Ontario Demographic Quarterly: Highlights of first quarter | - Exploring Canada's age
Annual compliance reporting to the Minister would be required for all primary suppliers and credit creators. The proposed Regulations would include validation and verification requirements. Most significantly, regulated parties would be required to obtain from an independent, accredited third-party verification body a report stating whether the information submitted is complete, compliant with the requirements, and credits and obligations are accurate and without material error.
The Quality Assurance System would include requirements for most submitted applications and reports to be validated or verified by a third party, with accompanying validation or verification reports. The Department is planning to publish the final version of the Regulations in late Once that happens, credit creators would be able to register and start to create credits.
The final compliance period for the RFR would be , with the final reporting and true-up period for the RFR occurring in The RFR would then be repealed on January 1, Since , the Department has held extensive consultation sessions on the development of the proposed Regulations, including group meetings, technical webinars and bilateral meetings. Stakeholders in these sessions included industry fossil fuel producers and suppliers, low carbon fuel producers and suppliers, emission-intensive and trade-exposed EITE sectors, and other various industry groups , provinces and territories, Indigenous Peoples, environmental non-governmental organizations ENGOs , administrators of similar programs in other jurisdictions e.
The Department has conducted hundreds of hours of bilateral meetings with individual stakeholders upon request in addition to participating in and chairing formal committees, as described below. In February , a discussion paper was published to gain initial views from stakeholders, provinces, and territories to inform the development of a regulatory framework in advance of developing specific regulations.
The discussion paper laid out different approaches adopted by other jurisdictions, and posed technical questions related to the potential applicability of various elements within existing regulatory regimes at the time.
The comment period closed on April 25, , and the Department received over comments from stakeholders. Following this, a Regulatory Framework was published in December , outlining key design elements.
Though no comments were formally requested, 47 comments were received and reviewed by the Department in early The Regulatory Design Paper built on the two previous consultation documents and outlined the main design elements and approach for the proposed CFS Regulations for liquid fuels. Comments on the design paper closed on February 1, , and over comments from stakeholders, provinces, and territories and stakeholders were received. These comments informed the development of the proposed Regulations.
Following the release of the framework, extensive stakeholder consultation took place through committees, working groups and submissions on the Regulatory Design Paper, informing the regulatory development of the proposed Regulations.
In June , the Proposed Regulatory Approach was published, building on the Regulatory Design Paper , the Regulatory Framework and on the extensive stakeholder engagement on the previous publications such as the discussion paper.
The Proposed Regulatory Approach provided the full set of requirements and credit creation opportunities for liquid fuels. It was open for public comment until August 26, , and the Department received 95 submissions with comments on the Proposed Regulatory Approach.
The Department chaired several committees, which provided a forum for active engagement with stakeholders. These committees included a multi-stakeholder committee, a technical working group, and a task group specifically examining impacts to EITE sectors. Provinces and territories have also been heavily engaged in the consultations on the proposed Regulations and were participants on various committees, including a Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group.
Engagement via these committees helped inform the more detailed aspects of the design of the proposed Regulations for the liquid fuel class, and will continue to operate through the development of the gaseous and solid fuel class regulations. Established in January , the Multi-Stakeholder Consultative Committee MSCC met periodically both via webinar and in-person to provide a forum for the Department to update interested parties on progress and to provide an opportunity for advice and input to be offered on the proposed Regulations.
This Committee has a pan-Canadian representation from key industry associations, academia, ENGOs, provincial and territorial governments and other federal departments. Four meetings were held in , with approximate attendance of up to participants out of invitees.
In , two meetings were held in July to present the Proposed Regulatory Approach, with an estimated participants in attendance. Established in January , the Technical Working Group TWG consists of a smaller group of regulated parties and other key partners, such as representatives of the biofuel industry, provincial and territorial governments, and the electricity sector. In addition to the core TWG members, specific sectoral and technical experts have been invited to provide input on specific issues as they emerged.
The TWG has approximately 60 members. The task group is a forum for the Department to listen to and understand concerns brought forward by EITE sectors and to explore credit creation opportunities for EITEs under the proposed Regulations. There are approximately 40 members, composed of one representative from each industry association participating in the Clean Fuel Standard TWG, as well as company TWG members not otherwise represented.
In total, five meetings were held in and representatives were invited to attend the June TWG sessions. Two Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Groups were established as a forum for the Department to engage provincial and territorial counterparts on the development of the proposed Regulations. The first group is at the working-level and the second one is an Assistant Deputy Minister committee.
Attendees included representatives from each province and territory. Five meetings were held in , five meetings were held in , three meetings were held in and two in In addition to the specific committees mentioned above, the Department has conducted many ongoing bilateral meetings with interested parties and stakeholders since Overall, the Department has conducted hundreds of hours of bilateral meetings with provinces, territories, and individual stakeholders, in addition to participating and chairing formal committees.
Since the Proposed Regulatory Approach was published in June , the onset of the COVID pandemic and further analysis of stakeholder feedback led to some updates to the design of the proposed Regulations. A key change relates to the CI stringency of the proposed Regulations. In June , the Minister announced to the TWG that the stringency of the proposed Regulations would be changed in order to help mitigate the impacts of the COVID pandemic on industry stakeholders and at the same time ensure that the proposed Regulations remain on track to deliver significant GHG emission reductions by Other updates included more details on quantification methods, LUB criteria, the compliance fund mechanism and CCM, and a review process of the proposed Regulations.
Material from these sessions is available upon request. To inform these changes, two consultation sessions took place in June with the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Groups.
These sessions included a focused session on updates to the CBA framework since February Following the June consultations, a session was held with the MSCC in July to present the proposed updates to the regulatory design. Bilateral meetings were also held throughout the summer of with stakeholders to further discuss their feedback on the updated regulatory design. To inform the development of the LCA Model which is required to support the implementation of the proposed Regulations, stakeholders have been engaged on this component since At the very initial stages of development of the Fuel LCA Model, stakeholders were engaged in reviewing the fossil fuel baseline values by participating in the CFS TWG and providing comments over the summer of In winter , TWG members will have the opportunity to review the methodological approach used to develop the default low carbon fuel CI values and provide comments.
Comments from stakeholders would be considered in updates to the methodology and for the low carbon fuel CI values throughout the summer of In addition, a provincial and territorial committee will be formed to act as a forum for discussion regarding how the proposed Regulations would interact with existing provincial and territorial policies and programs, and to identify any additional needs provinces and territories may have in relation to the Fuel LCA Model. In accordance with subsection 4 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Department offered to consult on the proposed Regulations with representatives from provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments through the CEPA National Advisory Committee.
Stakeholders expressed a diverse range of views on the proposed Regulations, including concerns and recommendations on the various design elements outlined in the Proposed Regulatory Approach, preceding publications and the June consultations. A summary of the key issues is provided below. A number of primary suppliers consulted were concerned that the annual CI reduction requirement in the Proposed Regulatory Approach was too high for the initial compliance year , while others noted that the stringency overall was too high.
Some argued that there was not enough lead-in time for new technologies and investments. In addition, primary suppliers expressed concerns about the potential for an insufficient supply of global biofuels, which would increase the risk of a shortfall of credits in the market. Primary suppliers and EITE stakeholders also recommended that the CI requirements be lowered for the first compliance year, compliance flexibilities such as an earlier credit creation period, increased or unlimited cross-class credits trading be expanded, and for a generic method for facility improvements to be established.
These concerns have been reiterated during the ongoing COVID pandemic period, as the oil and gas sector continues to face financial and liquidity challenges due to low oil prices.
Low carbon fuel producers i. In general, stakeholders recommended that a safeguard mechanism be in place to address unprecedented events, such as a public health pandemic, to temporarily suspend or scale back requirements under the proposed Regulations. The design of the proposed Regulations takes into account the cost impacts for regulated parties to comply with its requirements. For example, the CI trajectory starts later and at a lower level.
The CI reduction requirements would come into force on December 1, , instead of on June 1, The Department also decreased the CI reduction requirement in from 3. These adjustments are intended to give primary suppliers additional time to make investments to meet their CI reduction requirements.
This decision was taken after a careful review of the state of the oil and gas sector and expected emissions reductions outcomes from the proposed Regulations. In addition, the proposed Regulations allow early credit creation for actions as of registration of the final Regulations.
Based on the stringency in the CI trajectory for primary suppliers, an increasing number of oil and gas corporations are expanding, or are considering expansion into low-carbon fuels to comply with the proposed Regulations. Several primary suppliers raised concerns regarding the potential for limited credit creation opportunities to comply with the proposed Regulations. As such, they requested greater flexibility to meet their CI reduction requirements see trajectory and market design comments above.
However, ENGOs, low carbon fuel suppliers, and end-use fuel switching credit creators have recommended that credits created from Compliance Category 1 be limited to a certain percentage of the annual obligation in order to ensure market signals are created to incentivize investment in low-carbon fuels. Regarding the quantification methods for credit creation presented in the June consultations, primary suppliers recommended the inclusion of an energy efficiency quantification method.
Primary suppliers also expressed concern that the five-year crediting period that was initially proposed for eligible projects other than carbon, capture and storage is too short and has the risk to restrict credit creation opportunities.
Lastly, primary suppliers recommended that it be possible to create credits retroactively, as of July 1, The Department has carefully reviewed all comments received on reducing GHG emissions and meeting CI reduction requirements.
Furthermore, the decrease in the CI reduction requirement and roll over of compliance units from the RFR would result in no additional action being required on behalf of primary suppliers in the first year of the proposed Regulations coming into force.
The CI reduction requirement trajectory would then increase slowly and linearly year-over-year to allow lead time for investments, and the trajectory would be revised in to reflect the declining CI of fuels. Moreover, the first review of the proposed Regulations would allow the Department to take stock of the current state of fossil fuels and their CIs. It would also reduce the compliance flexibility of the proposed Regulations and would decrease the availability of credits in the market.
Given that all other quantification methods would undergo the additionality assessment at the project type level, there is no credit limit on all other project types. Concerning the quantification methods, the Department is now developing a generic quantification method. Projects such as energy efficiency, cogeneration, electriciation and methane reductions could be recognized under the generic quantification method QM provided they meet the eligibility criteria.
Existing quantification methods would be eliminated as incremental technological innovation becomes business as usual and new quantification methods would be added as clean technology advances. As long as one of these criteria is fulfilled, then no further assessment of additionality is needed, reducing burden.
On the crediting period, the Department changed the time period to 20 years with one renewal period of 5 years for carbon capture and storage projects and 10 years with one renewal period of 5 years for other projects to better align with existing provincial and federal regulations such as the Alberta Emission Offset System and carbon credit systems. A number of low carbon fuel producers and ENGOs emphasized the need to have a strong demand signal for low carbon fuel investment, with concerns that the inclusion of compliance flexibility mechanisms such as the compliance fund mechanism and the adoption of Compliance Category 1 would impede this signal.
Limiting compliance through Compliance Category 1, increasing the stringency of the CI target, or including a safety net that would review the level of compliance through this category in was recommended to support a market signal for low-carbon fuels. The Department expects that the stringency of the proposed Regulations in is high enough that there would be sufficient demand for biofuels more detailed analysis on this is provided in the section on Benefits and costs.
Feedstock availability concerns were raised regarding the supply for low-carbon fuels, as well as concerns on indirect land-use change and implications to biodiversity. On feedstock availability, some primary suppliers and low carbon fuel producers highlighted a risk for low feedstock supply, in particular for advanced biofuels, and its implications for credit creation. They voiced concerns that existing technologies for advanced biofuels are not currently commercially viable and therefore could not significantly contribute to reducing liquid fossil fuel CIs.
Some stakeholders also suggested the use of mass balance to align with other jurisdictions that have implemented regulatory requirements for credit creation. The Department has reviewed all comments received relating to low-carbon fuels and feedstock and has considered their implications for the design of the proposed Regulations. The Department expects that there would be sufficient supply of low-carbon fuels to enable compliance with the proposed Regulations in see section on Compliance Category 2: Supplying low-carbon fuels for more detail.
As a signatory to the international Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada is committed to responsible stewardship of its biological resources and to the United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development.
To prevent negative land use and biodiversity impacts from increased harvesting of feedstock for biofuel production, the Department released the proposed Land Use and Biodiversity LUB criteria for the proposed Regulations in April Only feedstocks that adhere to the LUB criteria would be able to create credits under the proposed Regulations.
Comments on the first iteration of the LUB criteria largely centred on preventing land-use change in areas with high carbon stock, how crops associated with high indirect land-use change ILUC would be treated, and how sustainable management of forest harvesting would be ensured. Some credit creators requested the inclusion of quantified CI factors to incorporate indirect land use change. A second draft of the criteria was published in August Those proposed changes sought to strengthen some aspects of the LUB criteria, and to ensure the criteria are measurable and verifiable.
The changes also added a list of feedstock types exempt from the LUB criteria, modified the material balance approach, and revised the definitions of forest, grassland, and wetland. The proposed Regulations include additional changes made following the June consultation sessions with stakeholders.
The June proposal prohibited credit creation for feedstocks harvested in any protected areas designated by international organizations. The proposed Regulations respond to recommendations from provinces and territories by limiting this restriction to protected areas designated by international organizations if they have been ratified by the national and sub-national jurisdictions in which the feedstock was harvested. Some stakeholders requested that criteria be revisited that prevent credit creation for feedstocks harvested within 30 meters of a water body i.
Many suggested that adherence to existing provincial riparian zone regulations should satisfy the LUB riparian criterion. On crop expansion requirements that prevent credit creation for feedstocks harvested in forests, wetlands and grasslands since , the Department received comments noting that there is insufficient GIS data for the proposed baseline.
Following extensive discussions and analysis after the June consultation sessions, the Department made changes to its proposed LUB criteria requirements. The proposed Regulations provide that any land designated by an international agreement as protected must also be recognized by the jurisdiction to be considered ineligible land for the CFS feedstock harvesting. For riparian zones, the proposed Regulations recognize national and regional riparian regulations that protect against adverse LUB impacts, include a grandfathering clause to allow credit creation for feedstocks harvested in any riparian zones that were harvested prior to , and allow feedstocks from harvesting in forest riparian zones if the forest harvester has management practices in place to protect the riparian zones and related water bodies.
For crop expansion requirements, the Department changed the baseline from January to January to better align with the first official signal of the proposed Regulations. As a response to concerns regarding burden and duplication created by the LUB criteria with provincial regulations, the proposed Regulations enable recognition of national or sub-national regulatory frameworks that align with the LUB criteria on a criterion by criterion basis.
Consultations with provinces and territories during the summer of led to refinement of the indicators that could be used to prove compliance with the LUB criteria in the event of an audit, and to the development of the information requirements for using an aggregate compliance approach in which all suppliers in a jurisdiction that has rules aligned with the LUB criteria would be deemed eligible.
Electric vehicle EV manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers OEMs , and electricity utilities generally recommended that they would each be best suited as default credit creators for residential EV charging; however, charging network operators supported utilities as the default credit creator.
Utilities highlighted that they are in a better position to understand the sources of electricity being supplied to the grid and the associated CIs. Utilities also believe they are best suited to promote EVs and to invest in infrastructure to support electrification while mitigating costs to the electrical grid and all end users of electricity.
That being said, OEMs expressed concerns that opportunities to create credits would not be significant, sustained, secure or predictable. Overall, the majority of stakeholders are supportive of requirements that, in order to be eligible to create credits, home charging data must be accurately measured and of requirements to reinvest the credit revenue resulting from home charging data.
Stakeholders were opposed to phasing out credit creation for residential EV charging, noting that would be premature to do so before adoption of EVs becomes common practice in the Canadian market. However, primary suppliers recommended that if they are a charging network operator and create credits for residential or public EV charging to satisfy a portion of their CI reduction requirement, there should be no reinvestment requirement associated with a credit that has not been sold.
A few stakeholders recommended eliminating revenue reinvestment requirements altogether, and others suggested expanding the scope of reinvestment requirements to other activities such as education and awareness of EVs. Additionally, some stakeholders recommended expanding end-use fuel switching beyond transportation. The Department has reviewed the comments received and assessed the proposed June approach to end-use fuel switching in transportation.
The proposed Regulations were updated to reflect comments received. The default credit creator for residential EV charging would be charging network operators for homes equipped with network-connected charging stations. In the proposed Regulations, parties that have the legal right to ownership of the data regarding the amount of electricity that is supplied to EVs and the time it is supplied through network-connected charging stations can create credits.
There would not be revenue reinvestment requirements for primary suppliers that use their own credits to satisfy a portion of their reduction requirements. Based on the Departmental analysis, EVs are expected to create the majority of end-use fuel switching credits, where the market can provide significant opportunities for credit creation.
At this time, the Department is not considering extending end-fuel switching beyond transportation. Many stakeholders expressed the desire for additional clarity around how energy efficiency ratio EER values were determined. EER values were developed to be representative of the types of vehicles in use in Canada, leading to credit creation based on a comparison to the vehicles being displaced.
The EER values would be reviewed over time and may be updated as the energy efficiency of various technologies change over time, and as other more specific fuel and vehicle applications are introduced to the market. Primary suppliers raised concerns over the credit market design, and the potential for credit shortages. As a way to address shortages in credit supply, primary suppliers recommended greater flexibility, including unlimited exchange of credits between different fuel classes, no restriction on credit banking and unrestricted use of the compliance fund mechanism.
On the other hand, some credit creators raised concerns that a surplus of credits or compliance flexibilities would limit the demand for low-carbon fuels, affecting investments in this sector. To reduce the risk of a credit shortage, the CI reduction requirement was lowered in comparison to what had been outlined in the June Proposed Regulatory Approach.
A slow, linear increase of the CI trajectory over time is expected to allow sufficient lead time for investments. In addition, the proposed Regulations impose limits on the proposed flexible compliance options. These limits help ensure that a market signal supports investments in low-carbon fuels.
A number of stakeholders requested regular departmental reports on the proposed Regulations using aggregated indicators, such as credit totals, trades and average credit price. The Department plans to release reports using aggregated indicators. Primary suppliers and some provinces raised concern that the price cap of the Credit Clearance Mechanism was too high, while low-carbon fuel suppliers, end-use fuel switching credit creators, and ENGOs noted the price cap was too low.
Both stakeholder groups expressed concern that the price ceiling would affect market signals for investments in their respective sectors. The Credit Clearance Mechanism serves to provide some price certainty to both primary suppliers and credit creators. The Department reviewed existing credit clearing mechanisms in other jurisdictions in the context of a Canadian market. The Department set a credit clearance ceiling price based on a review of credit costs expected in the credit market and the price cap of similar credit clearance mechanisms in California and Oregon.
Primary suppliers and some provinces raised concerns that the price ceiling of the compliance fund mechanism is too high, while credit creators and ENGOs noted that the price ceiling is too low.
Both stakeholder groups noted that the price ceiling would affect market signals for investments in their respective sectors. In addition, several provincial stakeholders recommended that revenues generated from the compliance fund mechanism be invested in relevant GHG emission reduction programs at the provincial and territorial level.
The compliance fund mechanism ceiling price represents an upper bound of credit costs expected in the credit market. Ontario Demographic Quarterly: Highlights of first quarter Learn about key facts and figures of the province's demographics for the first quarter of On this page Skip this page navigation. Births and deaths There were 34, births during the first quarter of , an increase of 2. International migration Immigration to Ontario was 50, in the first quarter, up from 34, in the same quarter of Accessible description of chart Interprovincial migration In the first quarter of , Ontario saw a net interprovincial migration loss of 11, people to the rest of Canada, compared to a net loss of 5, people in the same quarter of Female life expectancy at birth years footnote 4 [4] Male life expectancy at birth years footnote 4 [4] For the same reason, they also make up a large proportion of cases in that group.
Source : Detailed case information received by PHAC from provinces and territories, since December 14, see data notes in the Technical notes and definitions section.
People who were diagnosed with COVID after completing their primary vaccine series were significantly less likely to be hospitalized or to die, particularly if they received an additional dose s. Between and , unvaccinated cases were times more likely to be hospitalized and times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series.
During the same 4-week period, unvaccinated cases were times more likely to be hospitalized and times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series and 1 or more additional doses see data notes in Technical notes and definitions section.
Episode date : Refers to symptom onset date. When symptom onset date is unavailable or the case is asymptomatic, episode date refers to either:. Download cases and deaths data. Download cases and deaths data dictionary. Current update Archived reports. No Trend Data Available.
Play Download data in. Table 1. Variant Grouping. Contributing laboratories: National Microbiology Laboratory NML — supplemental sequencing for all provinces and territories. Figure 3. Table 2. Characteristics of confirmed cases by vaccination status, as of July 10, Figure 7a. Download report.
Report a problem or mistake on this page. Date modified: Motion to proceed to orders of the day. Bill C, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts hoist amendment. Time allocation for Bill C, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments firearms. Concurrence at report stage of Bill C, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts report stage amendment.
Appointment of an officer of Parliament. Private Members' Business M Retirement income. Bill C, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, and other measures recommittal to a committee. Concurrence at report stage of Bill C, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, Opposition Motion Measures for immediate financial relief. Concurrence at report stage of Bill C, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, and other measures.
Bill C, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, and other measures report stage amendment.
Time allocation for Bill C, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, and other measures. Bill C, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada amendment. Opposition Motion Rules and service levels for travel. Time allocation for Bill C, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.
Motion to proceed to Orders of the Day.
- Votes - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada
For crimes that can be difficult to report due to the nature of the offence—for example crimes committed by family members—confinement and reduction or changes in services for victims could have also impacted reporting to police. Some stakeholders also suggested the use of mass balance to align with other jurisdictions that have implemented regulatory requirements for credit creation. Firearms include handguns, rifles or shotguns, fully automatic firearms, firearm-like weapons e. On March 10, , Canada further amended the Special Economic Measures Russia Regulations to add 32 defense entities, most of which are owned by the state or have contracts with the Government of Russia; to add five 5 individuals who are current and former senior officials and associates of the regime; as well as to prohibit any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada from importing specific petroleum products listed in a new Schedule 5. If primary suppliers use gaseous and solid credits for compliance it is expected that they would only do so if they are less expensive to create than liquid credits. Self-reported surveys provide an important complement to official police-reported data on crime.
