Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 920
Ian Thomson
View Ian Thomson Profile
Ian Thomson
2021-06-21 11:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Ian Thomson, and I am the president of Advanced Biofuels Canada. I'm joined here by my colleague Fred Ghatala, the director of carbon and sustainability for our organization.
I wish to convey this morning two core ideas relative to the committee's study.
The first is that the advanced biofuels and renewable synthetic fuels made by our members have improved dramatically on all fronts in the past decade and are being deployed at commercial scale here and around the world, yet the revolutionary nature of these innovations is not widely known and old perceptions prevail.
My second message is that the clean fuel regulation, or CFR, currently under final review has immense potential, but needs several straightforward amendments to deliver on its promise.
Renewable fuel regulations of a decade ago had only a handful of solutions, but these regulations worked as intended. They kick-started widespread efforts to deploy a new generation of low-carbon, energy-dense fuels.
Today these fuels can be 100% substitutes for, or blended with, fossil fuels, fully functional in existing engines and infrastructures, and some are indeed produced at existing petroleum refineries. Clean fuel feedstocks have expanded beyond sustainable crops to include household and industrial wastes and residues, and even CO2 captured from air or from industrial flue stacks. Clean liquid fuels complement an array of other low-carbon transportation energies now also being scaled up.
The results of these innovations are that advanced biofuels made today in Canada can be carbon competitive to, for instance, electric vehicles on a full life-cycle basis. A vehicle running on these fuels can be a zero-emission vehicle, reducing greenhouse gases from 80% to 120% below those of fossil.
We know that electricity and other low-carbon energies will have a rapidly growing role in transportation. The IEA's sobering report of last month starkly noted that, even under fully executed, ambitious, global net-zero pledges, by 2050 more than 80% of final energy demand in transportation can rely on the internal combustion engine. Marine, rail and aviation sectors may be reliant on those fuels even longer. In short, we can't wait until 2030 or 2050 without the rapid scale-up of these liquid fuels.
The new clean fuel regulations can play a key role in Canada's net-zero future, and we have two recommendations relative to its design.
Our first addresses an inescapable fact that 75% of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions is from crude oil in fuel combustion and the other 25% is from the energy that goes into extracting and refining fuels. In plain terms, the CFR will fail to get Canada on the path to net zero unless it addresses, proportionately, these combustion emissions. The only solutions capable of delivering zero combustion emissions are advanced biofuels, renewable electricity, low-carbon hydrogen, renewable natural gas, and bio-crude for refineries. Put another way, you can't capture and store a car's tailpipe exhaust.
Unfortunately, the CFR draft design offers many incentives for fuel suppliers to focus their actions on reducing upstream emissions that will never be able to take us more than 25% of the way to net zero. In addition, other provisions will award credits for activities that have nothing to do with liquid fuels or transportation. I would be happy to describe the straightforward solution to this misalignment, but it roughly follows the precedents set by other global clean fuel regulations.
Our second recommendation relates to CFR feedstock criteria and the new greenhouse gas measurement tool. Canada's providers of sustainable crops, agricultural and forestry residues and waste resources are concerned about market access requirements and seek clarity on carbon intensity scoring under the new LCA tool.
The practical solution is to align the life-cycle assessment model and feedstock criteria with established industry standards in the North American fuel trade and to adopt it with an orderly transition.
Clarity on how Canada's farmers, foresters and clean fuel producers can participate will support new investments. Our recent analysis indicates that a well-designed CFR can create over 20,000 new jobs and add $10 billion in new economic output.
Last, I'd like to add that several of the clean energy tax measures and funding programs in the strengthened climate plan in budget 2021 need refinement to create competitive conditions for private sector investments.
In closing, let me reflect again that Canada's advanced biofuels sector is helping drive Canada's economic recovery and underpin climate plans. Our task is clear: to decarbonize the internal combustion engine.
We appreciate your work on low-carbon fuels and the invitation to meet today. My colleague and I look forward to your questions.
My thanks to the members of the committee.
Scott Lewis
View Scott Lewis Profile
Scott Lewis
2021-06-21 11:28
Excuse me if I read Malcolm's presentation on his behalf just to get it going.
On behalf of Renewable Industries Canada, Malcolm West wishes to thank the chair and distinguished committee members for the invitation to present as part of your study on renewable fuels. In addition to Malcolm's role at RICanada, he is the executive vice-president and CFO of Greenfield Global, Canada's largest ethanol producer.
RICanada members produce more litres of renewable fuel right here in Canada than any other organization. As Canada moves towards implementing its own net zero by 2050 objectives, one sector is often top of mind. The transportation industry is too massive to slow down, but too impactful on the environment to ignore.
Members of Renewable Industries Canada, such as Greenfield Global, have found a way to thread the needle through innovative, modern biofuels. We continue to develop increasingly efficient biofuels that meet or exceed net-zero emissions on a life-cycle basis. Over the past 35 years, our technology has substantially reduced transportation's carbon footprint.
A key focus of this committee's study should be the need to implement affordable, market-ready technologies to achieve climate objectives. The value proposition offered by biofuels is incontrovertible. Ethanol is typically cheaper than gasoline, acts as an octane enhancer promoting vehicle performance, burns more efficiently and can be used with existing infrastructure. Existing technologies, including the use of biogas to replace natural gas in ethanol production, carbon capture and sequestration, and enhanced farming practices can make ethanol a net-zero fuel or even net beneficial for the environment.
All cars on the road as of 2001 can use ethanol blends of at least 15%, with others comparable with levels in the 25% to 85% range. These flex-fuel vehicles cost roughly the same as regular fossil fuel-burning cars and represent the most affordable way for consumers to reduce emissions from their commute.
Policy that favours modern biofuels also stimulates new R and D. For example, Greenfield Global has recently invested in a joint venture that uses anaerobic digestion of solid municipal waste to create biogas for its ethanol plant in Varennes, Quebec. Next steps include producing green hydrogen to meet increased renewable fuel demand.
So far I've spoken to you, on Malcolm's behalf, mostly about light-duty transportation and renewable gaseous fuels. I will now continue with my part of the presentation, about the heavy-duty and aviation sectors.
I echo Malcolm's words of appreciation for this important opportunity to discuss renewable fuels together. I am the EVP of commercial operations and strategy at World Energy, a global leader in the production of biomass-based diesel and sustainable aviation fuels.
Some might worry that Canada's climate goals are too ambitious, while others might want the government to move faster. I'm here to tell you that net zero is real and possible. Today, right here in Ontario, my company produces a biodiesel that exceeds net-zero standards as measured by the Government of Canada's life-cycle analysis model. We're able to do this by taking waste, such as used cooking oils from restaurants and animal fats from rendering plants, and transforming them into biomass-based diesel. We also have the technology right now to make renewable diesel using other ingredients that would meet net-zero requirements.
You don't need to turn over the existing fleets of heavy-duty diesel trucks, buses and trains. The renewable diesel that RICanada members make is already 100% compatible. The same goes for diesel generators in northern and remote communities. They can all produce low-carbon power tomorrow, simply by putting in the right fuel.
Advanced biofuels are a here-and-now solution to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Sustainable aviation fuel is another example of instant decarbonization. Right now, global demand for sustainable aviation fuel is off the charts, but supply is low because we do not have the right policies in place. Our renewable fuels are proven to be compatible with existing air fleets and are currently being used by many airlines, including United, KLM and Alaska, to name just a few.
As we aim to build back better coming out of the pandemic, Canada needs to ensure that sustainable aviation fuel is leveraged to attain important GHG reductions. Ultimately, this kind of policy will stimulate investment and grow the Canadian economy.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. It will be a pleasure for Malcolm and me to answer any questions.
View Mario Simard Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Simard Profile
2021-06-21 11:47
Okay.
So eight billion euros invested around the world to produce and transport hydrogen, with all that implies in the value chain.
I am wondering about regulation. Perhaps you could tell us about the regulations in Europe. Let's start with the famous hydrogen colour scheme: blue, grey and green. Do the projects you are investing in make that distinction between the different types of hydrogen?
Bertrand Masselot
View Bertrand Masselot Profile
Bertrand Masselot
2021-06-21 11:47
Yes. We can certainly talk about the various colours of hydrogen. I would rather describe hydrogen in terms of its lack of carbon. Green hydrogen will always keep a portion of a carbon molecule, whereas other types of hydrogen will have more carbon.
Today, if we consider the projects among which we are positioning ourselves, we see projects based on electrolysis first and foremost. That does not make green, or low-carbon hydrogen by itself. It first needs the electricity in order to do so, including intermittent and other kinds of power.
We are also positioned for carbon capture, using more classic hydrogen-producing units. We have already conducted projects of that kind. An example is with natural gas steam reforming units. Since 2018, we have been recovering carbon dioxide from a natural gas steam reformer.
Most of our investments are being made in the hydrogen with very low carbon emissions. As I have told you, we are looking at investments in the order of three gigawatts of electrolysis, compared to the 20 megawatts we have just invested in Bécancour.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Right.
I'll just get in one more question for you, Dr. McKitrick.
Six to one doesn't seem very effective to me at this point. Like you said, maybe in the future it will be.
Being an economist, how do you make it effective? What needs to be done to make it effective, where we actually are seeing a dollar-for-dollar efficiency?
It's interesting on this side to hear all the complaints. I hear other members of the committee talk about incentivizing or subsidizing this when they decry subsidizing oil and gas. I would agree with them. I don't think we should be subsidizing oil and gas, but then, in some respects, we have to expect it on the other side of the coin.
Can you explain what can be done to make this an effective policy?
View Bryan May Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bryan May Profile
2021-06-21 12:23
—but I think we can definitely have that conversation off-line.
If I could get back to my questions, that would be great.
My question is for Mr. McKitrick.
You talked a little bit about the idea of carbon leakage in one of your answers. I'm wondering, sir, if you could talk about that a little bit more. I'm concerned about the idea that we should be waiting to see what countries like China or the United States do before we set environmental policy. I'm wondering if that's what you're suggesting.
Ross R. McKitrick
View Ross R. McKitrick Profile
Ross R. McKitrick
2021-06-21 12:24
We don't have to wait and see what China or India or even the United States are doing. We can see not only is China building its coal-fired plant capacity, they have enough planned and on the books to exceed the current coal-fired power plant capacity in the United States just with the additional increment. They are also investing—
View Bryan May Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bryan May Profile
2021-06-21 12:25
Sir, you also bring up the idea of regulations not contributing to advancements. I was a little bit surprised by that, given, frankly, what we've seen over the last five years, especially in industries like the auto industry where we've seen the complete transition in the auto industry moving toward electrification.
Could you maybe cite some research you were talking about that connects those two things and shows that regulations don't in fact contribute to the advancement of technology?
Ross R. McKitrick
View Ross R. McKitrick Profile
Ross R. McKitrick
2021-06-21 12:25
What I said was that if you're going to use carbon pricing, you should let the pricing mechanism do the work of picking the most cost-effective strategy. If you put a carbon price in place and then you also add in a lot of regulations where you then try to direct industry over and above the carbon price, you're undermining the economics of the carbon pricing system.
Bora Plumptre
View Bora Plumptre Profile
Bora Plumptre
2021-06-18 13:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to speak today.
My name is Bora Plumptre. I'm a senior analyst at The Pembina Institute in the federal policy program, and I'm really excited to take this opportunity to speak about the need and the opportunity to facilitate greater supplies and consumption of low-carbon and renewable fuels in Canada.
I'd also like to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation, whose presence here in what is also known as Ottawa reaches far back in time.
I will focus my comments on two areas: first on the urgent necessity of accelerating a shift toward low-carbon and renewable fuels, particularly for transportation; and second on the regulatory powers of the federal government and the contribution that the judicious exercise of those powers could make toward the objective that, I would submit, unites the whole committee in conducting the present study, which is to say a vision of a net-zero society in which affordable clean fuels proliferate throughout our country's energy systems and beyond to our partners in international trade.
To me, this is a praiseworthy vision that would see us shift our energy economy into areas where investors are already going, positioning us to compete in the rapidly growing global market for clean energy and enabling us to finally meet our responsibility to eventually eliminate our ongoing contribution to the worsening effects of climate change.
Canada can and must do much more to decarbonize its transportation sector, which remains heavily reliant on petroleum-based fuels. Our emissions of greenhouse gases from mobile combustion sources remain stubbornly high, having grown 54% since 1990 and 16% since 2005, which is our base year for climate target setting.
Today, transportation is our second-highest-emitting economic sector, responsible for one quarter of our national GHG emissions. In most provinces and in all territories, it is the highest emitting sector. These figures are drawn from the federal Department of the Environment, and what they tell us is that right now, despite recent policy innovations, on a biophysical level, we're not headed in the right direction.
Whether in pursuit of our nearer-term emissions reduction target for 2030 or in pursuit of our longer-term aspiration to build a net-zero society, the decarbonization of fuels must be a key element of our strategy for transportation. Vehicle-focused policies are necessary too, but they are not sufficient to decarbonize the whole system. Government must pay attention to the core energetic component of mobility, namely fuels.
How do we do this? Electrification appears increasingly likely to solve the problem of emissions from passenger road transport, but given the deep uncertainty about which fuelling solutions will propel medium and heavy duty freight vehicles in the long term, we still need to approach this challenge in a way that provides a clear investment signal while remaining technology neutral.
Thankfully, we have a policy coming into place in the form of the clean fuel regulations, sometimes still called the “clean fuel standard”, which will fundamentally reorient the regulatory paradigm for the fuel market across Canada around the criterion of life-cycle carbon intensity. This reorientation is long overdue, and I was really pleased to see this type of policy approach, a low-carbon fuel standard, also recently endorsed by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
This is an important contribution because it helps provide certainty about the path forward for both the obligated and voluntary participants in the market this policy will create. Certainty and risk minimization for investors are essential to making progress on both technology and deployment, and the best way to minimize risk is by means of a regulatory program such as the clean fuel regulations, which act effectively as a non-subsidy transfer from high-carbon to low-carbon fuel producers. In other words, without resorting to public spending, the policy will shift capital flows on an ongoing basis to companies that can accelerate our transition to net zero. Subsidies, by contrast, of course have a habit of going away.
Another essential virtue of the clean fuel regulations is that they enable a portfolio-based approach to decarbonizing the national fuel supply. Many models have attempted to project what the energy system might look like by mid-century, and many scenarios of our energy future remain possible, but where the models converge is on the basic finding that we will need a portfolio of cleaner fuel options in order to achieve our climate goals. Increasingly stringent clean fuel regulations will enable the cost effective build out of this diverse portfolio without government having to pick winners.
Whether your interests—or, perhaps more properly, those of your constituents—are to promote one type of low-carbon fuel or another, the most important aspect from both a business and a climate perspective is to ensure a stable investment environment for projects to get done. There is a virtuous circle to enable between financial dependability and emissions reductions. A properly administered clean fuel regulation will provide the financial architecture for accelerating direct investments in the market-ready solutions and promote innovation in the more expensive, earlier-stage technologies that need to be scaled up.
Thank you. I'll stop there, and I look forward to your questions.
View Patrick Weiler Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to pick up on a point that my colleague was just mentioning. You mentioned earlier in your opening, Mr. Wolinetz, the potential for substantial abatement if we're using more grassy or woody products.
I think the previous member mentioned a key point in terms of what type of support or regulation it is going to take to incentivize or move us more in the direction of using those products that are now going to waste or otherwise.
Michael Wolinetz
View Michael Wolinetz Profile
Michael Wolinetz
2021-06-18 14:22
I think policies like the clean fuel regulation are very helpful. That said, the clean fuel regulation, to get to a point where we're using those wastes, would need to be stronger. We need to be thinking about where it's going after 2030.
Something more in line with where California and B.C. expect to be with their similar policies by 2030 should do it. B.C., for example, has already provided enough of a transitional signal for the refinery in the greater Vancouver area to start doing co-processing. They're looking at how to actually use these materials and process them at the same time as our fossil crude in order to make a blended renewable fossil product in such a way that we could eventually transition over to a fully renewable product.
I think we're on the right track with the clean fuel regulation, but we need to expect that it will need to get stronger.
View Patrick Weiler Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thanks for that.
My next question is for Mr. Plumptre.
You mentioned in your opening the importance of things like the clean fuel standard and other policies to ensure that we're not picking winners and that we're going to have a portfolio-based approach and have the certainty for investment going forward in some of these lower-carbon products in the future.
My question to you is this: What risk do you see to investment today in the technologies that we're going to need for this type of a low-carbon future when you see other parties perhaps putting out policies or suggesting policies that would be less ambitious or that would eliminate some of these different mechanisms that are proposed?
Bora Plumptre
View Bora Plumptre Profile
Bora Plumptre
2021-06-18 14:24
It's a great question. Thank you.
To take the example of the federal low-carbon fuel standard or clean fuel regulation, actually we have a proposal from the leader of the opposition that would see the stringency of the signal of that policy actually go beyond what is currently proposed in terms of the average life-cycle carbon intensity of fuels by 2030. The CFR right now, as proposed, is aiming for about 13% by 2030. In B.C., provincially, it's already at 20% and it's similar in California. They're already into the second phase of their program.
I would say that it's understandable that Canada is just starting to get going, but other jurisdictions are already moving ahead, and the potential risk lies in some of these fuels that do present an opportunity to make a near-term contribution to our emissions reductions, as Mr. O'Connor was emphasizing in his remarks. Some of these fuels, such as renewable diesel, are promising and could play a large role in mitigating those residual emissions that still occur in the transportation sector and passenger transport as they are increasingly electrified, but we're still going to be dependent on liquid hydrocarbon fuels in both the light- and heavy-duty sectors for a long time to come. Those residual emissions could be substantially reduced if we increased our shares of things like biodiesel and renewable diesel.
The risk right now is that other jurisdictions are moving ahead. In just the past year, I think, U.S. petroleum refiners—and there have been several including Marathon, Phillips 66, Chevron, Renewable Energy Group and HollyFrontier Corporation—have been making multi-billion dollar investments in upgrading their refining operations, and we're, so far, not seeing too much of that type of activity here in Canada, although it does seem to be the case that some investments are starting to be announced now that we're getting to the point of actually implementing the regulation, so I'm encouraged by that.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much for that.
Turning to Mr. Plumptre, you mentioned that these clean fuel standards were more stringent in some places and that we needed regulations that were increasingly stringent. I'm wondering whether you could elaborate on where Canada needs to go with our clean fuel standards to achieve the best results.
Bora Plumptre
View Bora Plumptre Profile
Bora Plumptre
2021-06-18 14:31
Thank you, Mr. Cannings.
I believe that the clean fuel regulation is fundamentally on the right track, but I think that we've ended up in a situation, just given the length of time it's taken to develop this admittedly fairly complex policy, in a place where the regulation is perhaps a bit unbalanced relative to what was originally envisioned.
When the government announced the clean fuel standard, as it was then called, back in 2016, they were targeting 30 megatonnes of emissions reductions by 2030. That scope of ambition and the scope of the coverage of the policy was reduced by about a third in favour of carbon pricing last winter, under the healthy economy, healthy environment plan, along with the commitment to quite drastically increase the rate of growth in the carbon price. That was a reasonable policy decision to make. However, as a result, I think the design of the clean fuel regulation has ended up in a place where there were all kinds of flexibilities introduced into the regulation to account for the fact that it was originally intended to cover liquid, gaseous and solid fuels, and now it's only focused on liquids.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
The efficiency side of things is definitely good and benefits everybody, but on the government regulations, it states right in them that the avenues they are pursuing are going to disproportionally impact these people. To say that they're mutually exclusive is not necessarily the case. We know that GHG reduction is the point of a clean fuel standard and the point of the carbon tax, and it states clearly, right in it, that those people are going to be disproportionally impacted.
Michael Wolinetz
View Michael Wolinetz Profile
Michael Wolinetz
2021-06-18 14:36
Sure. What I mean is that the goals of those policies are not mutually exclusive. You can use revenue recycling in any number of ways to try to mitigate the economic impact on certain segments of the population. You can use changes to your tax policy to do the same. You can use other sorts of policies to mitigate that.
I think that you—and everyone—are always concerned for lower-income segments of our society. In implementing greenhouse gas policy, we should always be mindful of how it impacts them and should consider adjustments to the policy or, in fact, other policies outright, in order to make sure they're not unduly affected.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-06-18 14:42
To continue in that argument, if we look at Japan going to zero-emission vehicles, the study we looked at in the environment committee as well, Europe going to zero-emission vehicles, we may be buying vehicles that are zero emission and the market might be ahead of us in terms of us delivering policy and programs.
Mark Zacharias
View Mark Zacharias Profile
Mark Zacharias
2021-06-18 14:42
Yes, maybe.
I would look at Canada, particularly in the battery medium, heavy-duty vehicle space. We're doing quite well.
Lion Electric has an order for 2,400 trucks from Amazon. GM is going to be building vans at its plant in Ontario. We have the metals and minerals to supply battery manufacturing, and a lot of work going on in that space. It's happening through government right now.
Again, it's not hydrogen related and it's not low-carbon fuels related, but it generally has the same objective at the end of the day, which is decarbonization of transportation.
View Tako Van Popta Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you.
Two minutes is too short for this, but thank you to all three witnesses. Mr. Fogel from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and Mr. Farooq and Ms. Omer from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, thanks for being with us and helping us through this very difficult conversation.
I'm going to ask a question that a couple of people attempted to ask and ran out of time, which is about balancing civil liberties and keeping Canadians safe, particularly when it comes to the Internet.
Mr. Fogel, I think it was you who said that we need new tools when it comes to regulating the Internet. I don't know if you were talking about criminal laws or civil remedies. Perhaps you could expand on that. What would civil remedies look like as far as that goes?
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2021-06-16 17:38
Thank you for the question.
I'll try to be really brief over here. It's a challenge for me.
I think one of the takeaways of this whole discussion is that to really address this effectively you need a whole-of-government approach. You have sister committees in Parliament that are looking at some of these questions. Online hate is something that the anti-racism secretariat has been focusing on a lot and providing some resources for stakeholders, such as the NCCM and us, to be able to explore remedies. Social media platforms have been brought in and not quite coerced, but encouraged, to take some ownership and to provide some of the solutions.
I don't know what all of the instruments will be. I know that for them to be effective it requires the buy-in from all of the stakeholders. That means government, communities and social service providers.
We have to distinguish between two groups. There are the vast bulk of Canadians who may be ignorant and insensitive to the impact of social media posts. They need to be educated. Then there are the marginal ones who have to be chased into the corner or prosecuted or somehow defanged, so that they don't constitute an ongoing threat.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask about something we were told at the last meeting. Despite what we're hearing now, witnesses were telling us about difficulties in applying policies and regulations because of the lack of resources. They were saying that it makes the work of the department difficult. These were people in the business.
Do you think that that is the case?
Just now, we were told two things at the same time. First, we were told that is not possible to get around the regulations and, second, we were told that people are concerned that some do succeed in getting around them. Then again, we are told that everything is overseen and everything is going well, while, at the last meeting, we were told there are a lot of difficulties with oversight and that resources are inadequate. In a word, a lot of things have gone by the board. For 40 years, blind eyes have been turned to things that are actually happening.
What is your opinion, Mr. Burns, Ms. McCready or Mr. Whorley?
Adam Burns
View Adam Burns Profile
Adam Burns
2021-06-16 17:04
Thanks for the question.
Prior to the coming into force of the inshore regulations, we were working with a policy, which is a different beast to implement. We now have the inshore regulations, which are, I think, what folks were referring to when they were referencing resources. The difference we now have—and this isn't related to the offshore—is that those inshore regulations prescribe licence eligibility related to being an independent inshore harvester and maintaining the rights and privileges of that licence themselves. There's an eligibility requirement in order to have a licence issued to you. If you are not compliant with the eligibility requirements, a licence cannot be issued to you.
In the prior circumstance, with PIIFCAF, that wasn't the case. It wasn't a regulatory eligibility requirement but rather a policy, and so the timelines were much more protracted. It is true that some harvesters would be under review, which is what it was called under PIIFCAF, for an extended period of time.
Under the inshore regulations, if there is a question around eligibility and around the separation of those rights and privileges from the licence-holder, then that licence-holder would need to demonstrate their compliance with the regulations before a licence could be reissued to them. The moment their licence expired, their ability to fish would cease until they rectified that and a new licence was issued.
View Serge Cormier Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Burns, I understand what you're saying, but when it comes to companies like Royal Greenland, again, backed by the Danish government, are you aware of these companies that are coming to Canada and trying to have control over our fisheries? You stated earlier that it's important to have the licences stay in our communities. Yes, the licence is one thing, but if the resource goes everywhere but in our communities, and the prices go so low as compared with now, what will we do 10 years from now?
Adam Burns
View Adam Burns Profile
Adam Burns
2021-06-16 17:19
Inshore regulations would prohibit inshore licence-holders from passing any of the rights and privileges related to their licence to any processing company, including one that may be owned by Royal Greenland. That requirement of maintaining the rights and privileges with the licence-holder would prevent that licence from entering into control by a processing company. In fact, the licence-holder's eligibility would end should that occur.
View Fayçal El-Khoury Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank our guests for joining us today and welcome them.
My first questions are for Mr. McCrorie.
How many times has the Canadian Transportation Agency ordered railway companies to make changes to their operations?
Why is the mediation process still [Technical difficulty—Editor]?
Finally, how much time is generally needed to find a solution?
Tom Oommen
View Tom Oommen Profile
Tom Oommen
2021-06-15 19:40
Thank you, Chair.
Yes I will mention that processes of either mediation or arbitration are confidential. On our website we have time frames, once a complete application is received, as to how long our processes take. For that we list, for example in the case of facilitation, that it's 20 business days for rail disputes, 20 business days for the resolution of a mediation process, and 30 to 65 days, depending on the type of arbitration.... Those are listed on our website.
Joel Lexchin
View Joel Lexchin Profile
Joel Lexchin
2021-06-11 14:07
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.
I work as an emergency physician in downtown Toronto. Between 2001 and 2016, I taught health policy at York University. Over the past 40 years, I've been involved in researching and writing about pharmaceutical policy issues.
I want to address the question about proposed reforms to the Canadian regulatory system, although I will also touch on some points that Mr. Labrie made.
When the pandemic started, Health Canada brought in an interim order to allow for a more rapid introduction of products to treat and prevent COVID-19. More recently, it's produced a discussion document about what it terms “agile regulations”, which are supposed to decrease regulatory burden and get new drugs onto the market in Canada faster.
The first point to make is contrary to Mr. Labrie's. Independent research has shown that only about 10% of new drugs that are introduced into Canada—or, in fact, in other markets—offer any substantial therapeutic gain over what already exists. This applies to drugs that are approved in general. It applies to drugs that are approved through Health Canada's priority review process. It applies to drugs that are approved with limited data through the notice of compliance with conditions process.
Even if you look at what are called first-in-class drugs—drugs that are unlike anything else on the market—the proportion of those that are innovative is only about one in six. When you look at drugs for orphan diseases, about one in five of these are substantial therapeutic improvements. This is not based on my assessment. This is based on independent assessments by organizations that have nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry.
When we think about changing the regulatory system, we also need to think about the safety of drugs that are on the market. The push for agile regulation makes mention of safety, but it seems to put safety second to reducing regulatory burden, which is a mistake. It ignores what we know about the safety of drugs that come on the market based on how long they are reviewed by organizations like Health Canada.
If a drug goes through a standard review process, eventually about one in five of those drugs will acquire a serious safety warning. If it goes through a priority review process, which is shorter—instead of the standard 300 days, it's 180 days—one-third of those drugs will acquire a serious safety warning, up from one in five. If you look at drugs that go through a notice of compliance with conditions process, about one in four of those drugs will acquire a serious safety warning.
There are consequences to changing the regulatory system in terms of safety. Currently, in any five-year period, if you look at the drugs that are withdrawn from the Canadian market, about one out of every 20 will eventually be pulled from the market for safety reasons. If we go ahead with changes in the regulatory system, that percentage may increase.
In conclusion, it's reasonable to change how we get drugs on the market in response to a pandemic. As a doctor in the emergency department, I recognize that. If you're talking about making long-term permanent changes, then you have to look at whether that results in better, more effective drugs reaching the market and in the increased or decreased safety of the products that come onto the market.
Until Health Canada can come up with good data to show that we'll get more therapeutically efficient drugs and more safety, we should not be going ahead.
Thank you.
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
I'd like to get one more question in if I can to Mr. Gilvesy. What would be ALUS's position on cross-compliance between BRM programming and environmental initiatives?
Results: 1 - 30 of 920 | Page: 1 of 31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data