| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vol. 138, No. 24 — June 12, 2004 GOVERNMENT NOTICESDEPARTMENT 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, the conditions of Permit No. 4543-2-02889 are amended as follows: 3. Term of Permit: Permit valid from January 5, 2004, to July 31, 2004.
PETER BLACKALL
[24-1-o] 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. 4543-2-04273 is approved. 1. Permittee: La Tabatière Seafood, La Tabatière, Quebec. 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 12, 2004, to August 11, 2005. 4. Loading Site(s): La Tabatière Harbour, 50°50.25' N, 58°58.45' W (NAD27). 5. Disposal Site(s): Within a 200-metre radius of 50°50.90' N, 58°57.70' W (NAD27). 6. Route to Disposal Site(s): Direct navigational route from the loading site to the disposal site. The disposal site is located approximately 1.5 km from La Tabatière Harbour. 7. Equipment: Towed scow, barge or boat. 8. Method of Disposal: The material to be disposed of will be placed in the towed scow and discharged directly into the sea within the perimeter indicated in paragraph 5. 9. Rate of Disposal: As required by normal operations. 10. Total Quantity to Be Disposed of: Not to exceed 500 metric tonnes. 11. Material 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 the Regional Director, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada, Quebec Region, 105 McGill Street, 4th Floor, Montréal, Quebec H2Y 2E7, (514) 283-4423 (facsimile), immersion.qc@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 the Regional Director, identified in paragraph 12.1, within 30 days of the expiry of the permit. This report shall include the Register of Disposal at Sea Operations mentioned in paragraph 12.5, and contain the following information: the quantity and type of material disposed of pursuant to the permit, the equipment used, 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. A copy of this permit must, at all times, be kept on board any vessel involved with the disposal operations. 12.5. The Permittee must complete the Register of Disposal at Sea Operations as provided by Environment Canada. This register must, at all times, be kept on board any vessel involved with the disposal operations and be accessible to enforcement officers designated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. 12.6. The Permittee must signal the Coast Guard station at Rivière-au-Renard immediately before leaving port to begin disposal operations at the disposal site. The Permittee must record these communications in the register mentioned in the previous paragraph. 12.7. The loading or disposal at sea referred to under this permit shall not be carried out without written authorization from the Permittee. 12.8. The barge or containers to transport the material to be disposed of must be covered to prevent access by gulls and other sea birds. 12.9. The loading must be completed in a manner that ensures that no material contaminates the marine environment, notably the harbour and adjacent beaches. The Permittee must also ensure that the loading sites are cleaned up and, if necessary, that spilled wastes are recovered.
M.-F. BÉRARD
[24-1-o] 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. 4543-2-06298 is approved. 1. Permittee: P. Janes & Sons Ltd., Jackson's Arm, 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 July 20, 2004, to July 19, 2005. 4. Loading Site(s): 49°51.80' N, 56°46.50' W, Jackson's Arm, Newfoundland and Labrador. 5. Disposal Site(s): 49°51.50' N, 56°43.66' W, at an approximate depth of 90 m. 6. Route to Disposal Site(s): 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 waste cargo during loading and transit to the approved 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 offal. 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, Environment Canada, 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, 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 must be covered by netting or other material to prevent access by gulls, except during direct loading or disposal of the material. 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 pursuant to subsection 217(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
K. G. HAMILTON
[24-1-o] CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 Order 2004-66-03-02 Amending the Non-domestic Substances List Whereas, pursuant to subsection 66(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote a), the Minister of the Environment has added the substances referred to in the annexed order to the Domestic Substances List; Therefore, the Minister of the Environment, pursuant to subsection 66(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote b), hereby makes the annexed Order 2004-66-03-02 Amending the Non-domestic Substances List. Ottawa, June 4, 2004
DAVID ANDERSON
ORDER 2004-66-03-02 AMENDING THE AMENDMENT 1. Part I of the Non-domestic Substances List (see footnote 1) is amended by deleting the following: 63055-36-7 COMING INTO FORCE 2. This Order comes into force on the day on which the Order 2004-66-03-01 Amending the Domestic Substances List comes into force. [24-1-o] CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 Order 2004-87-03-02 Amending the Non-domestic Substances List Whereas, pursuant to subsection 87(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote c), the Minister of the Environment has added the substances referred to in the annexed order to the Domestic Substances List; Therefore, the Minister of the Environment, pursuant to subsection 87(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote d), hereby makes the annexed Order 2004-87-03-02 Amending the Non-domestic Substances List. Ottawa, June 4, 2004
DAVID ANDERSON
ORDER 2004-87-03-02 AMENDING THE AMENDMENTS 1. Part 1 of the Non-domestic Substances List (see footnote 2) is amended by deleting the following:
2. Part 3 of the List is amended by deleting the following:
COMING INTO FORCE 3. This Order comes into force on the day on which the Order 2004-87-03-01 Amending the Domestic Substances List comes into force. [24-1-o] AN ANTI-SPAM ACTION PLAN FOR CANADA Notice to interested parties — Seeking public comments on a Canadian action plan against unsolicited commercial electronic mail (spam) By this notice, Industry Canada is seeking public comments on An Anti-Spam Action Plan for Canada which was announced on May 11, 2004, and on the creation of a Spam Task Force to oversee the implementation of the Action Plan. The problem In just a few years, unsolicited commercial electronic mail—now generally known as "spam" (see footnote 3)—has gone from being a minor nuisance to becoming a significant social and economic issue, and a drain on the business and personal productivity of Canadians. Spam now impedes the efficient use of electronic mail for personal and business communications and threatens the growth and acceptance of legitimate e-commerce. Consider the following: — In the year 2000, electronic mail traffic reports indicated that spam amounted to about 10 percent of the total volume of electronic mail. — By 2002, the percentage had climbed to 30 percent. — In early 2003, tracking services recorded a dubious milestone: the amount of electronic unsolicited commercial electronic mail had surpassed that of legitimate communications. — By the end of 2004, it is predicted that spam will constitute as much as 70 percent of global electronic mail. The growing volume of spam is now a well-recognized pricing factor for companies that provide facilities for Internet services. This cost is ultimately paid for by organizations and businesses that use electronic communications for the conduct of their business. It is also paid for through the service charges paid by personal users who communicate through the Internet with family, friends and others. In addition to imposing a cost burden, spam is now undermining the reliability of electronic mail networks for business users. It also threatens consumer confidence in the new e-commerce marketplace. Because of this, the potential of information and communications technology to buttress productivity and the ability of e-commerce to attract investment, create jobs, and enrich our lives are now constrained by torrents of spam. Building an anti-spam partnership The degree of public concern and the growing cost to our economy have made it clear that it is now time for government, industry, marketers and consumers to work together in a new partnership to reduce and control spam. On May 11, 2004, the Minister of Industry announced the establishment of a Special Task Force on Spam to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive action plan to reduce the volume of unsolicited commercial electronic mail. Chaired by Industry Canada, the Task Force brings together experts and key stakeholders representing Internet service providers, Canadian businesses that use electronic mail for the conduct of legitimate commercial activity, and consumers. The anti-spam action plan components described in this document reflect the input from consultations and discussions with stakeholders on spam which the Government commenced in September 2002. In particular, discussions with Canadian stakeholders and international partners point to a general consensus on the following principles: — While most of the products and services promoted in electronic commercial solicitations might be unwanted and often offensive to many Internet users, they do not, for the most part, involve the offering of illegal products or services or the making of what might be considered, in law, misleading claims. It is recognized that in instances where illegal products are offered or misleading claims made, Canadian laws already exist to deal with this problem. — There is merit in examining the use of current laws, and possible new laws, to fight spam. However, unless accompanied by a range of technical measures and commitments by network managers business and legitimate marketers and by changes in consumer behaviour, laws alone will not stem the current flood of unwanted commercial electronic mail solicitation. The collaborative and comprehensive approach described in this document reflects this view. — There is a consensus that government should not dictate detailed technical solutions, network requirements, or other features needed to create a durable and comprehensive regimen to combat spam. The Internet industry and its underlying technology are too diverse and ever-changing for government to usefully regulate technical specifications. Similarly, those that engage in issuing spam are too agile for any prescriptive regulatory approach to succeed with any permanence. For this reason, the Government should encourage and assist all partners in using the best available technical solutions and best business practices, when and as needed to better address spam issues in Canada. — An effective solution to spam requires not only concerted action by all partners in Canada, but also greater co-operation at the international level. Though Canada, sadly, remains a source of some spam, only about 1 in 20 spam electronic mail messages received by Canadians originates in Canada. The Government understands the need for an effective international response to the spam problem and is prepared to provide the leadership needed to ensure a co-ordinated international approach to fighting spam. A COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-SPAM ACTION PLAN FOR CANADA Spam is a multi-faceted problem that requires co-ordinated action on several fronts in order to achieve real and measurable progress. Our consultations to date have therefore led to the development of a six-point Action Plan that combines initiatives by government, business and also by consumers, at both the domestic and international levels. The use of existing laws and regulations In the course of our consultations, many stakeholders expressed the view that improving the enforcement of existing Canadian laws could have a significant impact on reducing the flow of spam. They cited the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), that treats electronic mail addresses as personal information, the Competition Act and the Criminal Code as tools to address unsolicited communications. (i) PIPEDA Under this Act, as of January 2004, commercial bulk electronic mailers that establish or acquire lists of electronic mail addresses must ensure that recipients have given some form of consent to commercial solicitation. This Act also specifies that electronic mail addresses can only be used for the purpose for which they are collected and that the owners of these electronic mail addresses must consent to any secondary use. At present, electronic mail lists containing thousands and even millions of addresses are routinely traded in what has been assumed to be an underground economy. They are often offered in unsolicited electronic mail as a get-rich scheme. There is little available data on the number of electronic mail lists or on the conditions under which they were established. The Task Force will work with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to assess whether Canadian organizations that collect and use electronic mail addresses have developed appropriate practices and procedures, as required by PIPEDA, and to identify any corrective actions that may be needed to reduce and control spam. (ii) The Criminal Code and the Competition Act Sending unsolicited commercial electronic mail for a legal product or service is currently not a criminal offense. Like unsolicited commercial information distributed through traditional mail, it can be considered a form of advertising and marketing. The current Competition Act, however, contains specific provisions dealing with deceptive and misleading representations that have frequently been used to deal with misleading advertising in traditional media. The application of the Act to misleading claims made in electronic mail solicitations is an area that merits examination. Similarly, many electronic mail abusers now resort to forged information in electronic mail headers to avoid being identified and to the sending of "Trojan" programs embedded in electronic mail messages that can be activated by spammers to relay spam. Such methods of gaining unauthorized access to computer systems could violate several current provisions of the Criminal Code. These provisions provide for substantial fines and even imprisonment. Whether evidence of intent to commit criminal fraud through spam could be proven is unclear. The application of this law to spam, however, merits examination. There are some electronic commercial communications, like some messages promoting pyramid get-rich schemes, that are clearly illegal under current Canadian laws. However, enforcing criminal laws in this area is further complicated by jurisdictional challenges and the need for technical expertise and resources to track down, investigate and prosecute offenders that are often operating outside their jusrisdictions. In Canada, laws such as the Criminal Code are enacted federally, but the responsibility for investigation and prosecutions rests with provincial and local authorities. For this reason, the Task Force will need to work with other federal government departments and agencies to examine an effective, co-ordinated national approach to dealing with fraudulent activities in electronic mail solicitation. Review of current legislative, regulatory and enforcement measures Canadian authorities should continue to make use of existing laws, such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, the Competition Act and the Criminal Code to help reduce and control spam. As well, the Task Force will review existing laws to determine whether stronger enforcement or new legislation could make a significant impact on the reduction and control of spam, and whether the Government should consider taking any further legislative or enforcement measures. Network management practices and industry codes Any measure aimed at successfully curtailing the flow of unsolicited and unwanted commercial electronic mail must involve more than government actions. There is now a growing consensus among stakeholders on a number of steps that can be taken by Internet service providers (see footnote 4) and businesses that use the Internet to rebuild trust in electronic mail communications. Some of these initiatives relate to the development and application of technology, others to the implementation and enforcement of best practices within the industry. They are based on a commonly shared objective: to ensure that electronic mail remains a viable tool for legitimate business and personal communications. Network management By its design and architecture, the Internet is an open "network of networks" that is intended to allow the free flow of information. Redesigning and implementing new technical standards to enhance security and curtail abuse will be an ongoing requirement over many years. There are already, however, a number of known network management practices that can enable electronic mail abuse, such as leaving servers open to relay and forward messages, which allows computer systems to be hijacked as proxy electronic mail servers for abusers. Some steps have been taken by several organizations to warn businesses and network managers about the importance of securing systems and networks, but adoption of these practices remains uneven. The Government believes that the time has come for stepped-up effort in this area. While the problem of spam, like the Internet itself, is global in scope, network management actions taken in Canada can contribute to the solution. Those that own and manage networks and facilities must, in the Government's view, address and adopt management practices that will effectively reduce and control spam. Canadian industry stakeholders have the ability to agree on basic operating practices for network facilities that will reduce spam and can show leadership by requiring their adoption on networks and facilities based in Canada. They should also encourage equipment makers and suppliers to configure their products in a way that does not facilitate abuse. Industry best practices: codes of conduct Over the years, Internet industry stakeholders have emphasized to consumers and to governments their ability to self regulate, and many have developed voluntary codes based on industry best practices. The Government recognizes that these codes must evolve to reflect changing circumstances, particularly where technology and the very nature of services offered is changing quickly and constantly. However, many of these best practice initiatives, as they currently exist, remain at the level of suggestions for members of organizations. The reality of Internet communications is that many firms are involved in any chain of commercial electronic solicitation, starting with the seller of goods and services, to marketers, bulk electronic mailers, network carriage providers and finally, the operators of electronic mail servers, such as ISPs and commercial organizations that receive and store the communications. In some cases, stakeholders in this chain have already developed agreements to ensure the movement of commercial electronic mail. Some marketers and electronic mailers negociate with ISPs to be "whitelisted" to ensure delivery of electronic mail they send on behalf of clients. For their part, service providers agree to deliver electronic mail from whitelisted firms, often on the proviso that this permission will be revoked if customers complain and the whitelisted marketer is found to be in violation of its agreements. Such a regime, which, in some cases, operates on the basis of informal arrangements, is far from ideal. It requires some stakeholders to continuously negociate agreements, and may leave some Internet users with the impression that their service provider feels that they should receive as much commercial solicitation as they will bear. Some industry stakeholders now believe that such practices are not sustainable. All partners in the industry should develop codes of practice that are transparent, practical, verified, vigorously monitored, and enforced by everyone in the communications and marketing chain. Effective codes are essential to protecting the viability of e-commerce, should provide clear information on acceptable commercial electronic mail practices and policies, and should ensure that Internet users are provided with the tools they need to make informed choices. Systems to validate legitimate commercial communications Up until now, most initiatives aimed at controlling the rising volume of unsolicited commercial electronic mail have focussed on a combination of filtering technologies and the use of so-called "blacklists" of servers and domains that have been identified as sources of spam. As these spam control services have become more and more sophisticated, so have the electronic mail abusers who continue to find new tactics to bypass the barriers. The diverse types of spam filtering and blocking tools, and the cyclical battles between spammers and spam blockers, have produced some unwanted results. In particular, legitimate commercial communications are now too often blocked inadvertently by filters, sometimes without the knowledge of either the sender or recipient. Legitimate non-commercial personal communications can also be blocked for the same reason. These filtering practices, though well-intended, have therefore inadvertently contributed to undermining confidence in the reliability of electronic mail. For this reason, a number of commercial organizations are now considering moving their services to closed networks. There are, however, technical means of shifting the focus away from blocking unwanted communications toward facilitating the movement of legitimate commercial electronic mail. Some of these verification systems are based on proprietary technology, but others are open source. While these programs may impose some costs on the senders of commercial electronic mail and on those that own and manage Internet network facilities, these costs would be more than offset, for senders, by the value of guaranteed delivery. Service providers would also see reduced costs in managing electronic mail service and customer preferences. Validation protocols could also provide electronic mail users with more effective tools to manage their own electronic mail preferences and reduce the risk of people receiving content they consider inappropriate. While it would be inappropriate for government to limit the development of a competitive marketplace by endorsing one particular validation technology or protocol, the use of technology to validate legitimate commercial electronic mail and to provide Internet users with effective choices is one of the most promising solutions to spam. For this reason, ISPs and businesses that use electronic mail for commercial activities have a shared interest in using technology to validate legitimate commercial communications. Requiring the true identification of the sender and the nature of the communication as well as an effective means of refusing further electronic mail from a verified sender would be a minimum requirement for electronic mail certification. Such a regime should also include effective performance measurement and appropriate sanctions for certificate holders that do not abide by the rules. Consumer education and awareness While there is much that industry and marketers can do that is effective in combatting spam and seamless for electronic mail users, there is general agreement among stakeholders that more should be done to inform Internet users on what they can do to limit the amount of unwanted commercial electronic mail they receive. While there is a considerable body of readily available information on best online practices to avoid spam, it appears, judging by the number of complaints recorded, that current efforts to communicate this information requires more effort. Some of the simplest messages—such as don't buy from spammers—have not reached some consumers. There is clearly a need for information to users that is credible, well-distributed and well-marketed. Given the small positive returns needed to make spam commercially viable, consumer awareness of the relationship between spam and profits and their personal behaviour needs to be more strongly emphasized. While shifting most of the burdens of dealing with unsolicited junk electronic mail to individual users, under the guise of user empowerment, is not a viable strategy to resolve the current crisis in electronic mail trust and confidence, the Government believes that there is a need for more effort in this area. Service providers and legitimate sellers of goods and services, because of their direct relationship with Internet users, are in the best position to lead a public education and awareness campaign, delivered in partnership with consumer groups and governments. To facilitate the development of an appropriate social marketing and communications program aimed at users, serious consideration should be given to supporting an effective private-sector-led plan to achieve this objective and to implementing it in conjunction with consumer groups, provincial governments, and interested international partners. Supporting global anti-spam initiatives For a number of years, the Government has been active in several international fora where Internet issues have been discussed. Canada chairs a Joint Working Party within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that is currently developing an action plan on unsolicited commercial electronic mail. It has also been involved in relevant work of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and by the business-led Global Business Dialogue on Electronic Commerce (GBDe). Many of these international discussions have focussed on various legislative and regulatory actions taken by some countries to deal with the flood of unsolicited commercial electronic mail and the need to ensure that these approaches are compatible in the global Internet environment. While legislation is important, it is now clear that a broader approach—such as the more comprehensive approach discussed in this document—is needed at the international level. Canada will continue to play a leadership role in international efforts to reduce and control spam. One of the major ways international efforts could prove more successful would be for member countries to more closely involve their domestic industries in these deliberations and to broaden the global fight against spam to include a broader range of solutions. As this document makes clear, fighting spam here in Canada requires a partnership effort by government, industry and consumers. The same partnership collaboration is required internationally. For this reason, the Government supports the development and adoption of best practices for electronic mail marketing and network management in an internationally co-ordinated manner. We also encourage the Canadian Internet and marketing industry and Canadian consumer representatives to become active in international efforts to reduce and control spam through initiatives such as the move toward globally compatible electronic mail certification and validation regimes. A realistic timetable By its mandate, the Task Force has one year to oversee and coordinate the implementation of the Action Plan. After this period, the Task Force will report on progress made and propose any new actions that might be required, including legislative initiatives. During the course of the next year, the Task Force will convene key stakeholders to review the implementation of the Action Plan and to identify any other possible areas that might require further action. The Task Force will consult all interested stakeholders and individual Canadians who might wish to express their views or make a contribution to its work. It will report regularly on progress made and, if necessary, meet with organizations and groups representing key stakeholders. Comments on the Anti-Spam Action Plan for Canada should be received before July 30, 2004. Unless otherwise indicated, all comments received will be considered public information. Interested parties are invited to send their comments to Richard Simpson, Director General, Electronic Commerce Branch, Industry Canada, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8.
RICHARD SIMPSON
[24-1-o] OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BANK ACT Ubiquity Bank of Canada — Order to commence and carry on business Notice is hereby given of the issuance, pursuant to subsection 49(1) of the Bank Act, of an order to commence and carry on business authorizing Ubiquity Bank of Canada and, in French, Banque Ubiquity du Canada, to commence and carry on business, effective April 19, 2004. June 2, 2004
NICHOLAS LE PAN
[24-1-o] OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company — Order to insure in Canada risks Notice is hereby given of the issuance, pursuant to section 574 of the Insurance Companies Act, of an order to insure in Canada risks, effective April 13, 2004, permitting Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company and, in French, Fidelity Investments, compagnie d'assurance-vie, to insure risks falling within the following class of insurance: life insurance. June 2, 2004
NICHOLAS LE PAN
[24-1-o] OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT SecuriCan General Insurance Company — Letters patent of incorporation and order to commence and carry on business Notice is hereby given of the issuance, — pursuant to section 22 of the Insurance Companies Act, of letters patent incorporating SecuriCan General Insurance Company, and in French, Compagnie d'assurance générale SecuriCan, effective March 30, 2004; and — pursuant to subsection 53(1) of the Insurance Companies Act, of an order to commence and carry on business authorizing SecuriCan General Insurance Company, and in French, Compagnie d'assurance générale SecuriCan to commence and carry on business, effective April 26, 2004. June 2, 2004
NICHOLAS LE PAN
[24-1-o] OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES ACT Fiduciary Trust Company of Canada — Order to commence and carry on business Notice is hereby given of the issuance, — pursuant to subsection 53(1) of the Trust and Loan Companies Act, of an order to commence and carry on business authorizing Fiduciary Trust Company of Canada and, in French, Société Fiduciary Trust du Canada, to commence and carry on business, effective March 29, 2004. June 2, 2004
NICHOLAS LE PAN
[24-1-o] OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES ACT Oak Trust Company — Letters patent of continuance and order to commence and carry on business Notice is hereby given of the issuance, — pursuant to section 33 of the Trust and Loan Companies Act, of letters patent continuing, Oak Holdings (London) Inc., a body corporate incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, as a company under the Trust and Loan Companies Act, under the name Oak Trust Company, and in French, Compagnie Oak Trust, effective April 29, 2004; and — pursuant to subsections 52(4) and 57(1) of the Trust and Loan Companies Act, of an order to commence and carry on business authorizing Oak Trust Company, and in French, Compagnie Oak Trust to commence and carry on business, effective April 30, 2004. June 2, 2004
NICHOLAS LE PAN
[24-1-o] Balance sheet as at May 31, 2004
Balance sheet as at June 2, 2004
S.C. 1999, c. 33 S.C. 1999, c. 33 Supplement, Canada Gazette, Part I, January 31, 1998 S.C. 1999, c. 33 S.C. 1999, c. 33 SI/91-149 The terms "spam" and "unsolicited commercial electronic mail" are used interchangeably in this document. For the purpose of this document, Internet service providers (ISPs) include private organizations that provide both connectivity as well as carriage of Internet communications and other related services. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTICE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
