April 30, 2016

GOVERNMENT NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Ministerial Condition No. 18427

Ministerial Condition
(Paragraph 84(1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

Whereas the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have assessed information pertaining to the substance 1-propanaminium, 3-amino-N-(carboxymethyl)-N,N-dimethyl-, N(C8-18 and C18-unsatd. acyl) derivs., inner salts, Chemical Abstracts Service No. 147170-44-3;

And whereas the ministers suspect that the substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic within the meaning of section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999,

The Minister of the Environment, pursuant to paragraph 84(1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, hereby permits the manufacture or import of the substance in accordance with the conditions of the following annex.

KAREN L. DODDS
Assistant Deputy Minister
Science and Technology Branch

On behalf of the Minister of the Environment

ANNEX

Conditions

(Paragraph 84(1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

1. The following definitions apply in these ministerial conditions:

“notifier” means the person who has, on December 22, 2015, provided to the Minister of the Environment the prescribed information concerning the substance, in accordance with subsection 81(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;

“substance” means 1-propanaminium, 3-amino-N-(carboxymethyl)-N,N-dimethyl-, N-(C8-18 and C18-unsatd. acyl) derivs., inner salts, Chemical Abstracts Service No. 147170-44-3.

2. The notifier may import or manufacture the substance in accordance with the present ministerial conditions.

Restriction

3. The notifier shall not import or manufacture the substance, unless

Record-keeping Requirements

4. (1) The notifier shall maintain electronic or paper records, with any documentation supporting the validity of the information contained in these records, indicating

(2) The notifier shall maintain the electronic or paper records mentioned in subsection (1) at the notifier’s principal place of business in Canada, or at the principal place of business in Canada of a representative of that person, for a period of at least five years after they are made.

Coming into Force

5. These ministerial conditions come into force on April 8, 2016.

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Publication of final decision after screening assessment of a substance — Ethylbenzene, CAS RN (see footnote 1) 100-41-4 — specified on the Domestic Substances List (subsection 77(6) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

Whereas ethylbenzene is a substance on the Domestic Substances List identified under subsection 73(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;

Whereas a summary of the Screening Assessment conducted on the substance pursuant to section 74 of the Act is annexed hereby;

Whereas it is concluded that the substance does not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act;

And whereas the Minister of the Environment is considering amending the Domestic Substances List, under subsection 87(3) of the Act, to indicate that subsection 81(3) thereof applies to ethylbenzene,

Notice therefore is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health propose to take no further action on the substance at this time under section 77 of the Act.

CATHERINE MCKENNA
Minister of the Environment

JANE PHILPOTT
Minister of Health

ANNEX

Summary of the Screening Assessment of Ethylbenzene

Pursuant to section 74 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have conducted a screening assessment of benzene, ethyl- also known as ethylbenzene (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry No. 100-41-4). Ethylbenzene was identified as a priority for assessment on the basis of greatest potential for human exposure and also because it was classified by other agencies on the basis of carcinogenicity.

Ethylbenzene occurs naturally in the environment in crude oil and some natural gas streams. It is also produced by the incomplete combustion of natural materials, making it a component of forest fire smoke. Ethylbenzene is a component of vehicle and aviation fuels as well as a component of mixed xylenes, which are used as solvents in various applications, including in paints, stains, and automotive cleaners. Ethylbenzene is also synthetically produced and mainly used in the manufacture of styrene. Styrene is then used to manufacture various types of polymers such as polystyrene. Ethylbenzene is used in the oil and gas industry in a number of oilfield applications, such as a non-emulsifier, as an acid additive and as a surfactant in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Minor applications of the synthetically produced ethylbenzene include use as a solvent and in the production of other chemicals such as diethylbenzene.

The most recent available information on ethylbenzene production in Canada is from 2003, during which a total of 906 000 tonnes of ethylbenzene were produced. Approximately 545 tonnes of ethylbenzene were imported into Canada in 2009, and approximately 51.6 tonnes were exported the same year. According to the results from a section 71 Notice with Respect to Certain Substances on the Domestic Substances List (DSL) conducted for the year 2000, approximately 1 700 000 tonnes of ethylbenzene at a concentration greater than 1% were manufactured in and imported into Canada during that year, mainly by companies in the petrochemical sector. Ethylbenzene has been internationally identified as a high production volume (HPV) chemical.

Ethylbenzene is included in the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), to which facilities manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using more than 10 tonnes per year of the substance must report their releases. In 2013, facilities across Canada reported to the NPRI on-site environmental releases totalling approximately 326 tonnes, transfers for disposal totalling 1 346 tonnes, and transfers for off-site recycling totalling 3 482 tonnes.

Ethylbenzene has been detected in ambient and indoor air, drinking water, surface water, groundwater, soil, and biota, but not in sediment in Canada. Ethylbenzene has also been detected in various food items in the United States. Ethylbenzene has been identified in numerous consumer products, such as liquid and aerosol coatings, caulking, lacquers, stains and varnishes, and building materials. Ethylbenzene has also been measured in blood samples from individuals living in the United States.

Based on its physical and chemical properties and half-lives in surface water, groundwater, wastewater treatment systems, soil, and sediments, ethylbenzene is expected to degrade relatively rapidly in water, soil, and sediment under aerobic conditions, but degradation under anaerobic conditions is slower. Ethylbenzene will degrade in air with an estimated half-life of about two days. Ethylbenzene has a low potential to accumulate in organisms or biomagnify in trophic food chains.

Short-term effects to aquatic and terrestrial organisms range from 1.8 to 9.6 mg/L and 112 to 259 mg/kg dry weight, respectively. Predicted environmental concentrations in air, surface water, sediment, and soil do not exceed concentrations associated with effects. While there is some uncertainty respecting the extent of risk in groundwater due to the fact that the concentration data is not recent and to the consideration of surrogate organisms, concern to the environment is not identified.

Based on the information available, there is low risk of harm to organisms or the broader integrity of the environment from ethylbenzene. It is therefore concluded that ethylbenzene does not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(a) or (b) of CEPA, as it is not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity, or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

The critical health effects associated with exposure to ethylbenzene are considered to be tumour induction and non-cancer systemic effects, primarily on the auditory system and on the liver, the kidneys and the pituitary gland.

The general population of Canada is exposed to ethylbenzene from environmental media, food, and the use of consumer products. The margins between levels associated with effects in laboratory animals and upper-bounding estimates of exposure from environmental media (including vehicle interior air), food, and from scenarios such as pumping gasoline or living near service stations, are considered to be adequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure for both cancer and non-cancer effects. The margins between upper-bounding estimates of exposure from the use of consumer products and critical effect levels are also considered adequate to account for uncertainties in the health effects and exposure databases.

Based on the information available, it is concluded that ethylbenzene does not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA, as it is not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Conclusion

Based on the information available, it is concluded that ethylbenzene does not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA.

Although a risk to human health has not been identified for the general population of Canada at current levels of exposure, ethylbenzene is recognized to have effects of concern based on its non-cancer systemic effects, primarily on the auditory system. However, there may be a concern for human health if exposures to the general population of Canada to ethylbenzene were to increase, for example, through an increased presence in products available to consumers. Therefore, it is recommended that ethylbenzene be subject to the significant new activity provisions specified under subsection 81(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, prior to the commencement of the new activity. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed SNAc provisions.

The Screening Assessment for the substance is available on the Government of Canada’s Chemical Substances Web site (www.chemicalsubstances.gc.ca).

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Publication of final decision after screening assessment of a substance — Hexachloroethane, CAS (see footnote 2) RN 67-72-1 — specified on the Domestic Substances List (subsection 77(6) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

Whereas hexachloroethane is a substance on the Domestic Substances List identified under subsection 73(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;

Whereas a summary of the Screening Assessment conducted on the substance pursuant to section 74 of the Act is annexed hereby;

And whereas it is concluded that the substance does not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

Notice therefore is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health propose to take no further action on the substance at this time under section 77 of the Act.

CATHERINE MCKENNA
Minister of the Environment

JANE PHILPOTT
Minister of Health

ANNEX

Summary of the Screening Assessment of Hexachloroethane

Pursuant to section 74 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have conducted a screening assessment of hexachloroethane, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry No. 67-72-1. Hexachloroethane was identified as priority for assessment, as it met categorization criteria for persistence and the “greatest potential” for human exposure under subsection 73(1) of CEPA. Hexachloroethane was also classified by other agencies as a possible carcinogen to humans according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Group 2B) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Group C).

Hexachloroethane is not known to occur naturally. Hexachloroethane was previously imported into and manufactured in Canada for use as a chemical intermediate, as a flux agent for grain refining and degassing of aluminum alloys, as a flame retardant in industrial laminating resins and as a reactant in military smoke ammunition. Recent information indicates that small quantities of hexachloroethane continue to be imported and used for degassing of aluminum alloys. In Canada, hexachloroethane is not intentionally manufactured for commercial distribution; rather, it is formed during other processes in the chlorinated chemical industry and can also be produced as a by-product of the chlorination of water and sewage and the incineration of chlorinated hydrocarbons. Based on the results of a survey conducted under section 71 of CEPA for the year 2000, approximately 150 tonnes of hexachloroethane were manufactured in Canada and between 10 and 100 tonnes were imported into Canada.

The use of hexachloroethane is slowly being phased out in Canada and internationally. Based on reported use patterns, hexachloroethane is expected to be released mainly to air, with smaller releases to water and soil.

Based on its physical and chemical properties, hexachloroethane is not expected to degrade quickly in the environment and is persistent in air, water and soil. Hexachloroethane has a moderate potential to accumulate in organisms; however, there is no evidence that the substance will biomagnify in trophic food chains. Empirical acute aquatic toxicity values indicate that the substance is highly hazardous to aquatic organisms.

For the ecological screening assessment, a number of models were run, using conservative scenarios and assumptions, to determine concentrations of hexachloroethane in air, water and sediment. The predicted environmental concentrations in water and air do not exceed concentrations associated with effects. While limited monitoring studies of hexachloroethane in sediments indicated possible concerns, the data are older and the concentrations were from an area where known releases have ceased and where remediation activities have taken place.

Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this Screening Assessment, there is low risk of harm to organisms and the broader integrity of the environment from hexachloroethane. It is concluded that hexachloroethane does not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(a) or (b) of CEPA, as it is not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term effect on the environment or its biological diversity or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

The principal source of exposure of the general population to hexachloroethane is indoor air. Intakes from ambient air, drinking water and soil are expected to be negligible. Food was not considered to be a source of hexachloroethane exposure.

Based principally on the weight-of-evidence evaluations of international agencies, a critical effect for the characterization of risk to human health is carcinogenicity. Following chronic oral exposure to hexachloroethane, significant increases in the incidence of liver tumours and kidney tumours were observed in mice and rats, respectively. Increased incidences of pheochromocytomas of the adrenal gland were also observed in hexachloroethane-exposed rats. However, results of assays for genotoxicity were generally negative. Other effects observed in experimental animals exposed to hexachloroethane include non-cancer effects in the kidney, as well as developmental toxicity at higher levels of exposure.

The margin between the estimates of intake of hexachloroethane by the general population and the critical non-cancer effect level for renal toxicity in experimental animals is considered adequate to account for uncertainty in the health effects and exposure databases.

On the basis of the adequacy of margins between exposure and critical effect levels, it is concluded that hexachloroethane does not meet the criteria set out in paragraph 64(c) of CEPA, as it is not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Conclusion

Based on the information available, it is concluded that hexachloroethane does not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA.

However, because of its hazardous properties, options on how best to monitor changes in the use profile of this substance, including the application of the significant new activity provisions, were investigated. In this case, based on the probability of continued diminishing use of hexachloroethane in Canada, no additional tracking of hexachloroethane is proposed at this time.

The Screening Assessment for this substance is available on the Government of Canada’s Chemical Substances Web site (www.chemicalsubstances.gc.ca).

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Publication of final decision after screening assessment of seven heavy fuel oils specified on the Domestic Substances List (subsection 77(6) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

Whereas the seven substances identified in the annex below as heavy fuel oils (the substances) are substances on the Domestic Substances List identified under subsection 73(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;

Whereas a summary of the Screening Assessment conducted on the substances pursuant to section 74 of the Act is annexed hereby;

And whereas it is concluded that the substances do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

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

CATHERINE MCKENNA
Minister of the Environment

JANE PHILPOTT
Minister of Health

ANNEX

Summary of the Screening Assessment of Seven Stream 4 Heavy Fuel Oils

The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have conducted a screening assessment of the following heavy fuel oils (HFOs):

CAS RN (see note a) DSL (see note b) name
64741-57-7 Gas oils (petroleum), heavy vacuum
64741-62-4 Clarified oils (petroleum), catalytic cracked
64741-67-9 Residues (petroleum), catalytic reformer fractionators
64741-81-7 Distillates (petroleum), heavy thermal cracked
64742-59-2 Gas oils (petroleum), hydrotreated vacuum
64742-90-1 Residues (petroleum), steam-cracked
68955-27-1 Distillates (petroleum), petroleum residues vacuum

These substances were identified as priorities for assessment as they met the categorization criteria under subsection 73(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) and/or were considered as a priority based on other human health concerns. These substances were included in the Petroleum Sector Stream Approach because they are related to the petroleum sector and are all complex combinations of hydrocarbons.

These HFOs are considered to be of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products or Biological materials (UVCBs). HFOs are composed of aromatic, aliphatic and cycloalkane hydrocarbons, primarily in the carbon range of C20 to C50. The Stream 4 HFOs have a carbon range spanning from C10 to C50 and have a typical boiling point range from 160 to 600°C. Based on information submitted under section 71 of CEPA, these substances are either consumed on-site or transported from refineries and upgraders to other industrial facilities. They are intermediate products of distillation, or residues derived from refinery distillation or cracking units, and can serve as blending stocks in final heavy fuel oil products. They have been identified for use in potash processing, and for use as viscosity adjusters in asphalt emulsion road maintenance products. Based on the results of the section 71 surveys and other sources of information, these HFOs were initially identified as ingredients in consumer products available for sale to the general population; however, further investigation showed that these products are for industrial or commercial use only in Canada.

HFOs are transported in large volumes from refinery and upgrader facilities to other industrial facilities by pipelines, ships, trains and trucks. A comparison of levels expected to cause harm to organisms with estimated exposure levels for transport operations for the years 2002 to 2012 was made. This comparison, in conjunction with the relatively low expected frequency of spills to water and soil, indicates that there is a low risk of harm to aquatic or soil organisms associated with transport of these HFOs. An analysis of the use of HFOs in potash processing and road maintenance products also found a low risk of harm to soil and/or aquatic organisms.

Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this Screening Assessment, there is a low risk of harm to organisms and the broader integrity of the environment from these substances. It is concluded that Stream 4 HFOs (CAS RNs 64741-57-7, 64741-62-4, 64741-67-9, 64741-81-7, 64742-59-2, 64742-90-1 and 68955-27-1) do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(a) or (b) of CEPA, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

A critical effect for the initial categorization of HFO substances was carcinogenicity, based primarily on classifications by international agencies. Several skin painting studies conducted on laboratory animals resulted in the development of skin tumours following repeated dermal application of HFO substances. HFOs demonstrated genotoxicity in in vivo and in vitro assays, and exhibited reproductive and developmental effects in laboratory animals.

Exposure of the general population to Stream 4 HFOs is not expected, as consumer products containing these substances were not identified.

Based on the information presented in this Screening Assessment, it is concluded that Stream 4 HFOs (CAS RNs 64741-57-7, 64741-62-4, 64741-67-9, 64741-81-7, 64742-59-2, 64742-90-1 and 68955-27-1) do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Conclusion

It is concluded that Stream 4 HFOs (CAS RNs 64741-57-7, 64741-62-4, 64741-67-9, 64741-81-7, 64742-59-2, 64742-90-1 and 68955-27-1) do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA.

The Screening Assessment for these substances is available on the Government of Canada’s Chemical Substances Web site (www.chemicalsubstances.gc.ca).

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT

Invitation to submit views

The Government is seeking stakeholder views regarding potential amendments to the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA). The intent of these consultations is to assess views with respect to the specific topics outlined in this notice. However, parties may also use this occasion to bring other issues relevant to the administration of the trade remedy system to the attention of the Department of Finance Canada.

Background

Canada maintains a trade remedy system that provides recourse to Canadian producers injured by dumped or subsidized imports. Under this system, Canadian producers can request the initiation of an investigation against specific countries whose exporters are alleged to be selling dumped or subsidized goods into the Canadian market. Where an investigation shows that dumping or subsidization has occurred and resulted in injury or threat of injury to domestic producers or retardation of the establishment of an industry in Canada, anti-dumping or countervailing duties can be applied.

The Department of Finance Canada holds policy and legislative responsibility for Canada’s trade remedy system. The bifurcated system is jointly administered by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), which is responsible for subsidy and dumping investigations and for the administration of measures in force, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal), which conducts injury inquiries. SIMA implements Canada’s rights and obligations under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) and Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM). These agreements set out the multilateral rules governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.

Since Canadian trade remedy laws were last reviewed in 1996, significant changes have occurred in the global economy, changes which may not be reflected in Canadian practice. The Department of Finance Canada is therefore seeking the views of stakeholders to determine whether a focused set of potential changes to SIMA would help ensure that the trade remedy system continues to provide adequate remedies to domestic producers and to operate in a transparent and accessible manner. The Department is also seeking input on the design of the related policies and procedures.

In assessing potential changes to SIMA, the Department of Finance Canada will consider their impact on

The consultations address three key areas:

A — CALCULATION OF NORMAL VALUES

(i) Rejection of prices and costs in the exporting market

Overview

Anti-dumping investigations involve a comparison of export prices against the prevailing price in the exporter’s home market, or “normal value,” in order to determine whether a good is being dumped into the domestic market. Under Canada’s duty assessment system, these normal values then become the prices at which exporters can sell into the Canadian market without anti-dumping duties being incurred.

While normal values are typically established on the basis of the exporter’s sales in its home market, this may not always be possible. Article 2.2 of the ADA provides for alternative methodologies for calculating normal values in instances where

Article 2.2 of the ADA further provides that where normal values cannot be calculated based on the exporter’s sales in its home market, they may be calculated based on

Typically, when investigating authorities construct normal values, the records of the exporter regarding the costs incurred in the production and sale of the good are used. However, the prices paid by an exporter for an input good may not always reasonably reflect the true costs associated with the production and sale of the input good. Other jurisdictions have accounted for this difference by providing for alternate means of calculating input prices in certain situations, for example, where inputs are sold by an affiliated party or where the price of the input is distorted through the presence of a particular market situation, normally arising from government intervention in the exporter’s home market.

Current Canadian law and practice

In current practice, normal values are calculated based on an exporter’s sales, where they are made in the ordinary course of trade, for use in the country of export under competitive conditions (paragraph 15(c) of SIMA). Where such sales are not available, normal values can be determined based on a constructed normal value or based on sales to third-country markets (section 19 of SIMA). Where inputs are sourced from an affiliated party, the records of the input provider will be requested in order to ensure that the transfer price covered the full cost of production. If the transfer price is insufficient, the cost of the input will be based on the records of the input provider.

Issue for consultation

While paragraph 15(c) of SIMA makes reference to the exporter’s sales needing to be made under “competitive conditions,” this term is not defined and may not be sufficiently broad to account for the full scope of market situations that could affect domestic prices in the exporting country. In addition, neither of the methodologies set out in section 19 of SIMA would be able to account for distortion of the price of an input good. In Canadian practice, scrutiny of affiliated party input transactions is limited to whether the transfer price is sufficient to cover the affiliated supplier’s cost of production. However, other jurisdictions permit the use of additional market benchmarks, and may also provide for additional scrutiny where the good in question is deemed to be a “major input.”

Stakeholder views are being sought regarding the desirability of amending SIMA to account for situations where

Questions
Particular market situation
Affiliated party input transactions

(ii) Profit rates

Overview

When constructing normal values, investigating authorities may not always be able to establish amounts for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, on the basis of an exporter’s domestic sales of the like good. For example, an exporter may not have made domestic sales of the like good over the period of investigation. Where this is the case, Article 2.2.2 of the ADA provides that such amounts may be determined on the basis of

Current Canadian law and practice

Where normal values are constructed under paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, the normal value will reflect an aggregate of the cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. An amount for profits will be calculated in accordance with the six-part hierarchy set out in paragraph 11(1)(b) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR). This hierarchy may result in basing the profits on domestic sales of like goods, goods of the same general category, or goods that are of the group or range of goods that is next largest to the goods of the same general category, depending on the circumstances of the case. Where an amount for profits cannot be determined in accordance with section 11 of the SIMR, it will be established as specified by the Minister under section 29 of SIMA.

Issue for consultation

Stakeholder views are being sought on the desirability of amending SIMA to better account for situations where profit rates cannot be established on the basis of an exporter’s sales in its home market. For example, greater preference could be given to basing the profit rate on sales of the like good, as opposed to goods of the same general category or goods that are of the group or range of goods that is next largest to the goods of the same general category.

Questions

B — ENFORCEMENT

(i) Anti-circumvention proceedings

Overview

Anti-dumping and countervailing duties are imposed to offset the injurious effects of dumped or subsidized goods on Canadian producers. When goods are modified, or their country of assembly or export is shifted in order to avoid payment of duties, the effectiveness of Canada’s trade remedy system is undermined. Further, such imports may benefit from an unfair competitive advantage over imports that are properly assessed for the duties required by law.

Circumvention is distinct from fraud, which involves the use of intentionally incorrect customs declarations to evade the application of duties. In situations of circumvention, customs declarations may be correct, but other measures have been taken to evade duties. While fraud is considered a criminal offence, criminal law may not be effective or appropriate in dealing with situations of circumvention.

The WTO agreements do not explicitly address anti-dumping or countervailing duty circumvention. Nonetheless, many major economies, such as that of the United States, the European Union, Brazil, and Australia, have implemented anti-circumvention proceedings within their trade remedy systems. These proceedings address situations of circumvention, such as

If, following an inquiry, the trade remedy authorities in those countries determine that the importation of certain goods constitutes circumvention, those goods will be made subject to the anti-dumping or countervailing duty finding. Duties may be applied retroactively from the date of initiation of the anti-circumvention proceeding.

Current Canadian law and practice

In Canada, the scope of an anti-dumping or countervailing duty finding cannot be expanded. Although customs fraud is a punishable criminal offence, SIMA does not explicitly provide for any proceedings to address circumvention activities. The CBSA has broad authority to determine whether goods entering into Canada are subject to duties, as long as the nature of the goods conforms to the definition in the Tribunal finding. Applying this discretion, the CBSA has been able to address certain situations of circumvention, such as minor alterations to the good and transshipment.

Issue for consultation

It is unclear whether circumvention of anti-dumping and countervailing duties is a pervasive issue in Canada. Nevertheless, several instances of circumvention have been identified in the past and were addressed to the extent permitted by existing legislation. Introducing anti-circumvention proceedings could provide greater clarity in how circumvention practices would be addressed in Canada and could potentially address a wider range of practices.

Stakeholder views are being sought about the desirability of amending SIMA to provide for anti-circumvention proceedings. These proceedings would allow the scope of an anti-dumping or countervailing duty finding to be extended to address situations of circumvention.

Questions

(ii) Scope proceedings

Overview

Under WTO rules, the scope of any anti-dumping or countervailing duties imposed is limited to the “product under consideration” established during the investigation. This term is not defined and there are no explicit rules on how to address issues of scope that may arise during duty assessment. Nevertheless, in enforcing a measure, it may not always be clear whether certain products are subject to the scope of an anti-dumping or countervailing duty finding.

In some other countries scope proceedings exist whereby an interested party may formally apply for a ruling as to whether a particular product is within the scope of a finding. For example, an importer may seek certainty on whether a product is subject to anti-dumping or countervailing duties before importing the product and possibly incurring duties.

Such scope proceedings may include participatory rights for interested parties. That is, parties aside from the importer (e.g. exporter, producer, foreign government) may make submissions of fact or argument to be taken into consideration. Following a proceeding, the authorities will issue a decision on whether or not the product is subject to it.

Scope proceedings are typically distinct from other proceedings and reviews (e.g. administrative reviews, expiry reviews).

Current Canadian law and practice

In Canada, the legal framework for duty assessment decisions (called determinations and redeterminations) is found under sections 55 to 59 of SIMA. Further, these decisions may be appealed to the Tribunal under section 61 of SIMA.

The CBSA is responsible for the enforcement of SIMA duties, and must determine, for each importation, whether the product is subject to duties or not. Once a determination has been made, importers may request that the CBSA make a re-determination of the normal value, export price, amount of subsidy or whether the product is within the scope of the SIMA finding. The CBSA may also make a re-determination on its own initiative. Both importer- and CBSA-initiated re-determinations are subject to legislated time frames. These determinations are made on a confidential basis, without the involvement of other parties, and there is no distinct proceeding to address questions of scope.

The CBSA may also, upon request by an importer, issue an opinion on whether a product falls within the scope of a SIMA finding. For example, importers may request a scope opinion in advance of an importation to better understand their potential duty liability. However, these scope opinions are informal and non-binding. Actual duty liability, including questions of scope, may only be determined upon importation under the determination/redetermination process of SIMA. Scope opinions also provide no participatory rights for other interested parties.

Issue for consultation

Stakeholder views are being sought on the desirability of amending SIMA to formalize a process for scope rulings in which interested parties may participate. This could provide greater structure and transparency to CBSA scope decisions.

Questions

(iii) Exclusions

Overview

During an original investigation, or as part of an expiry review or an interim review, the Tribunal has the discretion to exempt certain products, which would otherwise be subject to the measure, from a trade remedy measure. In doing so, the Tribunal may act on its own initiative or at the request of a party. Exclusions are granted only where the Tribunal concludes that the exclusion of the goods will not cause material injury to the domestic industry. In considering a request for exclusion, the Tribunal typically considers whether the domestic industry produces, actively supplies, or is capable of producing the product, or a substitutable or competing product.

While exclusions are most often granted on the basis of a product’s physical characteristics, the Tribunal has broad discretion to grant exclusions based on any relevant criteria, such as the end use of the product, geographic location of the end user, transactions involving a particular producer or importer, the date of importation (i.e. seasonal exclusion) or a combination thereof. Typically these exclusions pertain to certain categories of products that cannot be sourced from domestic suppliers.

The ability to grant end-use or geographic exclusions gives the Tribunal flexibility to ensure a trade remedy measure does not inhibit supply of the good to any region or sector in Canada, but such exclusions may introduce unique enforcement challenges. For the purposes of duty enforcement, the CBSA is required to determine whether a good is subject to a measure at the time of importation into Canada. A product exclusion based on a product’s end use introduces an element of subjectivity into the determination that cannot be known with certainty at the time of importation.

Recognizing these potential enforcement challenges, the Tribunal Guidelines on Making Requests for Product Exclusions indicate that enforceability is a factor that will be considered in any request. The onus is on the requestor to demonstrate that the wording of a proposed exclusion is clear and permits practical and ready enforcement.

Current Canadian law and practice

Section 43(1) of SIMA provides broad discretion for the Tribunal to determine to which goods each trade remedy finding applies. In practice, the Tribunal considers exclusion requests on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts presented.

Issue for consultation

The Tribunal’s current discretion in granting exclusions gives it flexibility to address the multitude of market situations that may arise due to the imposition of a trade remedy measure. However, certain types of exclusions may be more difficult to enforce; thus, they could bear a greater risk of undermining the remedial effect of a measure. While the Tribunal exercises caution with respect to the impact of exclusions on the enforceability of a measure, the inherent enforcement challenges of certain exclusions could warrant additional restraint. In order to ensure that product exclusions do not complicate the CBSA’s enforcement efforts or undermine the effectiveness of a measure, stakeholder views are being sought about the desirability of amending SIMA to narrow the Tribunal’s discretion to grant exclusions based on the product’s end-use.

Questions

C — EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS

(i) Preliminary determinations

Overview

Anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations are conducted in stages. The evidentiary standard increases at each stage to ensure that the facts on record warrant the initiation of an investigation, the imposition of preliminary duties and, ultimately, the imposition of final duties. The ADA and ASCM require that a preliminary investigation be conducted in order to demonstrate that dumping and/or subsidy, as well as resulting injury, warrant the imposition of preliminary duties. In addition, there is a requirement that investigations be terminated as soon as investigating authorities are satisfied that there is not sufficient evidence of dumping, subsidy or injury.

Current Canadian law and practice

Under section 35 of SIMA, the termination of a case is required where the authorities are satisfied that

Issue for consultation

Stakeholder views are being sought about whether the evidentiary standard for the preliminary determination of injury is sufficiently clear and appropriate to ensure that a full investigation will be conducted where there is a risk that dumping and/or subsidizing has resulted in injury or threat of injury to domestic producers, or retardation of the establishment of an industry in Canada.

Questions

(ii) Expiry reviews

Overview

Under WTO rules, an anti-dumping or countervailing measure must be terminated no later than five years after final duties were imposed (or after the last expiry review was completed), unless the authorities determine that the expiry of the duties would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping/subsidizing and injury. For duties to remain in place, a review needs to be initiated prior to the five-year expiration date. Expiry reviews may be initiated pursuant to a request by an interested party if it submits positive evidence substantiating the need for a review. In practice, domestic producers would be the most likely party to request an expiry review, in order to maintain the imposition of duties.

Current Canadian law and practice

Under section 76.03 of SIMA, an anti-dumping or countervailing duty finding ordinarily expires at the end of five years, unless the Tribunal initiates an expiry review. While the conduct of an expiry review is shared between the Tribunal and the CBSA, the Tribunal is solely responsible for the decision of whether to initiate an expiry review.

The Tribunal issues a notice of expiry of a finding at least 10 months before it is set to expire, receives submissions from interested parties, and decides if an expiry review is warranted. If the Tribunal finds that an expiry review is warranted, the Tribunal commences the expiry review proceedings by issuing a notice of expiry review. If the Tribunal finds that an expiry review is not warranted, it issues a decision to that effect with reasons for its decision, and the finding expires five years from the date it was issued.

Issue for consultation

Stakeholder views are being sought about whether the evidentiary standard for initiating an expiry review is sufficiently clear and appropriate to ensure that an expiry review will be conducted where there is a risk of continued or resumed dumping and/or subsidizing that is likely to cause injury or retardation.

Questions

Submissions

All parties with an interest in these consultations are invited to make a submission in writing by June 29, 2016. 

We encourage all parties to send comments electronically to fin.simaconsult-lmsiconsult.fin@canada.ca. If required, written comments may be submitted to the International Trade and Finance Branch (Special Import Measures Act Consultations), Department of Finance Canada, 90 Elgin Street, 14th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G5.

As the Department of Finance Canada may wish to quote from or summarize submissions in its public documents, we ask persons making submissions to clearly indicate whether they wish us to keep all or part of their submission or their identity confidential. If you wish for all or part of your submission to remain confidential, you must expressly and clearly indicate this when submitting your document. However, persons making submissions should be aware that once submissions are received by the Department of Finance Canada, all will be subject to the Access to Information Act and may be disclosed in accordance with its provisions.

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

TOBACCO ACT

Notice to interested parties — Proposed order to amend the schedule to the Tobacco Act (menthol)

This notice offers interested parties the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendment to the schedule of prohibited additives found in the Tobacco Act. The amendment would prohibit the use of menthol in cigarettes, blunt wraps (tobacco leaves for rolling) and most cigars in order to make them less appealing to youth.

Due to the prevalence of menthol cigarette smoking among Canadian youth and the popularity of menthol in cigars, measures are being proposed to restrict the use of menthol in specific tobacco products to reduce their appeal among youth. Preventing initiation of tobacco use by youth is recognized as one of the most effective means of reducing lifetime tobacco use.

Background

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of premature death and disease in Canada; it is responsible for more than 37 000 deaths each year. Direct health care costs are estimated at $4.4 billion annually, and the total burden to the economy, including indirect costs (e.g. lost wages, productivity), is estimated at $17 billion per year.

Among Canadians who have ever smoked a cigarette, 84% did so by the age of 18 years, and it is estimated that more than three quarters of this group will go on to become lifetime smokers. Youth who experiment with flavoured tobacco products are at risk for developing tobacco-use patterns that persist throughout their lifetime.

The Government of Canada addresses the public health problem of tobacco use through its Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS). Built on the pillars of prevention, protection, cessation and product regulation, the FTCS aims to reduce tobacco-related premature death and disease among Canadians. A fundamental component of the FTCS is the Tobacco Act, whose purpose includes the protection of young persons from inducements to use tobacco products. Preventing initiation of tobacco use by youth is one of the most effective means of reducing lifetime tobacco use.

In 2009, Parliament passed the Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act (which amended the Tobacco Act) to limit the marketing of tobacco products to youth. A key measure was to prohibit the use of flavouring additives (excluding menthol) and other additives that contribute to making cigarettes, little cigars (cigars weighing no more than 1.4 g or having a cigarette filter) and blunt wraps more appealing to youth. This Act added a schedule to the Tobacco Act that identifies which selected additives are prohibited in specified tobacco products. The schedule was amended in June 2015 (through the Order Amending the Schedule to the Tobacco Act, SOR/2015-126, and hereafter referred to as “the 2015 amendment”) to respond to the introduction of new flavoured cigars to the Canadian market, by extending the prohibition to additional types of cigars (cigars weighing more than 1.4 g but not more than 6 g, excluding the weight of any mouthpiece or tip, and cigars with tipping paper or a wrapper with a straight seam). Menthol was excluded from the 2015 amendment as well as additives imparting a flavour that is generally attributed to port, wine, rum or whisky in certain cigars. The schedule can be viewed at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-11.5/page-7.html#h-22.

The use of menthol cigarettes by youth smokers is of concern. The 2012–2013 Youth Smoking Survey found that menthol cigarette smoking is most prevalent among Canadian youth who are current tobacco smokers. Current youth smokers represent approximately 4% or more than 114 000 Canadian youth, with 37% of those reported having used a menthol cigarette in the last 30 days. While no specific data is available on the proportion of youth who use cigars and blunt wraps that contain menthol, the demonstrated interest of youth in menthol cigarettes, and in flavoured tobacco products in general, makes it is reasonable to infer that youth would find them appealing as well.

In 2014, the reported wholesale value of menthol cigarettes and cigars accounted for approximately $306 million, representing almost 5% of the total tobacco market, with menthol cigarettes making up 98% of this amount. No data on blunt wraps sales are available, as these sales do not have to be reported to the Department of Health.

The Partial guidelines for implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a treaty ratified by Canada in 2004, provide guidance to the Parties to this Convention on, among other things, the regulation of the contents of tobacco products to reduce their attractiveness. These guidelines state that “masking tobacco smoke harshness with flavours contributes to promoting and sustaining tobacco use” and recognize that menthol is one of many flavouring substances used for this purpose.

Proposed amendment

The schedule to the Tobacco Act lists certain additives, including most flavouring additives, which are prohibited from use in the manufacture of cigarettes, blunt wraps and most cigars. Menthol is specifically excluded from the list of prohibited additives. The Department of Health is proposing to amend the schedule to remove the exception for menthol, thereby prohibiting its use, on the basis that menthol contributes to making these tobacco products more appealing to youth.

The amendment under consideration is as follows:

Submitting comments

The publication of this notice begins a 30-day comment period. There will be further opportunities to provide comments throughout the federal regulatory process. Comments received in response to this notice will be used to inform Health Canada’s policy and to enhance the proposed amendment.

Stakeholders and interested parties are requested to provide their comments to the Manager, Regulations Division, Tobacco Products Regulatory Office, Tobacco Control Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, in electronic format (Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat) to hc.pregs.sc@canada.ca or by mail at Address Locator 0301A, Tunney’s Pasture, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9.

SUZY MCDONALD
Director General
Tobacco Control Directorate
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch

[18-1-o]

(Erratum)

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

Senators called

Notice is hereby given that the notice bearing the above-mentioned title published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Vol. 150, No. 16, Saturday, April 16, 2016, on page 1071, contained an error. The first paragraph should have read as follows:

His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to summon to the Senate of Canada, by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada bearing date of April 1, 2016 […]

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

Notice of intent to improve the energy efficiency of consumer and commercial products through Amendment 14 to the Energy Efficiency Regulations

Notice is hereby given that the Department of Natural Resources is initiating the development of Amendment 14 to the Energy Efficiency Regulations under the Energy Efficiency Act to increase the stringency of existing energy efficiency standards for nine product categories and introduce such standards for the first time in Canada for six product categories.

Background

The Government of Canada is committed to improving energy efficiency standards for consumer and commercial products, reducing regulatory burden through alignment with the United States, and collaborating with North American partners to take action on climate change. Improving energy efficiency standards and decreasing regulatory burden provides both economic and environmental benefits to Canada.

The Energy Efficiency Regulations were introduced in 1995 as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The Regulations prescribe energy efficiency standards for energy-using products used in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. They also prescribe labelling requirements for certain products to disclose and compare the energy use of a given product model relative to others in its category. The Regulations have been amended regularly to update existing energy efficiency standards and introduce standards for new products.

In 2014, Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy established a goal through the Canada–United States Regulatory Cooperation Council of aligning new and updated energy efficiency standards and test methods for energy-using equipment, to the extent practicable and permitted by law. Alignment of requirements, such as how each product’s energy consumption must be tested before the product enters the market, can prevent creating unnecessary duplication and costs, reduce trade barriers and enhance consumer choice.

Amendments to the Regulations

Natural Resources Canada is proceeding with the development of Amendment 14 to introduce or update energy efficiency standards and, where applicable, test methods and associated reporting and compliance requirements for the 15 product categories listed below. The intent is to align energy efficiency standards with those in force or soon to be in force in the United States, subject to an analysis of Canadian market conditions. The list of product categories was established following consultations with stakeholders, including representatives of provincial governments and industry.

Residential (4 product categories)
Existing Product Categories New Product Categories
  • oil furnaces
  • gas furnaces (furnace fans)
  • external power supplies
  • microwave ovens
Commercial and Industrial (8 product categories)
Existing Product Categories New Product Categories
  • packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps
  • large air conditioners and heat pumps
  • commercial refrigeration (self-contained)
  • dry type transformers (low voltage)
  • commercial refrigeration (remote)
  • pre-rinse spray valves
  • small electric motors
  • walk-in coolers/freezers
Lighting (3 product categories)
Existing Product Categories New Product Categories
  • ceiling fans (lighting and light kits)
  • fluorescent lamp ballasts (T12 dimming ballasts)
  • metal halide lamp ballasts
Next steps

Natural Resources Canada will initiate the development of Amendment 14 in accordance with the standard federal regulatory process. This will include consultations with representatives of provincial and territorial governments, industry, non-governmental organizations, the public and other stakeholders. Input received during these consultations will be considered during the development of the Amendment 14 proposal. As part of this consultative process, technical bulletins will be released to collect stakeholder views on the new requirements being considered for each of the product categories listed above.

Natural Resources Canada will undertake a cost-benefit analysis using the best-available Canadian market data to assess the economic and environmental impacts of Amendment 14 and to ensure Canadian consumers and businesses benefit from its implementation.

The Government of Canada intends to prepublish a regulatory proposal in the Canada Gazette, Part I, within approximately one year of the publication of this notice.

Contact

Debbie Scharf
Director
Equipment Division
Office of Energy Efficiency
Natural Resources Canada
930 Carling Avenue, Building 3, 1st Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y3
Telephone: 613-996-4359
Fax: 613-947-5286
Email: equipment@nrcan.gc.ca

April 30, 2016

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

CRIMINAL CODE

Designation as fingerprint examiner

Pursuant to subsection 667(5) of the Criminal Code, I hereby designate the following persons of the Greater Sudbury Police Service as fingerprint examiners:

Ottawa, April 13, 2016

KATHY THOMPSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

CRIMINAL CODE

Designation as fingerprint examiner

Pursuant to subsection 667(5) of the Criminal Code, I hereby designate the following person of the Guelph Police Service as a fingerprint examiner:

Ottawa, April 13, 2016

KATHY THOMPSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

CRIMINAL CODE

Designation as fingerprint examiner

Pursuant to subsection 667(5) of the Criminal Code, I hereby designate the following person of the Ontario Provincial Police as a fingerprint examiner:

Ottawa, April 13, 2016

KATHY THOMPSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

CRIMINAL CODE

Revocation of designation as fingerprint examiner

Pursuant to subsection 667(5) of the Criminal Code, I hereby revoke the designation of the following persons of the Ontario Provincial Police as fingerprint examiners:

Ottawa, April 13, 2016

KATHY THOMPSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

CRIMINAL CODE

Revocation of designation as fingerprint examiner

Pursuant to subsection 667(5) of the Criminal Code, I hereby revoke the designation of the following persons of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as fingerprint examiners:

Ottawa, April 13, 2016

KATHY THOMPSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch

[18-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

CRIMINAL CODE

Revocation of designation as fingerprint examiner

Pursuant to subsection 667(5) of the Criminal Code, I hereby revoke the designation of the following persons of the Thunder Bay Police Service as fingerprint examiners:

Ottawa, April 13, 2016

KATHY THOMPSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch

[18-1-o]

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE

Governor in Council appointment opportunities

On February 25, 2016, the Prime Minister announced a new approach for Governor in Council (GIC) appointments to more than 1 500 positions in commissions, boards, Crown corporations, agencies and tribunals across Canada. Under this new approach, open, transparent and merit-based selection processes will support the Government of Canada’s commitment to help ensure gender parity and that Indigenous Canadians and minority groups are better reflected in positions of leadership, as ministers make appointment recommendations for positions within their portfolios. Details on the new process are outlined on the GIC Appointments Web site (www.appointments.gc.ca).

Canadians can apply online for all GIC positions through the GIC Appointments Web site. Current and ongoing opportunities will be posted there and will provide information on how candidates may submit their applications online. You are encouraged to visit the Web site on a regular basis to learn of new opportunities that may be of interest to you as well as register and create your account for GIC appointment applications (http://appointments.gc.ca/lgn.asp?lang=eng). Once the account has been created, you will then be able to apply to opportunities when they are posted on the GIC Appointments Web site.

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE

[16-4-o]

BANK OF CANADA

Statement of financial position as at March 31, 2016

(Millions of dollars) Unaudited

ASSETS

Cash and foreign deposits

 

12.3

Loans and receivables

Securities purchased under resale agreements

7,002.4

 

Advances to members of the Canadian Payments Association

 

Advances to governments

 

Other receivables

5.3

 
   

7,007.7

Investments

Treasury bills of Canada

14,479.2

 

Government of Canada bonds

76,672.1

 

Other investments

400.0

 
   

91,551.3

Property and equipment

 

459.2

Intangible assets

 

36.2

Other assets

 

132.2

 

99,198.9


LIABILITIES AND EQUITY

Bank notes in circulation

 

73,580.7

Deposits

Government of Canada

22,454.8

 

Members of the Canadian Payments Association

499.5

 

Other deposits

1,645.6

 
   

24,599.9

   

Other liabilities

Securities sold under repurchase agreements

 

Other liabilities

526.4

 
   

526.4

   

98,707.0

Equity

Share capital

5.0

 

Statutory and special reserves

125.0

 

Available-for-sale reserve

361.9

 
   

491.9

99,198.9

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

Ottawa, April 20, 2016

CARMEN VIERULA
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accountant

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

Ottawa, April 20, 2016

STEPHEN S. POLOZ
Governor

[18-1-o]