THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 28, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:02 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. My name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the privilege to chair this morning’s meeting.
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 all 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.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross from New Brunswick.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner from Nova Scotia.
Senator Greenwood: Good morning. Margo Greenwood from British Columbia. I’m filling in for Senator Ravalia.
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Busson: I’m Bev Busson from British Columbia. Welcome.
The Chair: On September 24, 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to exam and report on the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following representatives from the Department of Natural Resources Canada: Amanda Wilson, Director General, Office of Energy Research and Development; Jason Gadoury, Senior Director, Office of Energy Research and Development; and Saviz Mortazavi, Director, Office of Energy Research and Development. I also welcome the following representatives from the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada: Nicole Coté, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations; Greg Flato, Director, Climate Research, by video conference; and David Taillefer, Acting National Manager, Marine Programs.
I apologize again if I did any damage to your names. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here today. I understand that both departments will be providing some opening remarks. Following the presentation, members of the committee will have questions for you. Ms. Wilson, I understand you have the floor. Thank you.
Amanda Wilson, Director General, Office of Energy Research and Development, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s a pleasure to be here today.
Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting here on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, who have lived here since time immemorial. Their culture and presence have nurtured, and continue to nurture, this place, and we honour the peoples and land of the Anishinaabe Algonquin nation.
Mr. Chair, senators, it’s lovely to meet you. Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to appear here today to contribute to your study on ocean carbon sequestration.
I’m responsible for energy innovation policy and programming, and I also oversee Canada’s Carbon Management Strategy, which I am happy to talk about this morning.
The carbon management strategy was released just over a year ago, following more than a year of engagement with over 1,500 stakeholders. The strategy is focused on a range of technology‑based approaches for capturing, using and sequestering carbon dioxide, or CO2. This includes carbon capture utilization and storage, which, as you probably know, helps to mitigate point source emissions, including in heavy industry, in some clean power generation and in certain pathways for hydrogen production. It also covers carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, which removes carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere, using a variety of techniques.
The strategy recognizes the important role that carbon management — the collective term that we use for these technologies — will play in achieving climate and energy goals, and it outlines a vision of a competitive, multi-billion-dollar Canadian sector in this space.
This includes supporting the development and scale-up of carbon removal solutions by Canadian innovators. Carbon removal is the “net” in net zero, and all credible scenarios, whether from the International Energy Agency or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggest that we’ll need several gigatonnes per year of engineered CDR in order to meet the Paris Agreement’s climate targets globally. Domestically, the Canada Energy Regulator projects that 100 to 115 megatonnes per year of CDR will be needed for a net-zero scenario in 2050. Carbon removal is expected to counterbalance the relatively small share of total emissions that are likely to remain despite best mitigation efforts and to address historical emissions.
The amount of CDR that will be needed in the second half of the century will depend on progress against current climate targets.
[Translation]
To align with net-zero scenarios, this decade will be critical for developing and starting to deploy carbon removal technologies at the significant scale needed by 2050. Over the last few years, we’ve seen the emergence of a carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, sector across several countries, including a growing set of firms in Canada that are working on a wide range of CDR approaches.
Current CDR technologies are at varying degrees of technical, commercial and regulatory readiness. The most advanced is direct air capture, DAC, technology, which pulls CO2 directly from the atmosphere to be stored in geologic formations or long‑lived products.
The carbon management strategy also focuses on other techniques with near-term potential, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and enhanced mineralization.
[English]
The strategy also recognizes the early potential of ocean-based CDR techniques such as direct ocean capture and ocean alkalinity enhancement. These approaches are at an earlier stage than the others that I mentioned, and the strategy recognizes the need for further scientific research to understand their potential benefits better, but also, importantly, their potential risks.
Ocean-based CDR includes a range of different techniques, each with its own characteristics in terms of potential efficacy, costs and risks. While these techniques may be promising for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it will be important to carefully evaluate them to ensure any deployments are safe, sustainable and effective.
The current approach of Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, to ocean-based removal is to carefully monitor progress and emerging opportunities as the science advances. Currently, Natural Resources Canada does not have policy or program measures focused specifically on ocean-based CDR, though my team is conducting analytical work and engaging with stakeholders to further develop our understanding of the area. We are aware of research projects under way in Canada, notably on the east coast, and we engage closely with colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, and other federal departments and agencies on issues relating to ocean-based removals as part of our engagement on carbon management technologies more generally.
NRCan’s Office of Energy Research and Development, or OERD, supports research, development and demonstration across a wide spectrum of energy technologies, including those related to energy production, energy use and carbon management. So, it’s a very broad remit.
[Translation]
For example, we are currently managing the government’s investment in Budget 2021 of $319 million over 7 years in RD&D on carbon capture, use and storage, which includes some carbon removal projects. We understand the importance of supporting early RD&D efforts to enable climate and energy goals.
[English]
Broadly, our approach to investments in energy research, development and demonstration, or RD&D is informed by an assessment, not just of the technology development opportunities for a solution or a set of solutions, but also by the market, the policy and the regulatory readiness for the technology.
From this perspective, we work closely with colleagues from ECCC on all aspects of carbon management, including ocean‑based CDR, where foundational science is still needed to inform regulatory efforts. I’m glad to be joined here today by colleagues from Environment and Climate Change Canada, and I look forward to hearing the committee’s questions.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
Back to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Ms. Coté.
Nicole Coté, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
As noted earlier, I’m Nicole Coté, and I’m the Director General of Environmental Protection Operations with Environment and Climate Change Canada. Yes, that is quite a mouthful.
I’m here with my colleagues Greg Flato, who is on the screen, and David Taillefer. I would also like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, and we acknowledge them as the custodians of the lands and waters of this region since time immemorial. It is a privilege to work and live on this land.
The Government of Canada has committed to reduce emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve a clean economy. Reducing emissions remains the top priority of the Canadian climate plan, recognizing that the best way to tackle climate change is to stop new emissions from entering the atmosphere. However, carbon dioxide removal is not an alternative to decarbonization, but will play an important role, as my colleagues from Natural Resources Canada have outlined, to compliment Canada’s actions toward a clean economy. Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, is examining ocean carbon sequestration from two perspectives. Firstly, the need for clean growth in climate change mitigation, and secondly, the need to prevent and manage pollution in the marine environment.
The ECCC prevents and manages pollution to Canadian waters and the marine environment through two acts. Firstly, through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, by administering the disposal at sea regulations, which domestically implement the London Protocol on Prevention of Marine Pollution, or the London Protocol. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act prohibits the disposal or dumping of a substance at sea unless the disposal is done under a permit. Permits can only be issued on six low-risk substances currently, dredge material, fish waste, ship’s aircraft platforms or other structures, inert organic geological matter, uncontaminated organic matter and bulky substances. Currently, there are no provisions for permitting or authorizing ocean carbon sequestration activities.
The second piece of legislation that guides our work is the Fisheries Act, which, I am sure this committee is very aware of, by administering and enforcing its pollution prevention provisions. The Fisheries Act prohibits the release into water of substances that are deleterious to fish or their habitat or the use of fish by humans. It applies in a broad range of aquatic geoengineering techniques. The London Protocol, which I am sure you have heard of, is an international body that looks at marine pollution prevention and has evolved to address issues beyond just the disposal of waste at sea.
For example, an amendment made in 2006 allowed the permitting of carbon capture and storage in sub-seabed geological formations. In 2013 the parties to the protocol and convention agreed to amend the protocol to create a framework to regulate marine geoengineering. It was originally applied to ocean fertilization — one of the marine geoengineering techniques related to research activities — but it was with the expectation that other techniques would be added in the future and that the framework would be updated to reflect these unique elements of new technologies.
Canada supported the 2013 amendment and continues to support the implementation of the regulatory framework. The protocol parties continue to ensure the advancement of research and innovation while protecting the marine environment. All parties are in agreement that research is required before there is any scaled deployment of these technologies, to ensure that we monitor both the opportunities and the risks that may occur.
I want to add that other international bodies are also looking at this topic. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPPP, through the 2022 Mitigation on Climate Change report, is examining carbon dioxide removal, recognizing that marine‑based technologies are at their early technological readiness level and has highlighted the need for further research into the potential opportunities and risks.
Emerging CDR technologies in the marine environment are relatively new, and peer-reviewed research is needed to understand both the potential benefits and risks of these activities.
For CDR activities, differences in receiving environments could lead to significant differences in risks, and impacts must be better understood. Therefore, it may be premature to consider any scaled deployment without sufficient understanding and validation of their climate change mitigation efficacy or the effects on the marine environment.
It is also important to consider the regulatory system that may be needed to support innovation and research in the marine environment. Regulatory frameworks address many considerations, including providing certainty to industry investors, while also managing the environment, social and economic benefits and risks.
The ECCC, and other federal departments, are beginning to develop the internal expertise required to engage partners, other governments, stakeholders and Canadians so that we can explore all the options for a domestic regulatory framework for ocean carbon sequestration. As noted, a government-wide policy is needed to drive the needed research and regulatory development, which is why engagement around the issue is essential, particularly with coastal communities.
Given the highly technical and scientific nature of these techniques, this engagement will need to be staged so that communities and stakeholders have the time and space to understand and provide feedback, particularly given the scientific unknowns.
Canada must look at all options and tools to support its climate change targets. At the same time, research, policy and a regulatory framework are needed to ensure that new marine CDR technologies are effective and do not create unintended risk to the marine environment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you here today. I look forward to hearing your views and recommendations.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Coté.
Senator Busson: Thank you all for being here this morning.
This topic is fascinating and for us it is certainly on the leading edge, as far as the information is concerned. We’ve had witnesses from the East Coast here last week and the week before talking about the possibilities and the potential of CDR, as part of the big-picture scheme around some of the targets that we’ve set.
Perhaps Ms. Coté or Ms. Wilson could comment on whether or not the government finds this subject and portfolio to be a pressing and urgent part of the work that needs to be done to meet the ambitious targets that Canada has set for itself both on the emission side and the carbon-removal side? Is there any indication that the government treats this with any kind of high priority?
Ms. Coté: I’ll start, and my colleague can add to that. I do think that the government sees all the opportunities ahead in terms of reaching its climate goals, so nothing is off the table. As noted in my opening remarks, there is an effort to make sure that we are moving forward with the innovation and the creativity that is needed to reach those goals, while maintaining the precautionary principle that we don’t want to invest or support things that may have negative consequences for broader systems at play. It is a priority in the broader scheme of understanding all the tools that are needed in our climate tool box, frankly.
Ms. Wilson: I would be happy to pick up from there and add a little bit. I agree completely with what Ms. Coté said. Carbon management generally, and CDR specifically, is one of many tools in the tool box from an RD&D or innovation perspective. We do not rule anything out. Ocean-based sequestration in particular, as a subset of CDR, is something that we’re exploring.
There are many different pathways to net zero, as I’m sure you are aware, and in the Office of Energy Research and Development we consider it our job to make sure that we are exploring all of them and supporting them when the technology and the regulatory readiness is in place. There are different levels and types of support. For now, I would say that we are in an early exploratory phase of understanding these technologies better and making sure that the needed foundational science is there to help inform regulations and other policies on this matter.
Senator Busson: We heard from the witnesses that Canada — specifically the universities and research centres on the East Coast and one on the West Coast — are considered to be leading-edge researchers in the world at this moment. Do you have any contact with your colleagues in other countries — specifically the United States — about the research? Does it cause you any concern that, without an urgent approach to this, we might lose space on the technology?
Ms. Wilson: The witnesses that you heard from are absolutely correct. Canada has a very robust innovation ecosystem. We punch above our weight in terms of innovation in the carbon management space. Generally, we’re considered a global leader and also specifically in CDR technologies.
Some early research and trials are happening in ocean-based CDR. With respect to other countries, Canada is quite active internationally in carbon management and carbon dioxide removal. We co-lead Mission Innovation, or MI, which is an international multilateral initiative. We co-lead carbon dioxide removal emission, which has about 11 countries as part of it. It doesn’t focus specifically on ocean-based CDR, but these issues are being explored. As we look toward other jurisdictions such as the U.S., in terms of government backing, both the Department of Energy, or DOE, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, have started working on policies and supports for ocean-based CDR, but it is not something that we are engaged with them directly on, other than in the context of multilateral discussions.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I have an 18-pronged question, and I’m sure the chair will allow us all the time we need to answer those components.
I just want to follow up a little bit on the last comment. I just want to make sure that I understand the situation from your perspective. I appreciate — my colleagues know this — that there is a combination of enthusiasm and caution in this particular file. From what I have heard so far, I understand — please correct me — that there isn’t a file that had been set in your organizations focusing on this particular issue specifically. Is that correct? It’s part of a larger strategy, but focusing on this issue specifically, there isn’t a particular file relating to this.
Ms. Wilson: Would you like me to take your prongs one at a time, with the chair’s permission?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Ms. Wilson: I have a team and I know that the National Carbon Capture Center, or NCCC, and others, have groups of employees who focus on carbon management and carbon dioxide removal. Within the carbon dioxide removal file, there are a range of technologies. So, we don’t have a specific team or file for direct air capture to carbon storage, or DACCS, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, or ocean-based mineralization. We look at carbon management broadly. Within that, we look at the full range of technologies. Just like with other energy technologies, specific solutions are at various levels of readiness. You might be familiar with the term technology readiness level, or TRL. Generally speaking, they range from one to nine, where one is the earliest and nine is late stage demonstration. They run the gamut. We take the approach that we take to other energy technologies, where there are different levels of engagement depending on the stages of readiness.
Ms. Coté: For Environment and Climate Change Canada, it is similar in terms of the broader understanding of the various types of climate mitigation. My team, in particular, is looking at the marine environment, but, to be clear, we are not the researchers who provide the evidence and science, but we look more at how we could regulate that, how that fits into the policy regime and how we work with other countries through initiatives and interventions like the London Protocol. It is something that we are very actively looking at, with regard to how we bring these technologies forward into the regulatory environment, considering their newness, but not wanting to stop that research and innovation. So, we are looking at how we can put those into the regulatory system.
Senator Kutcher: I’m knocked down to 16 now. Is that okay? Let me follow up perfectly on that, because you led into the next question already.
Given that there are multiple options within this particular file, each of which is incredibly complicated and each of which is in a different form — in my humble opinion — or stage of readiness and development. As you are looking at this as an area, are there any specific parts that your team feels more comfortable with in terms of where they are in search capacity right now in terms of being able to inform policy and regulation? That’s the first question. Part of that question — you actually took it right off my page — relates to the technology readiness levels, or TRL scale. Overall, can you give our committee an idea of where, as a field, you think this is in the TRL scale, and what else needs to be done in the field to move it up the readiness scale? I have my own bias about where they are on the TRL, which I will tell you about after the committee meeting, but I would love to hear from you on that.
Ms. Wilson: Thank you. For clarity, when you say in this field, do you mean specifically ocean-based CDR?
Senator Kutcher: Ocean-based, yes.
Ms. Wilson: Yes, I understand. Perhaps I will ask Mr. Mortazavi to speak to the technology-readiness question?
Saviz Mortazavi, Director, Office of Energy Research and Development, Natural Resources Canada: Yes, of course. With respect to the technology readiness, as you are aware, there are different technologies in terms of ocean alkalinity enhancement, fertilization, et cetera. For some of these technologies, you can find in the literature demonstrations and research projects. We have a list of about 36 of them on our radar that we are following. However, in general, none of those technologies have results conclusive enough to be ready for large-scale deployment.
To answer your question directly, in my view, the technology is in the range of four or even five, if you want to add a range and be generous. Environmental impacts have also been identified, which are not fully understood, or have been spotted, in which these environmental impacts could be expected. When you look at, for example, biomass sinking, studies show clear impacts on the ocean-bottom ecosystem. Again, all of these are factors that are built into the TRL of a technology with respect to its safe and sustainable deployment. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. That raises a very important question. We have these potentially very useful emerging technologies. I would have put the number at four, but we’re not where we need to be. What kind of research investment are you doing to ensure that some of these unique and emerging technologies can actually be pushed forward more quickly?
Ms. Wilson: I will speak broadly to that. To take a step back, within the Office of Energy Research and Development, we fund federal labs to do research across the broad range of technologies that I mentioned earlier, and we also have external-facing programs, grants and contributions. The flagship program is our Energy Innovation Program, or EIP, which is funded at about $70 million per year, to provide support for the development of energy technology, covering the full remit of production, use, carbon management and TRLs. Generally speaking, we work in the space of three to four or up to eight to nine. I am lucky to have an interdisciplinary team comprised of many engineers and scientists, who help us determine the right spot to focus our efforts.
We have had a series of calls for proposals in the area of carbon management generally. As I mentioned in my remarks, Budget 2021 had $319 million of our CO2 Capture, Utilization and Storage, or CCUS. About $100 million of that went to fund federal science work like research and development, generally, at an earlier stage, which happens at our federal labs at Natural Resources Canada, National Research Council Canada, and colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada, and other federal research centres are involved.
A portion of that also went for our forensic contributions. So, we issued four external calls for proposals: One was for feed studies for CCUS calls, and then we had three RD&D calls — one in capture, one in transport and storage and one in utilization. In our utilization call, in particular, we did see some expressions of interest that were related to marine-based CDR. None of those made it through. They were not ready enough to make it through. Where we tend to focus when we don’t think that a technology is necessarily ready to fund, we think through — this is what Mr. Mortazavi and his team are doing now — where the spaces are where we can help advance science for regulatory purposes.
But if you look across the broad range of technologies, we think about where we can help fill gaps in information that would help inform codes and standards, for example. For example, if you think about things like electric vehicle, or EV, chargers. The TLR scale is important to us; we want to advance technologies along, but we want to make sure that we are taking a comprehensive approach. There is no point in getting a technology perfectly ready to deploy if there is no regulatory framework to enable it. In order to have regulations and codes and standards, you need to have science and information. So, we’re lucky to have the ability — from time to time — to help support the development of that science.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to each of you for making the time to be with us here today. Like Senator Kutcher, I have a multi-part question. This relates to the concept of social licence. I am picking up on previous testimony that we received from the co-founder and chief technology officer of CarbonRun. He said that social licence is going to become the limiting factor on how ocean carbon sequestration projects can scale up quite quickly. Those particular remarks concluded with this statement:
Without academic and government involvement, industry will never realize its full potential or see this through until we have the social licence to operate.
Part one of my question is this: Do you share that assessment in the work that you’re doing? Part two of my question is this: Do you have a specific strategy for increasing the social licence on this technology as rapidly as possible?
Ms. Wilson: I’m happy to start. Social licence is a complex issue, and I’m not an expert. I’m sure there are experts out there. When I think about social licence, it comes back to science. There has to be a certain amount of foundational science that can help assuage concerns. The establishment of a regulatory framework certainly feeds into this. When we think about carbon management generally, we think a lot about social licence. It is an area in which continued research and the continued eventual demonstration and deployment of technology help to assure Canadians that there is safety.
We’ve spoken to it, to some degree, in the carbon management strategy. Mr. Gadoury or Mr. Mortazavi, would you like to add to that?
Jason Gadoury, Senior Director, Office of Energy Research and Development, Natural Resources Canada: Absolutely. In Canada’s Carbon Management Strategy, one of the key areas in which the government has committed to take action is building partnerships and engaging with stakeholders in the development of carbon management in Canada. That will include local communities potentially affected by new technologies that could be deployed, including, for example, Indigenous peoples, who can share in the benefits of these new economic opportunities. That’s part and parcel of the approach to implementing Canada’s Carbon Management Strategy.
Even the development of the strategy itself demonstrates that. It was very inclusive and spent over a year engaging nearly 1,500 stakeholders, including provinces and territories, a large number of federal departments and other stakeholders in industry and in communities. That’s all to make sure that the strategy reflects the opportunities but also the preoccupations and the perspectives of the different stakeholders on the development of a carbon management sector in Canada.
I would say beyond that broad approach, every technology will have its own characteristics on where it should be ideally located and what the potential impacts and effects are on the surrounding area.
With any new technology, when we think about bringing in something that’s new, it is very important and part of our work to make sure there is an understanding of what that technology is, how it works, what it does and its potential impacts on the folks around it. That’s part of what we do in all of the technology areas that we fund. That will be important, specifically, in the case of ocean carbon sequestration as well and the communities and unique characteristics around these projects in the local areas where they will occur.
We agree that will be a key part and would be consistent with the approach that the government has outlined in the Carbon Management Strategy.
Ms. Coté: I agree with my colleagues. A lot of the social licence or engagement does come back to the science. We need to make sure we understand and can communicate clearly, in a way that will make sense to all of our stakeholders, the benefits and potential risks of the technologies.
As we think about how to do that, we do it at the early stages as part of the Carbon Management Strategy. We also need to do that when we get to the regulatory phase. There are built-in consultation and engagement processes in the federal system for that type of input from stakeholders.
At Environment and Climate Change Canada, we are at the early stages of engaging. We did some outreach last spring to communities about some of the technologies that are being explored right now. What came out of that is a clarity that there are a range of views. Some are very excited to move forward, as one of the other senators indicated. There is great excitement, and there is some pause in other parts of our communities where they want to know and understand more. We don’t have the answers for that yet. But that will be important.
I do think, building on other comments, it is very regionally based. Looking at the technologies and what they mean for the communities in those areas, and that may be different across this country, different perspectives, different engagements in the academic, industry, community and Indigenous nations. That has to be part of our thinking about that engagement.
Last, we are beginning to think about what that longer-term strategy is for engagement. Obviously, we are linking primarily it to a potential future regulatory state, but knowing that it will be, as I mentioned, multi-phased. You can’t just go out once to talk to people about marine CDR. You have to have multiple conversations, given their technical nature, looking at what that plan will be over the next little while.
I don’t have a date for when we will have a firm plan, but it is something we are actively working on.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I think we agree on the “what,” which is increasing social licence to support the development of the science and the implementation.
I’d like to request — and I don’t want to put you on the spot for a lot of detail here today — that this committee receive from you much more information on the “how,” and that is: What has been done on increasing social licencing? I appreciate the point about it needing to be regional, but I would go beyond that and ask if we could also have the prospective, including the planning you are doing with some articulation as to the stakeholders, with particular attention to communities that are primarily Indigenous communities and where they are in the country.
I would add to that the extent that it involves the Arctic Ocean. We primarily discussed the Atlantic and the Pacific, so could we please add the Arctic Ocean to that? I am a senator from Manitoba. Thank you.
Senator Petten: My question is on the economic opportunities and thinking about that with the opportunities associated with ocean sequestration. We have heard that a regulatory framework is required before any interest in funding any of the projects. How far are we from that process of having a regulatory framework?
Ms. Coté: Great question. I can’t give you an exact time frame. As I am sure you are all aware, Canada has a very ambitious regulatory agenda at the moment, looking at how, within our disposal at sea program, which is under CEPA, we would need to make some amendments and changes. That is on our forward regulatory agenda, but that ebbs and flows in terms of other things that come up as the priorities. At this stage, I wouldn’t be able to give you the exact time frame of when we would be able to move forward with those changes.
Senator Petten: Thank you. With this technology, how far away are we from having an impact on climate change?
Ms. Coté: Maybe I will turn to my colleague on the screen, Greg Flato, who has some of the scientific background on this, and then perhaps my colleagues at NRCan may have some additional pieces.
Greg Flato, Director, Climate Research, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you. The answer to that question is a bit complicated. Of course, every amount of carbon dioxide that is removed from the atmosphere is beneficial, so “every tonne matters” is kind of a slogan statement, but it is nevertheless true. Scientifically, any amount of carbon that you remove from the atmosphere, particularly in the form of carbon dioxide, has a positive impact on reducing the forcing that causes warming.
However, the CDR technologies that are available now are only in the exploratory stage and have not been deployed on a scale that would have a significant and noticeable effect on climate change. They would have to be deployed at a scale that reaches the gigatonne level at a global scale, as was mentioned in the introductions, before you would see the effect of their coming to fruition.
Senator Petten: Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: My question is going to be a little bit off topic, but I will try to pull it around with my supplemental question.
About 22 years ago, I visited the NRCan lab in Bells Corners, in cooperation with Nova Scotia Power, SaskPower, Emera. There were a number of stakeholders that you were working with then on carbon capture and storage. Things had gone well in the lab. The concern was commercialization and how you were going to take it to any kind of scale.
Could you share with us what success stories are there? Are there commercially viable projects going ahead now? What kind of impact is that having on our carbon dioxide emissions?
Ms. Wilson: Yes, our NRCan lab in Bells Corners, on the west side of Ottawa, was a pioneer in the area of CCUS, as you mentioned, in part, due to those efforts, but also due to the collective efforts of industry, academia and governments at all levels.
When we talk about CCUS, it is not just one technology. It is really a range of technologies that are ever evolving and ever improving with costs coming down increasingly. It is now, in many cases, a deployable technology.
There are somewhere between 25 and 30 commercial-scale projects globally happening now. Within Canada, as a result of technology development and investment, favourable conditions including favourable geology, or core space as it is called for sequestration, and a range of policy measures, we are really seeing a significant uptake in CCUS projects reaching final investment decision, or FID.
I chair a committee at the International Energy Agency focused on research and technology. Certainly, Canada is seen as a leader. Many are envious of the policy conditions that we have here.
Senator Cuzner: Do you have anything operating now —
Ms. Wilson: Yes.
Senator Cuzner: — or are you just getting close to the investment stage?
Ms. Wilson: No, we have invested, and there is the CCUS Investment Tax Credit that came into force a few months back, and we saw that precipitated a number of FID announcements from various countries.
Mr. Mortazavi, do you want to talk to larger-scale projects that are operational in Canada or have announced a final investment decision, or FID?
Mr. Mortazavi: In terms of the larger-scale projects with FIDs that Ms. Wilson just mentioned, Shell has announced the Polaris and Atlas projects. They reached FID right after. We have a number of other projects that, under the CCUS Investment Tax Credit, are being evaluated, of which I can certainly share the details right now. We have potentially 25 projects that have started the process to submit project plans for assessment for eligibility for the CCUS Investment Tax Credit under our program.
In terms of examples from the research or R&D in the labs, internal research and federal research support many of the smaller companies and start-ups. The examples of it are CO2 Solutions Inc. that have now been purchased by Saipem, and they are looking at large-scale demonstrations and upscaling their operations. Carbon engineering is another example that Natural Resources Canada, not only through its funding but also through the work, capacity and scientific support that they have received from our laboratories. Examples are [Technical difficulties] Ottawa, which I’m sure you are familiar with. Other projects are through geological surveys, and NRCan supports two programs through its program for energy research and development. Aquistore is one, which is a saline aquifer storage of CO 2 that the Boundary Dam is now storing their CO 2 there. And the Weyburn Project, which was started and has over 40 megatonnes —
Senator Cuzner: I think that gives the committee a perspective of the gestation period that we are just coming to. That seems like a fairly long walk, but you seem to be there now. We know there is patience.
We’ve been impressed with the fact that most people who presented who are working on the technology seem at least to be working together, supporting each other and sharing some science and what have you. How would you folks respond to a study like the one the Center for International Environmental Law came out with a report called Deep Trouble: The Risks of Offshore Carbon Capture and Storage? I’m sure you are familiar with that study. In it, they state that the initiative is fraught with problems, and they draw a lot of concerns.
The department would take that study and do what with it as flags are being raised on this? How is that processed through the department?
Ms. Wilson: I can say that, generally speaking, there are a number of studies in this area being released by a variety of groups. Any time there is a study or a report released relevant to the areas that we work in, my team has a look at it, assesses it and makes a determination, and it becomes a piece of the body of evidence that we use to make decisions. As I’m sure you know, it is important to validate sources and to look at frames of reference with studies.
Senator Cuzner: And to pursue further?
Ms. Wilson: To pursue further investigation if we think something is raised that is novel. We might dig into it a little bit, talk to other colleagues and understand the situation.
To your point, innovation can have long time frames. A lot of our work is focused on how we can accelerate those time frames. I think we’ve seen that they are being accelerated. There are some key things you can do. That’s why I always sound like a broken record when I talk about innovation policy and the need not to look only at technology development but also other factors in order to move technologies along as a whole so that we’re helping to develop the regulatory, the market, the standards, et cetera, at the same time. You need push and you need pull to get technology moving.
I think your example on point source CCUS, which is not, obviously, ocean-based, is, I hope, well taken. We have a lot of learning to build on, and that’s really what work in energy innovation is. It’s building on what we’ve learned, building on what works and continuing from there.
On undersea or seabed storage in particular, I will defer to colleagues, perhaps at Environment and Climate Change Canada if they want to speak to it specifically. It was raised in the context of the London Protocol, and collectively as the Government of Canada, we are considering next steps with respect to regulating that jurisdiction as other countries have.
David Taillefer, Acting National Manager, Marine Programs, Environment and Climate Change Canada: With respect to ocean-based CCUS, or sub-seabed sequestration as we’ve been referring to it, there will be the extra layer of protections that the London Protocol has put on it. In 2006, sub‑seabed CCUS was added to the London Protocol, and as Canada is party to the protocol, there will be a requirement for permitting under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. That does require adding carbon dioxide streams to schedule 5 of CEPA, which we have not yet done. And we are working with NRCan to put in place the other elements in terms of things like seabed licensing, et cetera, that would be needed for the marine environment. As of yet, we have no projects in the marine environment for sub-seabed CCUS. However, there is definitely interest. We’ve seen that growing in the last several years.
Senator Busson: I want to focus again specifically on marine or ocean sequestration and your responsibilities around those portfolios. We’ve heard from witnesses that there are at times and in certain arenas an obvious tension between people who are focused on emission controls and those who are focused on carbon dioxide removal. I thankfully heard you say that you believe that both are the proper approach to the future. We also understand that the government’s approach has been the precautionary approach to these kinds of matters.
This is a hypothetical, but moving forward, if ocean carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, became as high of a priority as emissions control regulations, how would your work change? How would you create the priority that this might envision for each of your departments? How would you respond differently, I guess is what I’m trying to say, if the government put as high a priority on CDR as they do on emissions?
Ms. Wilson: The government has been clear that we need both. That’s on the record. We need mitigation and we need carbon management and removals. It is not either/or, you need both, just like you need RD&D and you need deployment. In a health care scenario, you need chronic disease prevention and you need acute care. It’s both; you can’t choose one or the other. It is a false choice.
If the science were there and the regulatory framework was in place, you might see the technology advance more quickly, perhaps, but we never know. With energy technologies and clean technologies, you don’t know what’s going to work and what doesn’t. That is what RD&D is for. Not all technologies that are at TRL level three, four, five or six make it all the way to full‑scale deployment. I think the CCUS example is a good one because the technology can be ready, but until there are complementary policies in place, sometimes — not all the time — technologies won’t scale as you think they might. It has to do with cost, in large part, or economics. It really is hard to say, but certainly, it would enable larger scale demonstrations and deployments.
Ms. Coté: From the policy and regulatory side — and maybe I’ll turn to Mr. Flato for the scientific side — I don’t know if it would change our steps, necessarily. What it may change, if there was a greater emphasis put on it, is in terms of the linkages that we are able to make more quickly. I think that is really the only thing that would change. I think we already have all the steps that we need to make sure that this continues to be a priority and part of the climate mitigation strategies. Because there are so many players in the Government of Canada and so many elements of this, as my colleagues have indicated — there’s the regulatory, the science, the deployment, we were talking earlier about the social licence and engagement. All of that needs to be happening simultaneously, and we all have a part to play. Just increasing our ability to engage with each other may be the only change. That is not to say that it is not already happening, it is, we just might get to talk to each other even more. But that doesn’t always speed up the process.
Senator Busson: My reference is to the fact that we often hear about the urgency of climate change and the need to respond effectively and quickly to this urgent matter of climate change. I am, perhaps, a little disappointed that the government hasn’t put a full-court press into this technology that appears to be so promising. From what we hear from other witnesses, it appears to be able to be scaled if they could get support around having the regulatory issues fast-tracked through the system.
Of course, I understand that the science has to be looked at. We have to be careful. I think my colleague used the words trying to find the balance between the excitement of the technology and the caution that we need moving forward with the environment. I’m a little heartened to hear you say that you realize that perhaps the agencies ought to do more coordination in moving this forward. Am I right about that?
Ms. Coté: I think that’s a fair statement with any emerging topics. This one, particularly on the marine side, has really gained a lot of energy over the last two to five years. In the life span of technologies, that is a very short time. We have been engaged with all of our federal colleagues, as well as working outwardly. Natural Resources Canada indicated their strong engagement process leading up to the strategy that they have put forward.
More engagement can’t hurt us in terms of being able to work with each other but, as mentioned before, that needs to be really working and understanding the needs, perspectives and interests of Canadians and, as I said, particularly coastal Canadians on all coasts — east, west and north — and understanding how these technologies may also differ in those different environments.
Again, that goes back to the science. If you have potential positive outcomes on a small scale in one part of the country, can that be replicated in an open water? Can that be replicated up north or in a different ecosystem? That is part of the research that we need and why we need to be talking with each other and with industry and academics. What are they seeing? What are they learning? What are the opportunities? And what might be some of the limitations or differences that we all need to think about?
Senator Busson: Thank you so much.
Senator Kutcher: One of the ways that I look at this is from an area that I know a bit better, and that is the development of medicines. Of the hundreds of thousands of candidate molecules, one makes it to market. My question will follow on from Senator Cuzner and Senator Petten.
In your portfolio, you have a whole suite of many options, all dealing with this area. Can you help us out here in terms of your extensive understanding of all these different components both the enthusiasm and the concerns about each of these technologies? I know it’s hard because there are huge differences within the options in this carbon capture in the oceans. Compared to all the other ones you’re looking at, can you help us understand where in the queue does this particular approach stand? Is it in the upper quartile or the lower quartile? Given the current understanding of the promise and all of that, where does this fit? Can you help us understand where you are currently?
Ms. Wilson: I wish it were that neat and I could have quadrants. I might talk to you after this to see if you can help me out.
We’re fortunate to be able to work on more than one type of technology at once. There is not necessarily a queue. We have portfolios so we can advance various technologies. I would say for us that carbon management and CDR, in particular, is a high priority. Within CDR, as we’ve discussed, there is a range of technologies.
Obviously, right now most of our focus, it’s fair to say, is DACCS, BECCS — sometimes it is called BiCRS — for a fun acronym if you want to use it at parties — and enhanced mineralization. We are in the exploratory stages of looking at marine-based CDR. The assistance that we can provide there is likely more in the range of helping to build the science.
Mr. Mortazavi: When you look at the different technologies, you focus on the low-hanging fruit in terms of the technologies that you can actually advance to reach a final investment decision and the deployment of the project.
As Ms. Wilson mentioned, this is a portfolio, and you have to look at it from a systems perspective, meaning that different parts of the system have to work together. Even within CDR, and even ocean CDR, there are technologies that are more engineering based. For example, in the context of regulations if you look at direct ocean capture, which is similar to direct air capture but looking at the water, those may have shorter time frames with respect to regulatory paths.
However, you’re still looking at de-risking the technology and the comfort of the industry to actually invest in it. There needs to be both financial, incentive policies and policy certainty to be able to advance these technologies.
When we look at and decide upon the portfolio to focus on, it is in the context of engagement with industry to see where industry is ready to actually take massive action. At the same time, it is recognizing that some of the technologies — and one of my colleagues mentioned the timelines. When you look at a technology that is low TRL, similar to medicine, it can take 10 years more plus to get to point to be deployed.
I don’t know if that answers your question, but the idea is that even within each category of technology, there are certain ones that are more of low-hanging fruit and higher impact. So it’s balancing between the investment and the impact we expect, and also how quickly the path is.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that overview. I appreciate that. Is this in the low-hanging fruit category or not quite yet in the low-hanging fruit category?
Mr. Mortazavi: Some parts are, and some parts are not. You’re looking at the portfolio. CDR, when it gets to the ocean‑based sequestration, again, the majority of it, in my view, is low‑hanging fruit. Not necessarily directly in the category of low‑hanging fruit because a lot of work still needs to be done to understand the ocean — which is a very complex system — and also understand the stress tolerance of the ocean environment — and the impacts of the technologies.
Senator Kutcher: And there are dangers from moving too quickly that we may not understand.
Mr. Mortazavi: Exactly.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Ms. Coté: I will add to that. My colleagues have been really clear there is a full range in this portfolio when talking about CDR. My colleague, Mr. Flato, might be able to back me up here, but the marine CDR science may not be as advanced as other CDR technologies. When we’re talking about the low‑hanging fruit, it is not quite low; it is a little higher up in the tree and still ripening.
Mr. Flato, I don’t know if you want to add anything much more scientifically sound than what I just shared.
Mr. Flato: I will add maybe one comment, and it was already noted earlier. Even in a category like marine CDR, there are a number of subcategories within that which are each different in their own ways.
One of the scientific issues we have not talked about is to be able to understand how much carbon dioxide you are actually removing. If you’re doing it through things like direct air capture, then you can measure exactly how much carbon dioxide you’re removing because you’re putting it into a pump and sending it into the ground. That is pretty straightforward.
If you’re doing something to the ocean that leads to an indirect effect that you are counting on to ultimately take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, then it’s much more difficult from a scientifically robust perspective to make accurate estimates of exactly how much carbon dioxide you’re taking out, how robustly it’s being stored, how long it will be stored and what the impacts or effects of that carbon dioxide in the ocean will be.
I think this is where the scientific readiness, if you will, is different across many of these different categories. Ultimately, that’s an impediment.
I don’t know how to translate that into quantiles or fruit, but it is an important point to make that different subcategories have different levels of readiness. We can’t treat them as a homogeneous batch.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for the information you have shared with us.
I wanted to circle back to a point you made, Ms. Wilson, about multilateral discussions and participation by Canada. You mentioned, relatively speaking, how well Canada is considered in those meetings. May I ask if there’s any country that’s considered to be doing better than Canada?
Ms. Wilson: On ocean-based CDR specifically?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Wilson: There aren’t fora where we talk a lot specifically about marine-based CDR technologies. It has come up in the context of our work in the Mission Innovation CDR space. I know the U.S., as I mentioned previously, is seen as having taken the biggest step toward exploring. All of this has to be relative, so when I say “taking the biggest step toward exploring,” they are supporting the establishment of a scientific base and there is a research strategy.
Mr. Gadoury: That sums it up. There is a small group of countries that are beginning to be more active in the area of ocean-based carbon sequestration. You mentioned the U.S. The Department of Energy and the NOAA are starting to provide funding to develop the research and understanding of these areas. There’s nothing there that is about large-scale projects of any kind.
We’re also aware, for example, of the United Kingdom, which permitted pilot projects on ocean alkalinity but that is still very early.
Generally, internationally, there is not a lot of activity, and not many countries are actively engaging in supporting marine CDR, but we’re beginning to see it.
Ms. Coté: I agree with my colleagues. From my understanding, the U.S. and the U.K. have some experimental research projects on ocean alkalinity enhancement, but they are not at a large scale yet; they are still limited. Recognizing we all have slightly different regulatory and jurisdictional kinds of governance within those three countries — you have to look at that in addition to what they are undertaking.
There are a number of other European countries actively looking at this, but I would say, from our recent conversations at the London Protocol, there is a lot of need for making sure that the research is in place. There is some hesitation from other countries in proceeding too quickly without having that baseline data to understand those changes that could occur in the marine environment.
Senator McPhedran: So would I be correct in understanding that, at this point, Canada has taken an observing position in relation to what the U.K. and the U.S.A. have undertaken, and that there is no initiative that Canada has undertaken on its own for our own context?
Ms. Coté: I would say we are definitely watching what is happening else were and learning from what other jurisdictions are doing. There are activities that are happening in Canadian waters; I believe some of those have been presented to this committee.
I would agree we’re somewhat neutral in the sense that we’re not outwardly saying that this is the best thing or this isn’t something we want to pursue. We want to see what happens, and we want to spend our time and energy in looking at the research to make sure we know what could occur with these technologies. Then it is about how to regulate best and how to engage best.
We are “actively neutral,” if that can be a new phrase I will put on the table, but we are very much working closely with other countries to understand what they’re doing, particularly those countries where we have very close shared water. As we know, these sorts of technologies are not going to stay put, which is different than other CDR that may happen where, as Mr. Flato indicated, you can capture it and count it. You can’t necessarily do that in the marine environment, and whatever you do to the marine environment flows out of your jurisdiction.
Internationally, we need to be conscious of that, and working collaboratively and consistently with other countries around the world.
Senator McPhedran: I will drill down a bit on this and pick up on my previous question on social licence. It is a similar question but specific to social licence. Is there a country that is doing better than Canada on developing and implementing strategies around the maximum possible social licence?
Ms. Coté: That is a great question. It’s not something I know off the top of my head. It’s not something we’ve looked at in terms of that aspect of it. Again, needing to consider the different governance mechanisms, I wouldn’t be comfortable saying that the U.S. has more or less social licence than us, because what they are doing is often very state driven. It may depend on where in the United States you might be doing things if it is considered more positive or not. It is a good question but one I don’t have a very clear or concise answer.
Senator McPhedran: Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson: I’m afraid I don’t have a very clear, concise answer either on this part. I would say that, as discussed, marine-based CDR technologies are really early stage. Generally, social licence concerns come up as technologies are demonstrated and deployed more broadly. I’m not aware of any discussions on this.
Senator McPhedran: One last quick question and it’s specific. Have you convened any meetings in any form in Canada with a combination of government, academia, communities, to specifically discuss the social licence question?
Ms. Wilson: We’ve certainly convened many meetings and workshops with those parties. Social licence does come up. I’m speaking more broadly on carbon management or CDR, social licence undoubtedly comes up from time to time in those contexts, but not specifically about ocean-based CDR. In addition, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, when we developed the carbon management strategy which was inclusive of all types of CDR, there was a fairly significant engagement process and we received submissions on a wide range of issues including social licence. I’ll leave it there. I don’t have much more to say about it specifically, but certainly it does come up.
Ms. Coté: For us, we have done some engagement it wasn’t specifically on social licence, but as my colleague said, it did come up and is an inevitable part of the conversation. It has been noted but no specific workshops/discussions have been convened just to look at that particular topic.
Senator McPhedran: And no plans to do so?
Ms. Coté: For us I would say I do see it as integrated into our approach to engagement, but I don’t feel at this stage we have enough information that we would want to be saying the Government of Canada is actively trying to increase social licence or vice versa. We are still that active, neutral state where we still need more information before that would be part of the concrete plans. As I said earlier, we do have plans for further engagements where that will inevitably come up as an element of the discussions.
Senator Greenwood: Just a quick question. I am a visitor to this committee. I was wondering when you were speaking about partnerships and engagement if you could speak a little bit about the engagement with the Tri-Council? I know that you’re supporting government labs, but are there partnerships and engagement with the Tri-Council? That is research and innovation. Thinking about that, the concept of pilot projects that one of you mentioned in your comments would be really interesting to hear that.
As you have this research and innovation moving along, you also talk about regulation. So once this is in place then this piece has to happen, or does it happen simultaneously? Because I’m thinking of time. Time is the enemy almost here in terms of the environment. What are the strategies that are helping to reduce that time as we seek those innovations? Because often innovation doesn’t happen in a lab. Sometimes it’s on the land. How can those kinds of things feed in? I know it’s probably through some of these partnerships. Please, can you talk a little bit more about that.
Ms. Wilson: Sure. In the Office of Energy Research and Development, we tend to leave the most early-stage research, the basic research, that is an area remit of the Tri-Council, academia. We do work with them closely. As part of our engagement, discussions, partnerships in a variety of areas, academia plays a key role.
In terms of the second part of your question around timelines. You were asking how we can reduce the timelines or accelerate the innovation cycle, it will be dependent on the type of technology. To answer what was, at face, does it have to be consecutive? Do we have to wait for there to be a regulatory framework before we can try to get a technology from TRL3 to 4, or 4 to 5? The answer is oftentimes no, but it is very dependent on the technology and the specifics of the project.
Right now with respect to ocean-based CDR, I would say our areas of focus would be to help develop that science, knowledge base, understand more about interactivity of particular additives or chemicals. For example, help understand some of the factors that were mentioned earlier, the effective temperature, the effective currents, those sorts of things potentially.
There was a good point raised earlier from my ECCC colleague around the ability to measure. In technologies where we’re looking to reduce emissions, I can’t overstate the importance of what we call MRV, Measurement, Reporting, and Verification. It is particularly important in the CDR space, and that would include marine-based CDR. A secondary consideration I don’t think we have raised today but we think about a lot is the permanence of the sequestration. As I’m sure you are aware, there is a range. The gold standard, obviously, is when carbon dioxide is captures through whatever means, storing it underground, in safe, permanent formations. There is the ability to encase it in concrete which is considered next best. And then we have nature-based solutions which have a role, but they’re not permanent or durable over hundreds or even thousands of years. So these are all of the things we think about.
Back to your question, it’s possible to advance some of the work while regulatory frameworks are being developed. I would say there is a certain point where you wouldn’t responsibly go past without understanding the broader landscape. That’s why technical specifications and proposals are important to us in our work when we are considering which companies or organizations to support. We don’t look at those in the absence of looking at the other environments.
Senator Greenwood: I used to work with CIHR before I came into this life. One of the things we used to have when we were putting out calls for proposals was to ask for indicators of success. Are those beginning pieces of monitoring that would have to go along with the research itself. So that cuts some time rather than it being an independent process that you wait on. I feel the timeliness of this kind of work right now. Thank you very much.
Senator Cuzner: I have one quick question. A couple of us would have seized on the active neutrality if you coined a new phrase there. It speaks a lot to the Canadian approach to a lot of things.
To square it a little bit, Ms. Wilson, you had indicated — and I concur — that with carbon capture and storage, NRCan was very much leading a lot of that process. You worked cooperatively with private investment, with Nova Scotia Power and SaskPower and academia as well. Is there now a hesitancy to take on more of a lead role? Is your position a little more apprehensive about jumping in on this?
Ms. Wilson: It’s a good question. I wouldn’t look at it so much from a perspective of apprehensiveness. We all have limited resources, whether it is time in a day or finances. We need to look at the broad portfolio of what we do and make sure that we’re giving that extra push to the areas where it will have the most impact as we look from a broad-based perspective toward 2050.
I would say we have focused on certain CDR approaches over others, including marine CDR. It is not to say in the future that it would not be an area of focus, but I don’t think I can overestimate how relatively nascent this area is, in comparison to others. Even though work has been happening on marine CDR for a while, when you look at the broad range of energy technologies, it is still a relatively nascent field.
Senator Cuzner: I guess that’s what we’re concerned about. Senator Greenwood talked about urgency, and several other senators talked about urgency. From the other testimony that we received, indications are that the benefit could be great. How do we get NRCan to maybe take on more of a leadership role, because that just helps? When we get into the regulatory regime, if NRCan is in the front seat rather than the back seat or standing on the curb waving as the parade goes by, how do we get that decision to say, “Yes, this is a technology that we want to assist with”?
Ms. Wilson: To be clear, we are looking at it. We are considering areas where we can assist. For us, it’s important to ground our efforts in techno-economic analysis. Yes, there is possibly great potential here. There is also an even greater potential, given relative areas of readiness, perhaps, in some other CDR technologies right now. We try to divide our time appropriately between them. When it gets to a point where we think additional efforts are required, we will certainly put them in.
I don’t want to leave the impression that we are ignoring this area or not engaging with stakeholders and not keeping tabs on where things are in trying to assess where support could be helpful.
Senator Cuzner: You don’t want to put it into a quadrant?
Ms. Wilson: I’m still looking forward to getting this quadrant that the senator has. That’s great.
Senator Ross: I am a guest here with the committee today, as well, and this is a very interesting conversation. I think it is very forward thinking that the committee is working on this particular technology and learning more about it.
Could you give me a sense of whether you think the committee’s studying this will actually advance it? Will it have an impact on the advancement of the acceptance of this technology as maybe the next steps? Is this study too early in the game? Give me a sense of what we might be hearing a year from now if we were asking these same questions.
Ms. Wilson: That’s a good question. I think, first of all, anything that adds to the evidence base that’s out there and helps to inform interested parties and Canadians about the technology, the issues around it and what is needed is helpful.
I think that open discussions like this one help to raise the public consciousness about this. I suspect — I don’t have any data here — there’s probably a relatively low percentage of Canadians who are aware that marine CDR technologies are a thing, so I think anything is helpful. It will add to the discourse and raise awareness. Certainly, we are pleased to be here and have it discussed.
Would it be different in a year? Of course. Any technology that’s still in development would be. Is it too early a stage? Not necessarily. I think it is just important to remain cognizant of the overall context that this discussion is happening within, and the context of broader carbon management or energy technologies.
I always say we receive a lot of funding proposals in my organization. We look at most of them, and Mr. Mortazavi looks at a lot of them. You can look at probably 80% of the ones we get, and think, “Oh, my gosh, that’s fantastic, and it will do amazing things.” But you have to look at it in context. You have to look at the other 200 that you received and compare them against evaluative criteria and determine which is the best to proceed with at this time. It is not to say that there are not merits to the other proposals — the first one I looked at — but we have to make difficult decisions sometimes.
Senator Ross: The innovation certainly seems to be leading edge, and something that hopefully will be able to be developed in a way that is so beneficial in the years to come. We said coast to coast to coast, but I’m from the East Coast as well, so it is great to hear about the leadership that is taking place there. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses this morning for a very interesting discussion. To follow up on Senator Ross’s questions, we try our best here at the Fisheries Committee not to be actively neutral. We are trying our best to be forward thinkers, and that’s why we’re delighted to have you here with us today. We thank you for joining us and adding to our work.
(The committee adjourned.)