---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:09 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on ocean carbon sequestration and its use in Canada.

Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good morning, everybody. My name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and chair of this committee.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.

Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me or to the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.

Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.

Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.

Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.

Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.

Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Translation]

Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.

[English]

Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

Senator Busson: Bev Busson, from British Columbia. Welcome.

The Chair: On September 24, 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on ocean carbon sequestration and its use in Canada. Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following individuals: Ken Paul, Member of the Wolastoqey Nation at Neqotkuk; Neil Craik, Professor of Law, Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo, joining us online; Na’im Merchant, Executive Director at Carbon Removal Canada, also joining us online; and Romany Webb, Deputy Director, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, also joining us online.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank each of you for joining us here today. I understand that each of you have some opening remarks. Following those remarks, I’m sure members of the committee will have some questions for you.

Mr. Paul, the floor is yours.

Ken Paul, Member of the Wolastoqey Nation at Neqotkuk, as an individual:

[Indigenous language spoken]

My name is Ken Paul. I’m from the Wolastoqey Nation at Neqotkuk, which is located at the Tobique First Nation in New Brunswick. I’m coming here to hopefully bring some perspective from some of the Indigenous communities with whom I’ve been working with respect to carbon capture in the ocean sector and hopefully to bring some light to ways we can be more inclusive of the Indigenous communities.

When I was first involved with this kind of work two years ago, it was through some of the researchers. I was approached and they said they wanted to do some testing in this area. They started to explain to me what ocean carbon capture was, and my first question was, “What will be the impact on fish?” To this day, nobody has really been able to answer that question.

I know, in our Indigenous coastal communities, that’s going to be the very first question — actually, it might be the second question. The first question will be, “What is ocean carbon capture?”

There must be good communication pieces around this. There also have to be a lot of measures put in place so we can understand the environmental impact of some of these interventions that will happen around carbon capture.

I’ve been involved with some national and international workshops here through NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and with some of the work through some European Union groups. There’s a lot of focus now on the science aspects, basically on how to deal with the chemistry of reducing acidity by introducing alkalinity either through fertilization or through engineering processes.

This is really important. Many people aren’t putting importance on nature-based solutions, such as growing and replenishing kelp forests, eelgrass, mangroves or any other possible plant-based activities in the ocean sector.

I realize we are facing a crisis. The ocean is the biggest carbon sink we have on our planet. If we decided globally to just deal with plant-based and nature-based solutions, we probably couldn’t catch up with the amount of carbon that we’re continuing to pump into the atmosphere.

The other thing I find is that people are not talking about reducing our carbon use as a society. It’s kind of like we see a leaky tap in the corner and are trying to figure out better ways to mop up the water without actually dealing with how to fix the leaky tap.

My belief, and I hear this when I talk to my colleagues in Indigenous communities, is that we actually have to use all of these different solutions to help alleviate the problem. We can’t focus just on one sector.

I’ve also noticed in these conversations that a lot of companies that are starting to be supported in this work automatically start talking about carbon credits. There will be an economic value for carbon credits. I’m just hoping that won’t be the motivation for people doing this. It really should be about doing what’s best for the ocean and the planet, rather than doing what’s best for shareholders.

As far as I know, there are no regulations anywhere. There are none in the United States. I don’t think there are any in Europe either. If we are able to get into developing regulations here in Canada, carbon credits would be part of regulations, and the Indigenous communities would be very much written into those benefits of carbon benefits as well. What will happen here will impact Indigenous rights in the marine sector. You could talk about the health of the fish habitat or some of these other activities that will take place when you start doing these interventions. They will impact our traditional way of life and the health of the planet.

As the final point that I’m hoping people can understand, we in the Indigenous communities don’t look at the ocean as a thing. We don’t look at it as an object that has a problem we need to solve. We understand the ocean as a living being with a spirit. We have a relationship — everybody on the planet has a relationship — with the ocean because, at the very least, it affects our weather. Anywhere on the planet, you’re affected by weather. This is why we’re seeing more violent hurricanes, atmospheric rivers, droughts and forest fires. They’re becoming more severe and more frequent.

In Atlantic Canada, where I live, there have been four hurricanes since 2003 where we’ve never had a hurricane before. This has become an annual thing to be concerned about. In the fall of the year, we have to pay attention to these things because the coastal communities are vulnerable to this. Many of our Indigenous communities are coastal communities.

Instead of understanding the ocean as a thing that needs to be corrected, we want to make sure that we have this understanding that the ocean is a living being and spirit with which we have a relationship. We’re hoping that all of our interventions will work in the best interests of the ocean, which will really work in the best interests of ourselves.

I just wanted to make those statements as my opening remarks as I try to bring out some perspectives from the Indigenous communities.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paul. We will now go to Dr. Craik.

Neil Craik, Professor of Law, Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, senators.

Thank you for inviting me to contribute to the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on this important topic. The University of Waterloo is located on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River.

My current research focuses on the international law and policy of large-scale climate interventions and marine environmental protection law. I am part of a lab, the Waterloo Climate Interventions Strategies Lab, that develops decision-support tools that help policy makers address decisions regarding complex climate responses under conditions of deep uncertainty.

Our lab recently published a policy brief on marine carbon dioxide removal in Canada, which I have provided to the committee clerk.

In my opening remarks, I wish to provide an overview of the sorts of things that Canadian regulators will need in order to address the governance demands and then where that regulation is currently found, the supply. I will discuss these over four areas.

The first area is environmental protection. Marine carbon dioxide removal, or mCDR, involves the placing of materials into the ocean environment. This must be done in a way that avoids or minimizes the potential harm to the environment. The central international regulatory instrument that addresses the placement of material into the ocean is the London Protocol, to which Canada is a party but the U.S. is not. The London Protocol includes a 2013 amendment that addresses marine geoengineering. It is important for this committee to understand that the London Protocol amendment, while adopted by the parties, is not in force. For it to become binding, it must be ratified by 36 parties. To date, it has only received six ratifications. Canada has not ratified the amendment. If and when these provisions come into force, they would be implemented through the disposal at sea provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The amendment only addresses ocean fertilization at present but has been proposed to be expanded to include other methods of mCDR, including ocean alkalinity and macroalgae. The London Protocol only covers disposal from vessels, aircraft and platforms, so would not include depositing material via sewage outflows or land-based activities, such as direct ocean capture. The structure of the regulation is that a listed activity is prohibited, but allows for an exception of “legitimate scientific research.” Research activity must be subject to an assessment process and is permitted. The assessment process is — in my view — robust and does not impose undue obstacles for responsible research. Other regulatory tools such as the Fisheries Act and provincial water regulation may also play a role.

The second area is monitoring, reporting and verification, or MRV, of mCDR activities. This applies to environmental parameters and may be part of the permitting process. It also relates to ensuring that the carbon removal claims have integrity. I will make two quick points here: First, MRV in an ocean environment is very complex because the actual removal of carbon from the atmosphere is indirect and depends on ocean-atmosphere interactions. These MRV standards will likely be developed by industry with government oversight and will ideally be harmonized at the international level.

The second point is that, at scale, MRV will likely require a significant investment in ocean observation infrastructure.

A third area is what I would call user rights and benefits. It is managing social and economic impacts, use rights and rights to benefit, which may include benefit sharing with Indigenous nations where mCDR activities occur in areas subject to traditional resource activities or traditional territory, or possibly interstate issues such as transboundary impacts and interstate benefit sharing. Here the Oceans Act could play an important role in managing use conflicts through integrated oceans management. The London Protocol assessment may address transboundary issues, but may be insufficient to manage large-scale ongoing transboundary impacts.

Finally, the research process itself requires regulatory attention. mCDR is likely to be controversial, and the key aspect of its success will be public confidence in the underlying science. Transparency and consultative research processes are fundamental to facilitating an evidence-based public debate. The London Protocol amendment addresses these issues and includes requirements that scientific findings not be influenced by financial activity, which is an area of potential concern because there is a practice of financing research and development through the preselling of carbon credits that may be issued in the future arising from carbon dioxide removal.

A further element here is the developing of criteria by which mCDR activities could proceed from experimentation to deployment. You heard this from the industry witnesses who spoke to the need for regulatory predictability from a capital investment perspective, particularly considering the deployment prohibition that is part of the London Protocol approach. This requires careful attention to both the risks and benefits of mCDR. There are several international research initiatives looking at the development of assessment criteria for deployment.

In summary, the research environment is complex, but proactive attention to the range of regulatory issues will be an important facilitator of the development of a legitimate mCDR industry in Canada.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Craik. Ms. Webb, you have the floor.

Romany Webb, Deputy Director, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University, as an individual: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing.

I recently had the honour of serving on a U.S. National Academies of Sciences committee charged with developing a research strategy for ocean carbon dioxide removal, or CDR. After a multi-year review, the committee determined as follows:

Ocean CDR approaches could . . . contribute to a portfolio of climate response strategies needed to limit climate change and surface ocean acidification over coming decades and centuries.

Importantly, however, the committee emphasized that ocean CDR is, at best, a complement to, and not a substitute for, emissions reductions, which must continue to be the primary focus of climate change mitigation efforts.

A variety of ocean CDR approaches have been proposed. While several appear to hold great potential for large-scale, durable carbon storage, further research is needed to fully evaluate their efficacy and impacts. Canada is emerging as a hub of research activity, with field trials already under way.

As an example of research occurring in Canada, the Sabin Center has been partnering with Ocean Networks Canada and other research institutions on the so-called Solid Carbon project, which is investigating the potential for sub-seabed carbon storage in ocean basalts. Through that project and other work, the Sabin Center has researched ocean CDR governance both at the international level and domestically in Canada and several other countries. In both contexts, we have found existing governance regimes to be underdeveloped and recommended reforms designed to facilitate needed ocean CDR research while ensuring it occurs in a scientifically valid, safe, responsible and just way.

One key governance challenge in the ocean CDR space is fragmentation. As you already heard from Dr. Craik, due to the shared nature of the ocean, a large body of international law has been developed to govern ocean-based activities. Those activities may — depending on where they occur — also be subject to regional, national and/or subnational laws.

At the international level, there are currently no binding international agreements that specifically and comprehensively address ocean CDR. The agreements that make up the global climate change regime — the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement — implicitly support the use of ocean CDR as a climate change mitigation strategy. They do not, however, establish detailed rules governing the conduct of ocean CDR projects.

As you heard from Dr. Craik, the parties to other international agreements — most notably the 1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol — have attempted to develop such rules. In the mid-2000s, the parties to the London Protocol agreed to a series of amendments addressing sub-seabed carbon dioxide storage, but those amendments have only partially entered into force. Another amendment, which was adopted in 2013, but is yet to enter into force, is intended to establish a governance framework for certain marine geoengineering activities. Only one ocean CDR technique, ocean fertilization, is currently covered by the 2013 amendment. As you heard, the parties have discussed expanding the 2013 amendment to cover other techniques, but that has not yet occurred.

Further work is needed to develop an effective international governance regime for ocean CDR. Canada is well placed to advance the development of such a regime. Canada currently co-chairs a committee, established under the London Convention and Protocol, to address legal issues associated with marine geoengineering. Moreover, given its experience with early field trials, Canada can help to inform the international community about the state of the science with respect to ocean CDR and the potential risks and benefits associated with expanding research.

The field trials and other scientific research should also inform Canada’s domestic regulation of ocean CDR. In 2023, I co-edited a book that analyzed the domestic laws governing ocean CDR activities in Canada and six other countries. The analysis revealed that ocean CDR projects in Canadian waters may be subject to a variety of laws that impose overlapping permit and other requirements. There may be benefits to establishing new legal frameworks that specifically and comprehensively address ocean CDR. Short of that, existing laws may need to be amended.

For example, while Canada is a party to the London Protocol and has implemented it domestically via the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, that act does not currently incorporate certain provisions of the protocol dealing with sub-seabed carbon dioxide storage.

To sum up, while ocean CDR has the potential to mitigate climate change, further research is needed to fully evaluate different techniques. Establishing effective governance frameworks at both the international and domestic levels is essential to facilitate needed research while ensuring it occurs in a safe and responsible way.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to your questions.

Na’im Merchant, Executive Director, Carbon Removal Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. First, I would like to thank the entire committee both for having me here today and for choosing to study this issue. Carbon Removal Canada is an independent, philanthropically funded, technologically agnostic group in Canada that is focused on scaling up our carbon removal sector in a responsible manner.

From the outset, I would like to make it very clear we are not an industry association. We work with government, Indigenous nations, academia, corporate actors and many others to determine the best possible way forward for permanent carbon removal in Canada.

I helped to establish Carbon Removal Canada because I had a thesis that Canada has numerous natural advantages that could make it a leader in permanent carbon removal and that, in fact, Canada should be a global leader. We have the longest coastlines, extensive agricultural land, significant geological sequestration potential and a culture of innovation. These things together mean that Canada can do numerous different types of permanent carbon removal, from direct air capture to carbon mineralization to biochar to ocean-based carbon removal methods, like ocean alkalinity enhancements or direct ocean removal.

As an organization, we focus solely on permanent carbon removal, and this means methods of storing carbon for 1,000 years or more.

As I’m sure you’ve heard over the past few committee meetings, carbon removal is different from traditional point-source carbon capture. Whereas carbon capture focuses on preventing emissions from leaving a facility’s flue stack, carbon removal seeks to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that was emitted at any time since the start of the Industrial Age.

If the atmosphere is a bathtub that is filling up with water, then carbon capture and emissions reductions are turning off the taps, whereas carbon removal is trying to pull the plug and drain the water.

Canada has already begun to demonstrate a leadership position in both carbon removal in general and ocean carbon removal in particular. Our first policy report, Ready for Removal, mapped the initial landscape of carbon removal companies in Canada. Over 70 companies that are developing carbon removal technologies are participating in their supply chains.

I speak to international companies all the time that tell me Canada is a top market in which to do business. I see Canada’s leadership in carbon removal as a possible antidote to some of the productivity challenges that have been talked about in the media over the past few months. There is an opportunity to bring more Canadian intellectual property to market and have it operate in Canada.

Governments in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, are starting to understand the role that permanent carbon removal must play in their climate plans. At the federal level, the government announced it will procure $10 million worth of permanent carbon removal credits to reduce the emissions intensity of certain operations. It has included indirect air capture within its carbon capture utilization and storage tax credit, while the Quebec government has invested directly into carbon removal companies.

Additionally, Alberta and British Columbia are both currently developing offset protocols that will incorporate carbon removal methodologies in compliance programs.

However, if the ocean is one of our largest carbon removal tools, then we must start to tangibly prioritize policies and programs that treat it as such while protecting its integrity. We have recommended the following concrete steps to various governments.

First, create a standalone innovation challenge for carbon removal. At $50 million over four years, we think this program could help fund demonstration projects and rapidly increase our knowledge of what works and what doesn’t. We think the results from these types of trials, run in partnership with government and academia, could help answer a lot of the world’s questions about the effectiveness and safety of particular methods including ocean carbon removal.

Second, let’s make ocean carbon removal technologies eligible for the Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit to offset upfront infrastructure costs.

Third, launch a consultation on developing a carbon removal target as part of Canada’s future climate goals. Carbon Removal Canada believes that a consultation on this topic and hopefully one day setting an actual target are important long-term signals to the private sector and researchers that the Government of Canada sees a future for these technologies in reaching our country’s climate goals.

Finally, I would say this study is critically important. I hope it is replicated across other Senate committees. Within the last two weeks, we have seen the United States government release a strategy for ocean carbon removal research. It is meant to accelerate their research of these technologies to ensure they are both safe and effective, while helping to determine which approaches will be viable climate solutions.

This is in addition to billions of dollars that the U.S. Department of Energy has awarded to numerous carbon removal companies and financial incentives like the 45Q tax credit.

Similarly, within the last two months, the European Council has approved an EU-level carbon removal certification framework meant to help integrate carbon removal into their compliance markets over the long term while also providing hundreds of millions of dollars in research, development and deployment funding to carbon removal technologies.

Canada has the opportunity to make a global difference, and we must not give up our lead to other countries. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s proceedings. I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you to all of our witnesses for your opening remarks.

By the looks of the list here, you’ve generated many questions from senators, pretty much including everyone here at the table. Our first question goes to our deputy chair, Senator Busson.

Senator Busson: My question is specifically for Ken Paul.

Mr. Paul, while appearing before this committee on November 7 of this year, Anya Waite from Ocean Frontier Institute explained that, in Canada, gaining social licence is absolutely critical but that Canada wasn’t quite there yet.

Community engagement in social licence in communities was also highlighted by Galen McKinley, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

What actions do you think should be taken with Indigenous communities, given your amazing description of the relationship that Indigenous peoples have with the ocean? What can be done to increase the sector’s social licence with Indigenous communities? Clearly, if we’re going to prioritize this project moving forward as a solution or part of a solution to our climate crisis, we need to know how to engage Indigenous communities.

Mr. Paul: Our communities are all very independent. They have very complex community dynamics with respect to the way they interact with each other, their political structures and their community priorities.

One thing that I’ve been trying to get off the ground in this sector is trying to, first of all, work on education materials that make sense to our communities. I always try to think about it this way: If I had my mom here in the room and tried to explain this stuff to her, what are the words I would use? She is one of our community members.

Another helpful idea is to have small-scale demonstration projects done in partnership with Indigenous communities.

Once you have the education process in place, involve the communities themselves in the deployment of some of the proposed materials, picking out areas and involving the communities within the monitoring programs. They will have community knowledge — Indigenous knowledge systems, if you will — about the dynamics of the vegetation, wildlife, fish and hydrodynamics in certain areas. If they are involved with the actual process of developing where test sites can be placed, seeing the difference over periods of time, reporting back within the community and sharing that with the researchers would be a better way of not only getting social licence, and it would also improve the methodologies.

Right now, it’s a wide-open field. There are no sidebars for this. People will find this when they start engaging Indigenous communities. Two things that I see consistently within communities are their strong environmental ethic and that they are always thinking about the long-term sustainability. That is the concept of the seven generations. They will also be talking about the benefits that may come to community members.

It is a little different in our mainstream societies where companies may not have that same strength, whereas the people involved with the projects will receive the benefits. In the Indigenous communities, our chiefs and councils and community members will always talk about who will be able to receive employment and training, as well as what will happen to food security and all of these other activities impacted by some of these interventions.

Senator Busson: Thank you.

Senator Ravalia: Thank you to all of our witnesses present today.

Given that we are at a relative infancy of this huge potential project, Mr. Merchant, what do you feel are the key scientific uncertainties or gaps in knowledge regarding ocean sequestration? How can research help us to address these before scaling up these projects?

We have heard some positivity out of the smaller projects being done out of Halifax Harbour, the alkalinization and the positive impacts. What further research do we need, and how, importantly, can we include some of the references that Mr. Paul has made to Indigenous knowledge?

Mr. Merchant: Thank you. That is a great question. We think about this at Carbon Removal Canada frequently.

There are a few key research priority areas when we think about the needs for ocean carbon removal. Some them have been referenced by other witnesses today.

One of them is the importance of measurement reporting and verification and improving our ability through different sensors, models and other innovations and infrastructure to get better at measuring the impact of ocean carbon removal methods.

The second priority area is understanding the ecological impacts of different ocean carbon removal methods. Unless we do research and demonstration projects at a larger scale than we are now, we will not achieve an understanding of what those environmental impacts are going to be.

Third, this issue around social licence has been brought up. There is a lot of interesting research that could be done in the social sciences alongside Indigenous nations on the acceptability of ocean carbon removal methods, and also, critically, what can be learned from Indigenous communities across Canada, particularly in coastal areas, as it relates to interactions with ocean systems and how that can be integrated into the development of ocean carbon removal projects. Those are the three major areas we see as key research priorities for ocean carbon removal.

One last element is that ocean carbon removal and any carbon removal methods will require energy and supply chains to make the projects happen. How do we reduce the environmental impact of those supply chains that will feed into them, whether it is providing the feed stock for ocean carbon methods or powering equipment that is used for ocean-based carbon removal methods? How do we lower the costs and energy requirements for those things?

That is more of a down-the-line research priority as we think about the larger scale, but one we should certainly be paying attention to.

Senator Ravalia: I will switch gears and direct this question to Professor Craik and Deputy Director Webb. How do you see the role of international treaties such as the Paris Agreement, COP 29 and others in regulating and incentivizing ocean sequestration? What additional legal instruments do you think will make this a global partnership?

Mr. Craik: I can start, and Ms. Webb can pick up the pieces.

The major function for the Paris Agreement is that it is going to set targets. One of the things Canada can do, and I think Canada should start thinking about doing, is identifying separate carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, targets in its nationally determined contribution — the commitment we make under the Paris Agreement — and then eventually start identifying and breaking that down so that we achieve a better understanding of how we are delivering carbon removal both terrestrially and at a marine level.

The Paris Agreement regulates the international exchange of carbon reduction through Article 6 and will set standards for the acceptability of that.

The Paris Agreement will play an important role in the accounting for mCDR and the MRV processes for those credits to be accepted at the international level. I see the Paris Agreement operating on the credit side of things and managing the carbon.

The environmental side of things is governed by a number of agreements. Principally, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea regulates the jurisdiction of who can do what and where in the oceans.

My view is that countries are free to undertake marine carbon dioxide removals in their exclusive economic zones. I view mCDR as a form of resource development. Other people have a different view on that, but that is my view of the convention.

However, mCDR could occur in areas beyond national jurisdiction. There will need to be international regulation regarding that. This committee is probably aware that the international community recently negotiated the Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, or BBNJ, Agreement, which will address environmental issues in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It has a role to play through environmental impact assessment, and, of course, the London Convention and London Protocol have a role to play, which we are beginning to see develop.

The question that this committee ought to ask is this: Why hasn’t the London Protocol amendment received much support to date? Six ratifications in 11 years are not very many. Are there things within the 2013 amendment that are causing states some pause, and do we need to think about a slightly different approach within the amendment that is going to attract greater state take-up of the London Protocol?

I will leave it there. Thank you.

Ms. Webb: I agree with Professor Craik’s comments. One thing to note about the London Protocol amendment — the 2013 amendment that has not yet entered into force — is that it currently only applies to one ocean CDR approach, ocean fertilization, and a variety of other approaches are being considered. So, in addition to thinking about why the 2013 amendment has not yet entered into force, we also need to think about the role of the London Convention and Protocol in regulating other ocean CDR approaches, and how we should approach those other ocean CDR approaches, because currently there is a gap in international governance with respect to those approaches.

The only other thing I would add to Professor Craik’s remarks is that I think he highlighted the complex international legal landscape that applies here, with all of these different treaty regimes having potential relevance. One particular challenge that creates is that we are seeing a lot of momentum behind ocean CDR coming from the Global Climate Change Regime, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, and the Paris Agreement, and developments under those treaties supporting and seeking to push forward these activities, and the other more environmentally focused agreements like the London Convention and Protocol placing some restrictions on those activities and there being more uncertainty on how they will apply. We see this disconnect developing in the international legal regime that will have to be resolved if we are to move forward with these activities in a safe way.

[Translation]

Senator Aucoin: For now, I will focus on Ms. Webb.

You’ve talked about all the existing protocols and international laws. I think you also said that Canada was very well positioned and advanced, even though it didn’t agree to the London protocol on prevention of marine pollution.

What could convince Canada to join the protocol?

If I understand correctly, to have a regulatory regime, some Canadian laws would have to be changed. Another option would be rewriting a law or having a separate law that would encompass all the technology for sequestering carbon in the oceans based on the methods advocated. Could you comment on that? My question is for both witnesses. Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Webb: Thank you for the question.

I will start with a couple points of clarification. Canada is a party to the London Protocol and has implemented it domestically through a domestic statute called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which includes a division dealing with ocean dumping or disposal at sea. Canada has not yet ratified the 2013 amendment; that is one important distinction.

Even so, Canada is very well positioned to play a leadership role in the international discussions around how to move forward, how to advance progress under the 2013 amendment and how to think about governing ocean CDR activities more broadly.

I say that for a number of reasons, but one key reason is that Canada has been co-chairing a committee established under the London Convention and Protocol to look at the regulation of a range of ocean CDR approaches and how they should be dealt with under that convention. That puts Canada in a unique position to play a leadership role in those international discussions.

On the domestic front, as Professor Craik and I mentioned, a number of domestic environmental laws would apply to ocean CDR activities in Canadian waters. As in many countries, including here in the U.S., where I am, there is no purpose-built legal framework for ocean CDR, so ocean CDR activities end up being regulated under this patchwork of other environmental laws. That is not a problem in and of itself, but it does create potential for confusion and complexity because you have all these different applicable laws which project developers and researchers have to navigate as they look to move forward with projects.

As we have seen here in the U.S., it may be in Canada’s interests to study whether that existing landscape makes sense and whether it should be replaced with a purpose-built framework, but even if it isn’t, it will be important to look at how those individual laws will apply to these different activities, whether they are fit for purpose, whether they enable needed research and whether they include appropriate safeguards and protections to avoid environmental or social harms.

Mr. Craik: I would just re-emphasize that, currently, different technologies would be subject to different forms of regulation. Regarding ocean alkalinity, you heard from Planetary Technologies that right now they are using a sewage outfall to deposit materials, which wouldn’t be caught under the ocean dumping regime because ocean dumping refers to the placement of material from a ship or an aircraft. On-land activities would be subject to a different set of regulations.

This committee and the federal government will have to think about the types of things for which a uniform approach across different mCDR techniques would be beneficial. Critically, research regulation is needed to ensure that all of the different research being undertaken complies with the basic requirements that we are seeing talked about in this committee. It needs to be open, transparent and subject to peer review, with a strong methodology, a commitment to publish that research and clear rules around the ensuring that economic interests arising from the activity are not influencing the research outcomes.

Those are important things that should be done across the board. There may be very specific regulatory things required on a technology-by-technology basis.

[Translation]

Senator Aucoin: My question is for Mr. Paul. I will continue in the same vein as Senator Busson. You talked about how Indigenous communities should be involved from the start. You also mentioned that each community has its own way of operating. Doesn’t that make consultation difficult if you have to go to every Indigenous community to talk about projects that could affect them? That could mean that companies trying to do research will be doing a lot of that kind of work instead of engaging in a broader process. Could you add something to that? Thank you. I really enjoyed your opening remarks.

[English]

Mr. Paul: Yes. It will be difficult to do that with every community.

With respect to methodology, that is separate from the creation of regulations. With regulations, there is a legal duty to consult. It is based on Indigenous rights, which are affirmed by the Constitution and by Supreme Court decisions. We have treaty nations on the coasts. We have other nations who do not have treaties but they use inherent rights.

With respect to understanding the methodologies, companies can work with communities who are in a good position to be able to work in this field. Not every community will, first of all, understand what this is about. A number of communities will certainly be opposed because of the question of what will happen to the fish.

There are other communities who do have increased scientific and technological capacities. I know the companies would also have to look at geographic areas, like different ecosystems. Certain communities will put their hand up and say they will give this a try and go forward with this and try to see what the impacts of this will be. Hopefully, out of some of those smaller test cases, there will be better information to understand the technologies, maybe enhance or change the technologies and hopefully to develop guidelines that could be used to help inform the use and creation of regulations. All the communities are different. Some communities would be a little more open to this. Some would be opposed. With the ones that are open to this, these are the ones that could be potentially good partners to help advance the science in this area.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you to all the witnesses.

Chair, it may come as a surprise to you that I have only two questions today.

I wish to share with you part of my thinking, to frame my questions. I found all of your testimony to be very informative and also consistent with themes that we have heard. I wish to review the themes before I ask the question.

One theme is that mCDR is an emerging technology which we must approach with both enthusiasm and caution but also realize there is time urgency here.

The second theme is that carbon removal is complementary to but not a replacement for carbon reduction strategies.

The third theme is that mCDR itself, as a field, is incredibly complex.

Professor Craik, Table 1 in your document is excellent; it is a lovely summary of the complexities.

At this time, Canada’s approach to mCDR is fragmented within government and across industry and academia. There are countless things happening. It is like watching Brownian movement in a vacuum.

The question here is this: Is the promise of mCDR at this point such that, strategically, Canada should create a central entity responsible for addressing mCDR as a unique opportunity for this country? That entity would be tasked with doing strategic planning and directing research, policy development and legal frameworks related to mCDR. Are we at the point where we need to move to this in Canada? Second, if you feel that way, where should this entity be located, and to whom should it be responsible? Everybody can answer these questions.

The Chair: I thank Senator Kutcher for the question. He had a long preamble but the question was short. Ms. Webb, do you want to start?

Ms. Webb: There would be real value in better coordinating work in the mCDR space, both within Canada and internationally. As you said, we have these significant unanswered research questions about whether and how mCDR might be used, and we want to make sure that they can be answered quickly but also safely. There is a need to coordinate work to ensure that we are not duplicating effort, that we are operating efficiently and that we are moving the ball forward quickly.

Having a centralized entity to coordinate work within Canada would be very valuable. I think that entity should recognize that mCDR work is progressing in many other countries and would need to be closely coordinating with equivalent entities in those other countries. I will leave it there.

Mr. Paul: I’m hoping we’re not going down a path where we’re treating all the oceans as a single entity. Canada has three oceans with three very complex dynamics. The communities and social structures on these different coasts are very different. It would serve Canada better — if they’re going to start centralizing these things — to have three different entities to deal with the three coasts. You can have a coordinating role between them to share them outward.

My whole thinking on this when I talk to the communities is that I’m concerned that we don’t think about the complexities of the oceans themselves. Migratory fish species are going to be impacted. Large ocean currents are going to be impacted. The growth of algae and other plants are going to be impacted. They’re already being impacted by some of the interventions we’re doing with energy in the ocean sector, shipping and our own commercial ocean activity. I haven’t thought this through yet, but my reaction to that would be that it would be better to have separate entities dealing with these large ocean spaces rather than having one central entity dealing with them all.

Mr. Craik: Thank you. One way to think about this is to think about who needs to be around the table for these discussions. We can do this in a very formalized, governmental way, or it can be done a little more informally.

In oceans practice in Canada, we have used things called communities of practice, where the government has funded communities for things like coastal risk assessment and flooding, where you’re bringing stakeholders, industry and government people together to discuss many of the issues that you raised, Senator Kutcher, such as these: What are the research priorities? What are the funding priorities? What are the kinds of things we need to do? Which stakeholders need to be consulted? I think this could be a good first step, and one of the recommendations we make in that policy brief is to create an entity such as this that could operate on a national level.

I take Mr. Paul’s point about the fact that we have different oceans and different communities, and there may be some benefit in thinking about that, but I also think that we need to think about this as a national project in terms of funding responsibilities and research priorities.

With the committee’s permission, I would invite Ms. Webb to comment on the fact that the U.S. has created a fast-track process for mCDR, and the White House issued this month a research strategy on mCDR. It’s important to look at what comparable countries are doing. It will become particularly important for Canada to reach out and think of ways to develop collaborative activities with the U.S. because we’re going to be doing these activities in a shared ocean space, and it’s going to be important that we find mechanisms to address that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Craik. I’m going to go to Ms. Webb to follow up on that, and then to you, Mr. Merchant.

Ms. Webb: The federal government established the Fast Track Action Committee on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal, or mCDR FTAC, which includes representatives from a number of different federal government departments that have some expertise or jurisdiction relevant to mCDR. That interagency working group, in effect, recently published a research strategy for advancing mCDR in the United States. It covers the scientific research needed to answer key questions about mCDR. It includes a strong focus on social science research and the need for broader public engagement with these topics and how that might be advanced. It also addresses regulatory considerations and ways to streamline permitting and other ways to simplify the regulation of mCDR research activities.

That committee will continue to operate. It was originally only established for 18 months and was due to expire last month, but the report calls for the continuation of the committee to continue playing this coordinating function across the federal government to ensure that we are approaching mCDR in a coherent way that advances work in parallel, along multiple work streams that need attention, if we are to determine whether and how mCDR might be used.

Mr. Merchant: Thank you. I mostly agree with what has been said so far, especially regarding the need to get more stakeholders around the table and to take regional considerations into account when thinking about the deployment of mCDR.

I slightly deviate from Professor Craik in that I think a central entity of sorts is needed to play a coordinating role to support, make sense of regulations, help advance a research agenda and engage in issues around social licence for mCDR. This should be a formal entity. I think it’s important in order to actually get demonstration projects often ground so that, while a community of practice can be an important input into what is necessary and what is working and what is not in the field of ocean-based carbon removal, it’s important that this is an entity that can actually help get demonstration projects moving in a way that a community of practice may not have the ability to do.

The formal creation of a central entity to advance mCDR in Canada that would involve Natural Resources Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other critical stakeholders is important, but if it doesn’t have a formal mandate, I don’t think it will translate as effectively into getting new projects off the ground. We need that urgency in the situation we’re in.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merchant.

Senator Kutcher: I will not make long observations or a preamble on this one, but I will note that Canada is notorious for being a country of pilot projects and a lack of coordinating strategy. I will just make that observation.

My second question is about a different area here that was mentioned, which is public support. How important is public support in understanding mCDR at this point?

I raise this is both because it was identified in testimony but, also, a recent report in Canada, something called the emissions cap announcement, showed that 50% of Canadians have never even heard about it. The 50% who had heard about it were equally divided in their opinions, one third for, one third against and one third having no idea.

So we’ve noticed that the ability to garner public support for innovations in dealing with climate change is highly dependent upon the public understanding what’s happening. In a polarized political climate, that’s even more problematic.

What are your thoughts on public support for mCDR? If it’s important, what routes can be used to help inform the public? What roles can Indigenous communities play in the development of public support for and understanding of mCDR?

Those questions are for everybody.

Mr. Paul: Nothing moves through any Indigenous community unless the community supports it. Our chiefs and council are closer to our communities than many of our political leaders in the provincial, federal and territorial governments.

As I mentioned, the big thing that’s important now is the education process. If I went to any one of our communities and asked them what they know about carbon capture and sequestration, they’d have no idea what I was talking about. But if we explained it in the context that we have a big problem here with climate change, which everybody understands, and that this is one of the biggest methodologies to approach that — the ocean is the biggest carbon sink we have on the planet. We have to figure out different ways to alleviate the release of carbon. If we start with that context, we will have better community support for these kinds of things.

Our community members, our knowledge keepers and elders, want to share their information and perspectives. What a lot of people don’t understand about the communities is that there are different value systems within the communities themselves. Until you actually engage, you’re not going to get that community support. There are legal mechanisms in that whatever we’re going to do in the ocean sector is going to impact rights, and we don’t want to keep entering into these legal battles over things where we should be trying to figure out ways to build bridges to actually help everyone together.

I think short-term things, like small-scale testing, is fine. We have to test to figure out what this is all about and what the impacts would be, primarily on fish. But once we start to get that information, the communication aspect is going to be critically important for Indigenous communities.

Mr. Merchant: I would agree with all of what Mr. Paul just said.

In terms of a broader communication strategy around ocean carbon removal, how we talk about it and our messaging needs to be focused on communities that are impacted by the deployment of these solutions. Right now, marine carbon removal in general is being deployed on a very small scale. Focusing our efforts on communicating about these solutions with Indigenous nations and coastal communities should be our priority and should form the foundation of future communication that is more publicly available.

Right now, given that the focus is the need for demonstration projects in the relevant geographies, our communications ought to stay focused on those communities, with an understanding that, in the longer term, we’ll need a larger public messaging strategy that goes beyond that.

We need to start at the level where folks are proximal to these projects.

Ms. Webb: I would echo something that Mr. Merchant just alluded to, which is that there’s an important distinction to be drawn between what you would think of as public engagement around the idea of mCDR, generally, what it involves and the role it might play in climate change mitigation efforts, and then engagement around specific projects, whether they be research or deployment, down the road. It’s important to think about those separately while recognizing the links between them.

On the education front, it’s going to be really important that education around mCDR and the role it might play is impartial and balanced. For that to happen, we need the right messengers to be providing that education. A really important role for government to play is around communication and education for mCDR. The private sector entities that are developing in this space should play a lesser role there.

For the engagement around individual projects, I agree entirely with Mr. Paul’s comments. I would just emphasize that, often, when we think about engaging around individual projects, we think of that as a one-way process, as a project developer or researcher going to a community and explaining what they plan to do and how it might impact that community or detail the benefits it might have. In fact, engagement should be a two-way process whereby there’s an exchange of information between the community and the researcher.

That starts to look more like what Mr. Paul was talking about earlier in co-design and co-execution of this research so Indigenous communities and others can be directly involved in the programs. That’s good not only from a social licence perspective, but it can also improve the quality of these projects. Those communities, as Mr. Paul was saying, have local knowledge that can inform the ways we design and execute these projects. It’s really important.

Mr. Craik: I don’t have a lot to add. I would just point out that there are some existing entities that could play a role, notably the Net-Zero Advisory Body. CDR is the net of net zero, and I think the Net-Zero Advisory Body could play an important role in beginning to start that discussion at a national level.

Then, I think some realistic discussions around co-benefits are an important part of that. They really need to be realistic. There are a lot of claims around the co-benefits of different kinds of mCDR, both physically and economically. Those are very important.

In other areas, we find that co-benefits are tremendously influential in affecting public attitudes toward these kinds of activities, but they’re poorly understood in this area.

The Chair: Thank you. Just to make sure we’re clear, we’re still on our first round.

Senator Ataullahjan: We’re talking about conversations and collaborations, so my question to you, Mr. Paul, is this: Do you feel the Indigenous communities are part of the discussions? I mean respectful conversations. We have much to learn. You have thousands of years of experience being on the land. Do you feel you’re being heard?

Mr. Paul: It’s not being heard, but there’s no inclusion of Indigenous communities in any of these projects yet. There has been talk. There was an annual meeting. I was invited to that in Washington, D.C., in April. They talked about working with First Nations and tribal nations, but they haven’t quite done that yet. There are some beginnings of that.

I would say that the vast majority of Indigenous communities have no idea that this is really happening right now. I’m trying to help facilitate some of that through some of the work I’m doing. For example, the Assembly of First Nations is meeting just across the road — all the chiefs and technicians in Canada — and this is not one of the topics that’s part of the assembly.

Senator Ataullahjan: Why isn’t it a topic? We are hearing that when they speak, they speak of Indigenous communities, yet you feel you’re not being involved.

Mr. Paul: The emphasis right now seems to be more about the science and how to make this work. There is a lot more research that has to take place there. The science community in general really needs a lot of help to work with Indigenous communities. They seem to be the entry point, and everybody wants to get at the Indigenous knowledge aspect of the communities. It’s a little bit of a stereotype, because there are a lot more contributions that the communities can make in addition to that.

I would say that the vast majority of people who talk about traditional knowledge don’t even know what that is, including people in my communities. If I go to my elders and ask them to share traditional knowledge, they will say they don’t know what that is because it’s not terminology that we came up with. But if you ask them how to spear eels, they will say that I need to get a stick like this and a rake like this, and we go to this area at this time of year and at this time of day, et cetera.

Because this whole field is in its infancy, Indigenous peoples haven’t been included in it yet. I know that a lot of the groups involved in this are talking about this and preparing for it. They don’t know how to take those initial steps. This is why doing small demonstration projects will be very helpful, because when communities are involved with some of these projects, they actually share that information with other Indigenous communities so they can talk about the pros and cons of some of the work.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I’m trying to pull together testimony that we’ve heard from Mr. Merchant and testimony that we’ve heard from you, Mr. Paul, and I’m building on the questions that Senator Ataullahjan asked.

We have heard consistently from, I think, pretty much every science side witness about the importance of social licence. At one of our previous meetings, I actually asked a panel of scientists where social licence was in terms of priorities, and they replied that it was the main priority. They had to have and develop the social licence and the interaction with communities in order to move forward.

I’m just noticing today, Mr. Merchant, we have you with us, and you’re representing a relatively new non-profit. I think you said it was a philanthropically supported NGO, Carbon Removal Canada. On October 9, Minister Anand as the President of Treasury Board announced a $10-million minimum commitment as part of the Greening Government Strategy for “carbon removal” with no specific reference to technique.

My question is for both of you. It’s about how to engage local Indigenous communities regarding the social licence that we’re told is so critical to moving ahead on this. Does anyone know whether this $10-million carbon removal commitment — it says it’s for “carbon removal services” — could involve some kind of greater coordination? I think you mentioned, Mr. Paul, that you’re thinking about an actual mechanism of some kind that would facilitate this. I’d love to hear from both of you, and anybody else on the panel if they wish to contribute. How do we move from identifying the need, which we clearly have, to actually meeting that need and having that mesh with the kind of scientific priorities we’ve been hearing about?

Mr. Paul: The communication on the $10-million strategy has not really resonated with our chiefs. Carbon removal is, as I said, an unknown entity in this area.

I will go back to demonstration projects in the communities. For example, if we were to do this in the Atlantic region, suppose we have a half dozen different Indigenous communities involved with demonstration projects with different geographic locations, different hydrodynamics — some of them more coastal and some on river systems — and they were able to actually work on the monitoring plans, they would have education systems in the community and community meetings about what this is all about. They would talk about who’s going to be involved, what areas are going to be monitored and identify specific fish species or other activities, because a number of our communities are involved with aquaculture operations, for example, and how that would be impacted. If we’re able to do those kinds of things and involve the communities from the beginning, then the communities would be better able to articulate the priorities that are important, which could be shared with other communities. Through that, I think there’s a methodology toward building social licence in the area.

With respect to coming down from a federal announcement and saying that there’s money available and people can apply for the money, you’re probably not going to get a lot of uptake from the Indigenous communities. There’s just not an understanding that this is really even happening, much less understanding the science behind it from the communities in general.

I work with people, and I try to educate people as I do this. I talked to a number of members at the Assembly of First Nations gathering these last few days to let them know I was coming here, but I had to explain to them right from the beginning what ocean carbon capture is and why we are doing it. I tried to talk in plain language so they can actually at least grasp the concepts without getting involved with the science, the methodologies and all the other things that are really important in this space.

Senator McPhedran: I’m not sure that the $10 million for carbon removal services would actually include any funding at the local level. That’s part of my question.

Mr. Merchant, if I can just refine my question to you a little bit, it seems that Minister Anand timed her announcement of this $10-million carbon removal service to the launch of your report. Maybe you could tell us if there’s anything that is in process with your organization or any other details you can share.

Mr. Merchant: Yes. Thank you so much for the question. The $10-million announcement is, of course, very new. It was announced a couple of months ago. I think the government is working to figure out what that funding mechanism could look like.

We service a resource to the government, if ever helpful, in helping to think about how to make decisions around procurement of carbon removal services at a broad level in terms of the criteria and frameworks that could be used to select projects. In fact, we published a report, as you mentioned, called Procuring with Purpose, which officially launched on October 9. In that report, we provide a framework for thinking about how a government or even a private entity that wants to buy carbon removal goes about the process of identifying high-integrity projects. How do they understand the co-benefits? How do they make sure that these projects are additional, verifiable and meet a number of high-level criteria?

One of the critical elements we include in terms of how governments or private entities can think about the procurement of carbon removal is that we recommend the procurement prioritizes projects with community benefits plans, ideally with Indigenous-led projects. We talk about that in the report and provide that as a part of how we can think about making procurement decisions.

I will just support something Mr. Paul said, which was that carbon removal is very new. We have a lot of work to do in informing Indigenous nations about carbon removal and what the potential is for these different methods and techniques as well as the risks and trade-offs to the extent that we know, as well as what we don’t know and still need to learn.

We started to take the first step in doing that. We held a workshop in September, for example, with a number of Indigenous leaders to share a little bit about carbon removal, but we really tried to spend more of that time listening.

Generally, the more we can spend time listening to chiefs and other Indigenous leaders in Canada about concerns they might have, as well as opportunities that they might be excited about as it relates to carbon removal, that would be a very good use of our time as we continue to develop this field. It’s something that we at Carbon Removal Canada are committed to doing and something that we recommend other actors in the carbon removal space to spend time doing as well.

For example, at that workshop, we invited individuals from government, industry and non-profits as well to take part in that conversation. We want to do more of that and have more of these conversations. We hope that some groups find carbon removal is something they want to take part in, but we recognize that others won’t. That’s okay.

We do not see our job here as to persuade folks, but rather to present the information and convey that we would love to hear how they react to that.

Senator McPhedran: My second question is this: Mr. Merchant, could you tell us about the philanthropic support for your organization in more detail please?

Mr. Merchant: Absolutely. We are funded by half a dozen foundations and philanthropies here in Canada. We put them at the bottom of our website. Current funders include Vancity, the Trottier Family Foundation, the Peter Gilgan Foundation and a number of others. We thought that funding mechanism was critical because, while no funding approach is perfect with respect to keeping things as independent as possible, we felt that, relative to an industry association model where we would be funded by industry actors, or a model where we were funded fully by government, it might limit our ability to provide independent advice on how we responsibly and rapidly — recognizing the situation we are in — scale up carbon removal solutions in a way that makes sense for Canada.

Senator McPhedran: Do you have any Indigenous members on your board?

Mr. Merchant: We have an advisory board at the moment, and we have one Indigenous member on our board, yes.

Senator McPhedran: Who is that, please?

Mr. Merchant: Mr. Darrell Brown. He’s the president of Kisik Clean Energy.

Senator C. Deacon: Every meeting becomes more impressive in terms of the depth of understanding we are accessing. I wish to thank colleagues for doing such a great job, and our clerk and Library of Parliament analysts for helping us to find such a great group.

I wish to focus on how we move forward in our governance of this. I am a big believer in the idea that inclusivity — especially in areas where there is a rapidly evolving understanding of an issue — is critical to success. If you drive over things quickly, you miss a lot. It is the difference between walking and racing. So, I am a believer in inclusivity.

We have heard a number of important statements regarding the need for social licence relevant within each community, so public engagement versus community engagement, as well as communities of practice, because of the differences between the ecologies and the local situations between coasts, but also along coasts.

Last week, we heard from our regulators that they are taking an approach of “active neutrality,” which basically means, “We might do something, but we will decide.” That worries me because of something Dr. Anya Waite said early on, which was that this entire field is the hole in the doughnut of regulation; there is a void.

There are a number of parties sitting around the outside of the doughnut, such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada and provincial-level organizations, and we could have that hole filled by multiple levels and types of regulators with a lot of duplication.

Then we heard today that Canada is in a position to be a leader, but we are a country with a tradition of the highest regulatory burden in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. It is a burden that is stagnant. It doesn’t change. This is an area where we have to be willing to learn.

I will start with the international perspective of Ms. Webb and then move into the room after we have heard from our virtual witnesses, because I want to hear your perspective, Mr. Paul.

My question is about the importance of having a single body that looks at the number of consistent issues we will see across communities, but with the ability to be agile and look at individual communities of engagement. I worry that the federal government and provincial governments could stop everything from happening if they dive in, if we do not have a single entity that is a point that everyone can go to.

I want to have that perspective challenged by you, starting with Ms. Webb.

The Chair: Senator Deacon, we’re doing very well with the questions. It is the preambles we have to work on. Ms. Webb?

Ms. Webb: Thank you. Perhaps I will offer a U.S. perspective on some of the discussions we are having on this topic in the U.S. to help inform your thinking in Canada.

The current fragmentation we see in governance among international, national and subnational levels presents both challenges and opportunities. There is the potential for complexity and duplication that can make it difficult to move forward with projects.

We have that issue here in the United States, where we have federal permitting regimes, state permitting and local permitting regimes. It is difficult to navigate. There is a lot of duplication and, in some cases, direct conflict. It makes it difficult to move forward with projects in a timely fashion, which we know we need to do if we are to answer these key scientific questions.

At the same time, having engagement from multiple levels facilitates a more inclusive approach, to your point, and provides diverse perspectives that can help inform the execution of those projects.

We need to find a balance between having this sort of overlapping, duplicative, multilevel governance framework and promoting an inclusive approach. One of the things that my research organization has been doing is to develop what we refer to as model federal legislation for ocean carbon dioxide removal research.

The idea for this project is to consider the following: If we were to wipe the slates clean and start afresh, how would we design a regulatory framework for these activities? We have sought to achieve this balance between streamlining and simplifying while ensuring an inclusive approach. There are various ways in which we have sought to do that, but I will highlight just one now.

One of the structures we create in this model legislation is to establish a national body that would be responsible for overseeing these activities and would develop a coordinated research strategy for thinking about how to move forward with them. It would include diverse representation from across the federal government to ensure that you have diverse expertise. It would also engage directly with what we call regional research bodies. These would include states, local governments, Native American tribes and other community groups that can directly provide input to that federal body as it evaluates where and how research should move forward.

In this model, we are trying to balance the need for a robust regulatory framework that is clear, coherent and simple to navigate with the benefits of a more inclusive approach that takes advantage of knowledge from these different actors.

I am not sure we got it exactly right, but it is a starting point for considering a new model for approaching these activities.

Mr. Craik: Thank you, Senator Deacon.

You have put your finger on a bit of a tension here. On the one hand, there are a large number of federal agencies and provincial and stakeholder interests that all need to come to the table but in a reasonably efficient way.

I am trying to think of other areas in the oceanic field where this has happened successfully that might be used as a model. Aquaculture might be one area, although we could have a discussion on how successful that has been. We have created bodies that include federal and provincial regulators to coordinate aquaculture regulation in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, with some success, and there is a slightly different approach in British Columbia.

There might be models we can look to.

It will be hard to put this into the hand of one particular federal agency just because mCDR, as you have indicated, does cut across at least four major federal agencies. Finding a way to bring those voices together is going to be particularly important.

There can be light-touch regulatory approaches. Informing regulation with attention to proportionality will be particularly important here. Environmental assessment processes will be necessary, but environmental assessment processes can be undertaken in variable ways, limiting the regulatory and permitting burden upon actors. A one-door permitting approach makes sense to me, if that is manageable, so that industry and researchers do not have to go to multiple agencies to get different permits.

As I mentioned earlier, the trick is that different technologies will trigger different permitting processes. As I said before, uniformity and technological neutrality are important.

This is at such an early stage that privileging one or two particular technologies might not be a good idea; rather, we need to ensure we understand the full burdens and benefits of each technology.

Thinking about the international level, it is important to align what Canada does internationally, but the international multilateral process can be very slow. I do not think waiting for that process is necessarily the best idea. Other countries are clearly moving ahead. Canada has to think about what a national approach to governance will be, with an eye to harmonization as those international agencies catch up.

Mr. Merchant: Thank you for the question, senator. You are pointing to something that is important. There are many overlapping jurisdictions here. There is duplication. These different permitting and regulatory processes can be difficult to navigate. If there is a way to simplify all of that, that would be great. We have heard ideas already. A central entity could address some of those challenges. As I have mentioned before, we would be supportive of something like that, but we are also open to other modalities.

Ultimately, what we see as critically important is that it is a good idea for us to be formalizing the role of some of these departments in Canada to have a formal focus on carbon removal. Carbon removal is a gigatonne-scale challenge, and it is a major and underutilized lever for climate action.

Marine carbon removal, in particular, is an area where we see a high potential for Canadian leadership. Frankly, right now, marine carbon removal or carbon removal, more broadly, is looked at off the side of people’s desks. It is the reason why we do not have a clear research agenda. It is the reason why we do not have a greater engagement with the relevant communities and Indigenous nations that will have an important role to play. It is the reason why we do not have the regulatory frameworks and the commercial frameworks such that this can become a commercial technology over time.

We need more people in government who are solely responsible for it across a few departments. That would not only allow us to accelerate research and innovation, which we have heard about, but position us well for further development of marine carbon removal and, ultimately, commercial deployment, which is important and not something we want to lose sight of.

Finally, what you are proposing — or essentially anything that would help streamline some of these challenges but also make carbon removal a formal focus of key departments within government — would help ensure longevity of the work we are trying to do. This will be a many-decades-long challenge that we are working on. We also need to help to institutionalize knowledge across governments.

Again, so long as carbon removal is a growing and emerging priority in government that is happening off the side of people’s desks, I worry all of that will not be able to happen and we will not make the long-term progress that we actually need to.

Mr. Paul: It is a little difficult for me to try to imagine what a federal regime would look like. However, I have had some experience with tidal energy in Nova Scotia; I am involved a little bit with that. I am also involved with some of the offshore wind energy work being done now.

Based upon my experience with tidal energy, the lack of clarity and regulations led to hundreds of millions of dollars in investment that went away. I would not want to see that happen with this sector of ocean carbon capture and ocean carbon alkalinity enhancements. It probably makes sense to have some kind of central agency to do this.

Seeing legislation passed to help support offshore wind is a huge benefit for all the players, including the Indigenous communities, in Atlantic Canada.

I do not know who would lead this, but having that central role and clarity will be really important if Canada is going to advance this field of dealing with ocean carbon.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you.

Senator Cuzner: Thank you to the witnesses.

I will step back from those big, broader questions. Your comments, Mr. Paul, on social licence and community engagement have tremendous merit. This might be for you and Mr. Merchant: Are you familiar with CarbonRun in Nova Scotia and the technology they are employing now in trying to restore fish habitat? Do you want to comment on that? Are they having success? Is there engagement on that level with the local communities?

Mr. Paul: Yes, I am familiar with them. I actually met the president of the company and some of the higher-level technicians in April. When they came into this field, it was really about dealing with the problem of acid rain in southwest Nova Scotia, which is caused by emissions from industrialization in upstate New York, southern Ontario and whatnot.

Senator Cuzner: Yes.

Mr. Paul: The thing I really like regarding their approach is that they worked in small river systems in Nova Scotia with limestone, I believe. They had all of the monitoring systems in place. They were able to do fish counts to try to see if there would be positive impacts to what they were doing. They have been doing this for 20 years or so. It has been a long period there. It is only because ocean carbon capture has come to the forefront that they are now in that realm as well.

I believe they have signed some kind of agreement with Pictou Landing First Nation there to do work. That is all part of the community involvement they are doing. The model they are using is great. I like the fact that they started small and invited Indigenous communities right from the onset.

I don’t know if we have that same kind of runway with respect to what is being proposed here with ocean carbon capture, but I think we can learn many lessons from their methodology.

Senator Cuzner: Maybe Mr. Merchant would want to weigh in on the carbon aspect of CarbonRun now and what they have done to date.

Mr. Merchant: Yes. I am aware of the work that CarbonRun is doing. I would second a lot of what Mr. Paul said. This is a company that is leveraging approaches that were designed to solve a different problem. They were studying this in Canada and in Nordic countries for decades to try to understand the impact of alkalinity addition in addressing acid rain. Because there was a conversation emerging around carbon removal, the scientists at CarbonRun realized that with some slight modification, their approach could actually be a low-carbon solution.

That is why it is so critical that we are clear about the opportunities around marine carbon removal and other methods of carbon removal. Ultimately, there are many things happening that have environmental benefits already or existing within industrial value chains today — whatever the case is — where there is a carbon removal opportunity that has not been tapped into because maybe it is solving another problem.

That is another benefit of having a clear strategy and focus on carbon removal so that more folks like the ones at CarbonRun can identify new opportunities and advance innovations and, by the way, sell offtake of carbon removal to specific buyers. That can be catalytic in helping those companies grow and bring money into those communities, which is what we are starting to see with CarbonRun. They recently signed a multi-year agreement with Frontier and other buyers of carbon removal credits. That has been encouraging to see.

Senator Cuzner: I have a quick question for Mr. Craik as well. You mentioned that there is a need for significant investments in ocean observation infrastructure. Who in the country is doing this well now? Who are the leaders in the country now? Are the opportunities there for civil society, industry and academia to come together? Are those incentives adequate? Are they in place now to bring these people together? What is the potential to make those necessary investments right now? Is the environment right?

The Chair: Just a moment, Professor Craik, before you answer. We’re down to seven minutes. I have three people on second round. I hate to do this because it is a great conversation, but our time is getting limited and so we need to tighten things up. If you could answer your question, and I will deal with the senators after you are finished.

Mr. Craik: Very briefly, the need for ocean observation arises from the fact that much of the carbon removal from the atmosphere, which is important — a lot of the mCDR processes attach ocean carbon, but that creates room for the ocean to take up more atmospheric carbon. That is what we care about. That depends upon a number of things, such as ocean mixing and temperature, and it does not happen in the same area, and it happens on longer time scales.

In order to accurately understand the amount of carbon that is being removed from the atmosphere and is additional — we often talk about additionality — we are going to need additional and new observations. Observations could be on ship cruises or they could be on observational material placed in the oceans.

My point in raising this was for this committee to recognize that regulation not only requires the enactment of laws but also significant investment in large-scale infrastructure once this scales up. Having an eye on that is particularly important.

Who is doing this well? I am not a scientist; I am not going to venture into that. I work with a group called MEOPAR, which is a federally funded science organization that does a lot of a marine observation research. Canada has a number of ocean observation activities. I do not want to go beyond my expertise.

Senator Busson: My question is for Ms. Webb. I was really caught by your comment around a purpose-built framework. It occurs to me that most of the laws and regulations to date are designed to stop people from causing harm in the ocean, and we now need to turn to rather enabling the good and turning the whole paradigm around. Would you agree that is probably why we are having so much trouble moving forward — because all the protocols and laws are directed in other directions and in preventing harm rather than creating good?

Ms. Webb: I am sorry; I missed the first part of that question. I was not sure if it was directed to me.

That is a real problem we see at the international and domestic levels in several countries where our environmental regimes have been designed to limit the impact of human activities on the environment and manage environmental harms from human activities. As we try to fit new classes of activities, including ocean CDR activities, into these existing frameworks, it creates this tension because the focus is on the potential harms of those activities without full consideration, in some cases, of their potential benefits. We need to be thinking about ways that we can balance the two.

In an ocean context in particular, we need to be thinking about the harms that are associated with the continuation of the status quo. We know climate change is having really devastating impacts on our oceans in terms of ocean warming, acidification and the like, and if we do not adequately address climate change, those harms will continue. We need to also factor that into our assessment of these different activities.

Senator McPhedran: Building on the comment that Mr. Paul made about having three oceans and very different communities at each of those oceans, what can you tell us please — this is to any member of the panel — about the Arctic, what research is happening there and where the researchers are based?

The Chair: We only have time for one person to answer. Does anyone want to answer Senator McPhedran’s question? We have time for one answer.

Mr. Craik: The experimentation that I am aware of is related not to carbon dioxide removal but ocean albedo, which is ice preservation and increasing the reflective impacts on ice. It is not working on carbon removal; it is working on radiative forcing. There is some research going on in Cambridge Bay looking at ice restoration. There is a group called Arctic Ice that is using microbeads, very small white glass beads that they put on the ice to prevent ice from further degrading. It is a little outside of the confines of this. I am not aware of any carbon removal research. Most of the research in the Arctic has been based on ice.

Senator C. Deacon: I want to see if we can get agreement from Ms. Webb. We currently have massive unregulated bioengineering occurring in our oceans every day as a result of the carbon emissions in our atmosphere. This is considered bioengineering, but one is exceedingly harmful to our oceans. This holds a lot of promise. Is that a good way to look at this issue?

Ms. Webb: There are many that view climate change as a huge geoengineering experiment and that we are currently, through our emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, geoengineering the planet with very harmful consequences. While there are some regulations in place to control greenhouse gas emissions at a domestic level and through an international regime, they have been inadequate to effectively address the climate crisis, which is why we have been forced to look at a range of other approaches, including ocean-based carbon removal.

To your point about my agreement, this does hold a lot of promise, but there are key unanswered questions about how these activities will work and their impacts. It’s really important that we further investigate them before moving to large-scale deployment.

The Chair: Ms. Webb, sorry for ending quickly, but we thank all our witnesses for a great conversation. I thank the senators for their cooperation.

By the power vested in me by King Charles, meeting adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)