Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 98
Mark P. Mills
View Mark P. Mills Profile
Mark P. Mills
2021-05-13 12:51
It's a pretty easy, generic one, but it's a very tough one to implement.
It's the same point. Mine sites, if you assume no regulations, still take a very long time to establish. They're physically demanding pieces of engineering. Everything we do to delay that makes it riskier, so risk capital goes to where it's easier to build the mine faster.
By and large, what that means today is that the epicentre of new mining development is Africa, largely through Chinese investments. We all know why. It's because of the far too lax, in my view, environmental regulatory environment.
What we're doing is trading two extremes, essentially no regulations versus too much regulation, so the mines are opening up where there are no regulations, so to speak.
Dave Carey
View Dave Carey Profile
Dave Carey
2021-04-27 11:32
Thank you.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee today on this important study.
My organization, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, represents 43,000 canola farmers from Ontario to British Columbia on national and international issues, policies and programs that impact their farm's success. CCGA is also the largest administrator of the federal government's advance payments program, providing cash advances to help farmers better market their crops and finance their operations.
Canola is a staple of Canadian agriculture as well as Canadian science and innovation. Today it is Canada's most widely planted crop and the largest farm cash receipt of any agricultural commodity, earning Canadian farmers $10.2 billion in 2020. Annually our sector contributes $29.9 billion to the Canadian economy and provides for 207,000 jobs.
Exports drive canola's success. More than 90% of the canola grown in Canada is exported as seed, oil or meal. COVID-19 has demonstrated the critical role played by agriculture and agri-food as an essential industry. Agriculture, and canola production in particular, has helped spur our economy during the recent pandemic and economic downturn. However, there are areas for improvement domestically and on the export front to help further canola’s ability to sustainably grow Canadian prosperity.
The first area concerns regulatory modernization and innovation and the Canada Grain Act. The government must finalize the review of the Canadian Grain Commission and modernize the Canada Grain Act to ensure that Canada's grain quality system aligns with the modern grain trading environment. Updates to the act are essential to reflect the significant changes to both farming and grain marketing over the last 40 years.
The next area is gene editing. Health Canada recently launched consultations on new regulatory guidance around such plant-breeding innovation as gene editing. This is a positive step for canola farmers. Our country has long been a leader in plant-breeding innovation, but our current regulations around plant breeding find us lagging behind countries like Japan, Australia and the United States and Latin America. The future competitiveness and sustainability of Canadian farms rely on a regulatory system that supports such new plant-breeding techniques as gene editing.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, requires consistent, reliable, robust and impartial data to fulfill its mandate as a science-based regulatory body. We strongly support the creation of a pan-Canadian water-monitoring program housed within the PMRA. Without accurate data to make science-based decisions, Canada could be perceived as a jurisdiction with increasingly high levels of regulatory uncertainty, thereby disincentivizing registrants from commercializing chemistries in Canada that ultimately help with our sustainability efforts.
Around domestic diversification and biofuels, to hedge against international market volatility, increasing the amount of canola used in biofuel will help create a stable domestic market for canola. Utilization of canola-based biofuels through the clean fuel regulation, or CFR, could create a new domestic market equal to or greater than the size of our Japanese export market, around 1.3 million tonnes of canola. It could also help Canada significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year—approximately one million cars.
To realize the potential economic and environmental benefits of canola-based biofuels, the final CFR, which will reach the Canada Gazette, part II, this fall, we must ensure that it grants full aggregate compliance to Canadian and U.S. farmers and that canola's low-carbon advantage is reflected in the life-cycle analysis model.
Last, around international trade, farmers are well positioned to provide safe, reliable canola supplies both domestically and to the world, but we require a rules-based, predictable framework to grow our exports. Promoting this framework will be even more important to counter protectionist policies post-COVID-19 as countries turn inwards. Trade is key to the world's economic recovery, and modernization of the World Trade Organization is essential to ensure that borders and supply chains remain open.
CCGA and the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance are advocating for the creation of a chief of trade implementation position at Global Affairs Canada to strengthen Canada's capacity to monitor and mobilize resources to fully implement and capitalize on existing free trade agreements. We're also requesting the creation of an Asian diversification office that has the capacity and mandate to proactively prevent and resolve market access challenges in Asia, as 60% of the global population resides in Asia. Increasing disposable income and changing food requirements make canola an attractive option for seed, oil and meal. As well, for the canola sector to achieve its full potential, reopening the China market must remain a priority.
We appreciate the opportunity to speak with this committee today. We look forward to questions on canola sustainability targets.
James van Raalte
View James van Raalte Profile
James van Raalte
2021-04-22 11:25
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for the invitation to join you here today. I want to focus my remarks on how regulations can impact Canada's competitiveness. This issue has been a recurring theme and has significantly influenced the current federal approach to regulation-making as well as most regulatory reform initiatives to date.
Let me start by saying that regulations are essential to protect consumers, ensure the health and safety of Canadians and safeguard the natural environment. It is understood that when government imposes any rules, like a labelling or testing requirement, it will create costs for those who need to comply. When we at TBS talk about a regulation's impact on competitiveness, we are referring to the unnecessary costs or inefficiencies, or “sludge”, created by a regulation or its program. These can be the result of duplication and overlap across jurisdictions, slow and manual processes, or requirements that are too prescriptive and thus impact a firm's ability to use technologies and adopt innovative approaches.
The Government of Canada governs the development, management and review of federal regulations through a policy called the “cabinet directive on regulation”. One of the four key principles of the directive is that regulations must support a fair and competitive economy—that is, regulations should aim to support and promote inclusive economic growth, entrepreneurship and innovation for the benefit of Canadian business.
To limit the costs imposed on Canadian business and to achieve other public policy objectives, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat requires that regulators undertake significant analysis when designing and planning the implementation of regulations. For example, they must look at the impacts on small business, the impacts on international trade and regulatory alignment with other jurisdictions, modern treaty implications and environmental impacts, and conduct gender-based analysis. There are also measures in place like the legislated “one for one” rule under the Red Tape Reduction Act, which works system-wide to control the growth of administrative burden on business. For every new dollar of administrative burden imposed on business, federal regulators must find a dollar in savings.
Since the implementation of the cabinet directive in 2018, TBS has focused on initiatives to improve regulatory competitiveness, agility and innovation. We have regulatory co-operation fora with the U.S., the EU and the provinces and territories to reduce regulatory misalignment and barriers to trade. We are undertaking comprehensive regulatory reviews to identify rules and practices that are creating bottlenecks to growth and innovation. We have established a centre that focuses on building capacity for regulators to design flexible regulations in order to enable new and innovative products to come to market. We are developing other tools, such as an annual TBS-sponsored piece of legislation to remove requirements that stand in the way of modernizing regulations—for instance, requirements for wet signatures or the use of outdated technologies like fax machines.
The advice of TBS's external advisory committee for regulatory competitiveness has been crucial in helping shape the direction of these modernization initiatives and provide advice on others being considered. The committee has highlighted some challenges that are real in trying to address the issue of regulatory competitiveness.
First, regulatory costs are not limited to federal regulation. Burden stems from all governments—federal, provincial, territorial and municipal. All rules, programs and taxation create burdens for stakeholders, whether they be business, not-for-profits or individuals. Very often, there is a misunderstanding of what is truly in the federal regulatory sphere.
Second, there is no universal way or accepted methodology of measuring cumulative burden or the impact of regulation on competitiveness. In 2019, TBS commissioned the OECD to examine the approaches used around the world to better consider regulatory competitiveness. I can tell you that there is very little to work with in this area.
To address this gap, we've been working with the University of Waterloo's Problem Lab to pioneer an approach on measuring cumulative burden by examining a real situation, that of building a meat-processing plant in the municipality of Hamilton. One can imagine the complex interactions between zoning bylaws, environmental regulations and food inspection regimes—and those are the known administrative hurdles.
To conclude, I want to reiterate that regulatory competitiveness continues to be a priority for TBS. We share your interest in ensuring the regulatory system supports economic growth and regulatory efficiency and take seriously all recommendations to minimize the adverse impacts of regulations on competitiveness while maintaining Canada's high standards for health, safety, security and environmental stewardship.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
2021-04-22 11:43
I'd be very grateful—if it's not too much trouble—if you could submit to us what the previous government did in 2009 and what the consequences have been, because it's important that we focus on these types of challenges. Thank you for that.
Mr. van Raalte, thank you for explaining to us what occurred in 2018: the cabinet directive on regulations. You touched on a few of the challenges, and I have to admit that the challenges were, I think, challenges that would have been foreseeable. For example, you talked about the regulatory burden, competitiveness and things of that nature. Could you tell us some of the successes that have been accomplished since 2018?
James van Raalte
View James van Raalte Profile
James van Raalte
2021-04-22 11:44
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to share some successes. I'd focus on three areas.
In terms of regulatory co-operation, we have a very strong relationship with our trading partners in the United States; a new free trade agreement with the European Union; and—with provinces and territories—the Canadian Free Trade Agreement.
Under the internal trade piece, I would say the biggest success to date has been strengthening provincial regulation with respect to the building code. That's a long-standing irritant, and I heard Mr. Priddle reference that. You will all know—any Canadian will know—that there are different rules for building, by different jurisdiction and even by different municipality. Thanks to some research and some heavy standard development work by our colleagues at the National Research Council—and quite a bit of collaboration at the provincial level, because that's where it has to happen—we are embarking on a brand new building code process. That is expected to save the Canadian economy a billion dollars a year in construction costs.
With our partners in Europe, there are early regulatory co-operation discussions. The example I will provide may be small, but it's an important first step. Health Canada and the health and safety regulator in Europe have agreed to recognize the safety standards for the safety inspection rules around sunblock in Europe. We've done the same thing in the U.S. It means, from an economic perspective, a savings of $100,000 per product coming into Canada for sale. It's small, but everybody needs sunblock. That's been so successful that Health Canada and the EU have expanded discussions around other non-prescription products developed outside of Canada.
I can also point to our regulatory reviews, which have been a very important instrument for Treasury Board, in terms of removing administrative irritants within the responsibility of regulators but also looking to improved, forward-looking regulatory practices and building innovation. We've completed those reviews in the areas of transport, health and agriculture and aquaculture. Updates on the progress on those improvements were published in the last few months, and we're looking to publish, in the coming weeks, regulatory review results in the areas of international standards, clean tech and digitalization.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
I understand all that, but it just strikes me as odd that if you guys are supposedly capping the cost of regulation, you have to know what the cap is set at, and we would appreciate getting that number from you.
How many regulations does the federal government have?
James van Raalte
View James van Raalte Profile
James van Raalte
2021-04-22 12:47
Madam Chair, the approximate number of regulatory what we call “stock” is around 3,000.
View Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Profile
Lib. (ON)
Then you wouldn't have a role where our existing framework is clearly not harmonized with a new regulatory framework that the U.S. is putting forward. You wouldn't turn your mind to that harmonization.
James van Raalte
View James van Raalte Profile
James van Raalte
2021-04-22 12:52
We would have a role in terms of facilitating those harmonization discussions with the provinces, but again, the lead is with the regulators.
Ritesh Kotak
View Ritesh Kotak Profile
Ritesh Kotak
2021-04-15 11:57
Good morning, Madam Chair.
I would like to start by thanking the committee for inviting me to share my thoughts on how Canada could become more competitive.
My name is Ritesh Kotak, and I work with organizations to help them transform their operations digitally. I've studied and worked on this issue globally for the last decade, but my journey started a lot earlier. I grew up in a small business. To be more specific, my crib was in a store. My grandparents and parents had a community grocery store, which over the years has transformed into a food manufacturing company that employs about 20 individuals, imports and exports products, and is continuously trying to innovate.
When the pandemic started, many businesses had to find alternative ways to remain competitive. The natural move was to transfer operations to an e-commerce platform, my parents included. The general consensus was that it is as simple as creating an account, adding your products and you can begin shipping to customers around the world. In theory this is correct. However, in practice it is much more complex.
I would like to take my time to break down three categories of issues that are major barriers to businesses and hinder our competitiveness. I share my thoughts from a strategic and also a practical perspective.
Number one, you are building on something existing and not on something new; number two, unclear guidelines; number three, access to a knowledge base.
The first major barrier is that many initiatives make a detrimental assumption that because they have a website, it will allow businesses to migrate their operations online. However, if you are a traditional bricks and mortar establishment, you have existing systems. Upgrading those systems is complex and expensive. I've seen frustrated business owners maintain two independent systems, which is just not economical. If you want to integrate, it requires additional software and expertise. This can cost thousands of dollars, be time consuming and complex, and many people are simply unaware of this additional investment. This can also be very stressful.
To add to the complexity, we wouldn't normally think of all of the labour challenges from a granular level, such as adding hundreds of products, descriptions, images, to shipping the product to the customer—also known as the last mile. With shipping in particular, business owners may end up covering large costs out of pocket, as major carriers base rates on weight, not volume. I can elaborate further on this point during the Q and A.
It is also extremely difficult for small businesses to compete, as shipping rates are significantly higher for small businesses compared with established big box companies. A package may cost a local business $14 to ship; the same package will cost an established business $4. That's three and a half times higher. This dissuades customers from completing a transaction. We see this through the number of abandoned shopping carts. Shipping companies won't give you a better rate unless you have volume, and you won't have volume if you don't offer competitive rates. Given low margins in certain industries, it makes this an impossible proposition—a catch-22.
To put a hard number to the amount of effort required, I have technical abilities and understand the different factors and complexities. It took me approximately 300 hours to figure this out. I empathize with all of the small business owners who don't have access to these skills and as a last resort have spent up to $30,000 on consultants—money that they didn't even budget for.
The second category of issues is that there are unclear guidelines. I'll use my example of the food industry. Many retailers are unaware that shipping to other countries, especially to the U.S., has its challenges. Since CUSMA increased the de minimis value under section 321 from $200 to $800 for e-commerce, many organizations are unsure how this applies.
From my conversations, I found that different agencies are used to helping businesses with B2B trade, but not B2C trade. I could not find a single resource that aggregated all the necessary information, from registration and labelling requirements, to other considerations such as advertising restrictions and data protection. Businesses are expected to comply, but are unaware. I even found federal agencies who really wanted to help and answer my questions, but were just unsure on how best to address my inquiries. This is a major barrier to our competitiveness.
Finally, more needs to be done to physically help these businesses digitally transform their operations. We cannot simply put money towards the problem, as they require physical expertise and a helping hand.
As mentioned, it took me 300 hours. I have volunteered my time to assist many organizations digitize, because I truly believe that we are all in this together. There need to be more individuals who have built these hybrid businesses assisting other businesses, because personal usage is a precondition to comprehension.
There is plenty more I would like to discuss such as how we can achieve this, barriers to accessibility and other factors that impact our competitiveness.
I thank you for this opportunity and welcome your questions.
Ellis Ross
View Ellis Ross Profile
Ellis Ross
2021-04-15 12:18
Thank you.
My comments come from the last 17 years of reviewing projects in detail in terms of their viability and process. I bring this as great context for understanding how to build and sustain an economy, which leads to our topic today of competitiveness. I also understand the working end of environmental assessments at both the federal and provincial levels, and the permitting regimes under each ministry.
Unfortunately, now as an MLA, I understand how these processes are formed, and I also understand the ideologies and politics that help shape these processes.
The most important lesson learned is what a good, strong economy does for the strength of an individual, a community, a province and a country. I don't understand why our legislators can't wrap their heads around the idea of competitiveness. We understand competitiveness where we stifle competition from province to province, but we take a different approach when we deal with our biggest trading partner/competitor to the south of us.
When we create so much politics, red tape and taxes for, say, a Canadian concrete company to bid itself out of a Canadian contract, the United States' company that doesn't have the same cost structure comes in and secures that Canadian contract. The same approach of politics, red tape and taxes plays out when we stop the export of oil and gas to Asia, and then we turn around and ship that same resource to the United States so that the U.S.A. can supplement its own overseas export market, as well as domestic markets. This is happening as we speak in B.C., especially with LNG, with U.S.A. wanting to export B.C. LNG because it is cleaner, and we can't get LNG off our shores.
You'll hear stories from the mining industry in B.C. talking about a robust exploration industry, but what you won't hear is that no mining company wants to invest in B.C. No mining company can make an FID. We've gotten to the point where Canadian companies find other countries—which are our competitors, by the way—more welcoming than Canada. Canadian companies take their investment dollars elsewhere just because of our uncompetitive framework.
The only investors who are willing to invest in B.C. for major or semi-major projects are the large worldwide corporations that have enough cash and fortitude to bankroll a $50-million environmental assessment—some cost. Even those corporations are starting to cut their losses and leave Canada.
No doubt you heard about Chevron's decision to take a step back from its $32-billion LNG project in Kitimat. Chevron can't sell its 50% equity stake in that project, a project that has the support of first nations, has two LNG reserves in northeast B.C., and has a fully permitted pipeline and a fully permitted liquefaction facility. They can't get any interest from the worldwide community.
There is something wrong with Canada and B.C.'s competitive structure when a world thirsty for clean energy has no interest in doing business in Canada.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Meegwetch.
Indeed, recognizing first nations as stakeholders is a first step.
I would now like to address Mr. Winseck or Mr. Klass, from the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project.
I would like you to list the elements that contribute to the administrative and regulatory burden telecommunications companies are facing and, more specifically, to tell us what the solutions for reducing that burden are.
Dwayne Winseck
View Dwayne Winseck Profile
Dwayne Winseck
2021-04-15 12:39
I will make a short answer to that.
I'm not quite sure how onerous the administrative burdens on telecommunications companies are as opposed to, say, members of the public who want to participate in regulatory proceedings. The Competition Bureau itself has very non-existent public proceedings; it does not even meet the standards of the CRTC.
I'm less concerned with whatever burdens the telecom companies have. In fact, they may not be facing enough pressure to meet the policy objectives that have been set for them, or to address public interest considerations that are raised before either the CRTC or the Competition Bureau.
View Earl Dreeshen Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you so very much.
But then, there are decisions that are made by government: let's stop moving our energy to the east; let's not allow northern gateway to proceed; let's put other barriers in place. In Bill C-69, there are additional regulations that, as far as they are concerned, seem to be barriers to the general industry, but they're barriers to your people as well.
Mr. Ross, you mentioned that there are concerns involving Chevron. They have thrown up their hands in despair and essentially walked away from this large job and wealth-creating projects, rather than take what we need to sell to the world to help where greenhouse gases are concerned and to sell our technology.
Can you explain how much the regulatory processes we put in place are damaging that opportunity?
You mentioned before, in talking about the U.S., how our stopping what we do is going to help supplement their markets. Yes, we know who it is that benefits from all of the eco-activists who stop investment in Canada.
Could you quickly comment on that?
Ellis Ross
View Ellis Ross Profile
Ellis Ross
2021-04-15 12:51
Yes, that's all out there.
By the way, I was never a fan of self-governance for first nations. I was a fan of basically being involved in the economy. My band is not suffering under the Indian Act anymore. Back in 2003, we were. We have enough resources now, within the current system, that we're making our own decisions and developing our own program, without self-governance. We're actually buying private land.
In term of how we're actually—
Results: 1 - 15 of 98 | Page: 1 of 7

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

For more data options, please see Open Data