This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Summary of Public Comments Received on the 2006 Draft Export Control List Regulations

Formal comments made during the public comment period that took place from October 20, 2006 to November 24, 2006 on the 2006 Draft Export Control List Regulations were provided by Dow Chemical Canada Inc. and the Chrysotile Institute.

A summary of the comments and responses is included below, organized by topic:

Summary Table
TopicCommentResponse
Notice of proposed exportThe 2006 Draft Export Control List Regulations (2006 draft regulations) states: “The notice of proposed export … shall be provided … in each calendar year no later than 7 days before the first shipment planned for that year.”  This precludes any exports at the beginning of a calendar year.The proposed Export of Substances on the Export Control List Regulations (proposed regulations) have been worded to allow notice of proposed export for shipments at the start of a calendar year.

The notice of proposed export will be required at least 30 days before the export under the proposed Regulations.
Regulatory burden

The 2006 draft regulations would increase burden by:

  1. Increased information requirements for prior notice of export.
  2. Prior notice requirement for each substance and destination country.
  3. Requirement of a permit for each export rather than just one.

In the proposed regulations:

  1. The requirement to include importer information has not been retained. There are, however, some additional requirements for administrative information that supports the new provisions relating to the Stockholm Convention1.  This notice can be combined with the permit application to avoid duplication.
  2. The requirement to give prior notice of export for each substance and country of destination is retained to meet the requirements of subsection 101(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
  3. The requirement to have one export permit per substance per country of destination is retained so that Environment Canada can ensure exports from Canada meet the obligations under the Rotterdam Convention2. In the course of a calendar year, an exporter would only need one export permit for multiple exports of the same substance to the same country that is Party to the Rotterdam Convention.

1 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
2 Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.

Laboratory use1 kg is too low to be useful for laboratory and evaluation purposes.The proposed regulations raise this exemption to 10 kg per calendar year.
LiabilityThe cost associated with removing and returning an export is to be borne by the exporter, but could be interpreted as applying with an indefinite timeline.The proposed regulations clarify that the removal and return of an export represent an exceptional situation where an exporter has failed to comply with the regulations by exporting without a valid permit in a case where a permit is required.
PermitsThe 2006 draft regulations require a permit for substances listed in the Rotterdam Convention when exported for a use other than the use identified by the Convention, going beyond the existing regulations.The proposed regulations have reverted to the provisions of the existing regulations which do not require an export permit in such a case.  This continues to meet Canada’s obligations under the Rotterdam Convention and avoids introducing additional burden.
PermitsThe 2006 draft regulations suggest that an exporter is expected to deal with foreign national authorities. The proposed regulations maintain the current government-to-government communication. An exporter may nevertheless have a role to play in an instance where the exporter chooses to obtain explicit consent from the designated national authority of the importing country.  In such a case, it is the responsibility of the exporter to provide this notice of consent with the permit application and this may require coordination with the importer and the relevant authorities of the importing country.
PermitsThe 2006 draft export regulations are not explicit in the requirement for the exporter to hold an export permit (in those cases where it is a requirement) ahead of the export.The proposed regulations clarify that the exporter must hold the export permit before the export can proceed.
PermitThe regulations should include a commitment and mechanism regarding the notification of a permit holder that the permit is being cancelled as a result of the destination Party’s decision to not import the substance.The proposed regulations detail the authorities and actions for cancellation of an export permit in response to international actions and/or obligations under the Rotterdam Convention.  This section includes the obligation to inform the permit holder.
Retention of recordsSpecifying the retention of “all” records relating to an export could be problematic as it could be interpreted as including documents that are not within the control of the exporter.The proposed regulations specify the documents to be retained.
Date modified: