THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 12, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:03 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on ocean carbon sequestration and its use in Canada; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Fabian Manning, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and chair of this committee.
Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
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 the chair or 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 Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Just to remind senators, we have one hour with our witnesses this morning. I’ll introduce the three witnesses in a moment. Just be extremely careful on the length of your preambles prior to your questions. I may have to lay down the gauntlet a little this morning — to nobody in particular, just forewarned is forearmed.
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: Tom Heintzman, Managing Director and Vice-Chair of Energy Transition and Sustainability with CIBC Capital Markets; Stephanie Hewson, Staff Lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law Association; and Paul Snelgrove, Research Professor, Department of Ocean Sciences and Biology Department at Memorial University of Newfoundland.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for joining us here today. I understand that each of you has some opening remarks. Following your presentations, members of our committee will have questions for you.
We will begin with opening remarks from Mr. Heintzman, followed by Ms. Hewson and Dr. Snelgrove.
Mr. Heintzman, the floor is yours.
Tom Heintzman, Managing Director and Vice-Chair, Energy Transition and Sustainability, CIBC Capital Markets: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. As you mentioned, my name is Tom Heintzman, and I am Vice-Chair of Energy Transition and Sustainability at CIBC. My role at the bank is to grow our business in next-generation energy transition investments, which includes carbon capture and storage, or CCS.
I have been involved in the energy transition for much of my career, first as a lawyer both on Bay Street — where, among other things, I acted on behalf of a number of utilities — and on the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, which is now Ecojustice. I’ve been a consultant with McKinsey, where I participated in and led a number of studies in the energy sector, and a co-founder and CEO of Bullfrog Power, which was an early leader in renewable energy in the carbon markets in Canada. I am a past board member of World Wildlife Fund Canada and Ecojustice.
My background over the last 30 or so years provides me with a unique and broad perspective to speak on voluntary carbon markets and, in particular, the demand for marine carbon dioxide removal, otherwise known as mCDR. You will frequently hear me refer to CDR, which is carbon dioxide removal.
A bit of background on CIBC: CIBC is financing/advising a number of projects which are relevant to this discussion. CIBC is a leader in both North America and Europe in renewable energy finance, including energy storage. We are regularly in the top 10 renewable project finance banks, not just in Canada but in North America. CIBC is also advising and assisting carbon capture and carbon removal projects in raising capital.
On the spectrum of transactions, at the large end, CIBC has supported the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line and is the bank for Summit, the large carbon capture pipeline under development in the United States. Similarly, CIBC is supporting large carbon capture and sequestration projects in Europe.
CIBC is also engaged in processes and dialogue to assist in the financing of a range of other CO2 capture projects and technologies, including bioenergy projects with carbon capture and storage, otherwise known as BECCS, and storage of carbon in cementitious materials — so embedding it into cement. At the smaller end of transactions, CIBC is working with a number of carbon removal companies to assist in their financing, including marine CDR.
Turning now to marine CDR, I first begin with a caveat: I note that the mandate of the committee is to explore ocean carbon sequestration. To date, most of my marine CDR work has related to rivers. While the CO2 is ultimately stored in the oceans, where the rivers exit, the chemical reaction occurs in the rivers. The process, measurement, reporting and verification are different for river-based CDR than it is for ocean-based CDR. As a result, my comments are more directly applicable to river CDR.
An important first point to make is that river CDR is safe. It is based upon the long-standing practice and science of adding limestone to rivers to counteract acidification. This long-standing practice to improve the health of rivers also has the benefit of removing carbon dioxide, as the limestone binds with the CO2 in the river. As a result, not only does river CDR restore the natural balance of rivers and support the rejuvenation of fish populations, but it also results in carbon dioxide reductions.
Second, river CDR is a very large opportunity. The World Resources Institute, among others, estimates that the global requirement for carbon removal will be about 10 gigatonnes per year in order to achieve our Paris targets, even with a tripling of renewable energy, the phase-out of coal and other energy initiatives recommended in the net-zero pathways.
River CDR has the potential for gigatonne scale or between 10% and 15% of the total global carbon removal required. Companies like CarbonRun, a Nova Scotia-based company, have modernized the process of adding limestone to rivers in order to permit it to produce carbon dioxide reductions at scale over many rivers and even countries.
The opportunity is also economically attractive. Large corporates like Google and Shopify are currently financing marine CDR, and that support should be expected to grow in the coming decades. Also, the benefits accrue locally to the landowners who provide the land and the community that provides the services, whether that is providing the limestone, plowing the road or maintaining the infrastructure. You can’t move these rivers, so the investment and the jobs will stay local.
Finally, Canada has the opportunity to be a leader in marine CDR. With our abundance of rivers and thousands of miles of shoreline and our academics who are researching the topic in depth, Canada is well positioned to be a leader and even export our skills and technology internationally.
In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a few points to consider: First, river CDR is a significant opportunity not only for the health of rivers but also for carbon removal. Second, to the extent the committee is considering how to regulate or standardize CDR, it will be important to distinguish between where standards and regulations are necessary — whether for the health and safety or to support the emerging industry — and where they are not and would, in fact, constrain innovation. CIBC is interested in supporting and financing carbon removal and carbon capture projects generally, including river CDR. I look forward to answering your questions and pursuing this discussion further.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Heintzman. Ms. Hewson, please.
Stephanie Hewson, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association: Good morning. My name is Stephanie Hewson, and I’m a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, which is a public interest legal organization based in Vancouver, B.C. I specialize in federal marine law and am the co-lead of the marine program there.
I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you today about the regulatory framework for marine geoengineering in Canada.
As you may know, there is currently no overarching law or policy framework in Canada to govern marine geoengineering, and our existing laws contain significant gaps. As a result, projects are currently proceeding without regulatory oversight or opportunities for public participation. This is concerning because we don’t yet know if these projects will be effective, and we don’t know what long-term risks they may pose to our coasts.
These are crucial questions. Climate change is a huge threat, and time is running short. We need to make sure we are investing in the most impactful solutions that don’t risk further damage to the health of the planet. There are tools that the Canadian government can and should be using to address these challenges.
I’ll begin with the gaps. Our current regulatory framework was not designed with marine geoengineering in mind, and projects are operating with very little oversight. To illustrate this issue, I want to take you through how this works with a project that is currently proposed here in Vancouver.
Planetary Technologies is proposing to take alkaline substances from mining waste and discharge them into Burrard Inlet through an outfall pipe at the Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although this project is in the research phase, it has the potential to cause adverse effects even at this stage. It is also likely to have a commercial element. I say this because Planetary Technologies is operating a similar research project in Halifax Harbour, for which they are already selling carbon offsets.
The project does not qualify for a federal impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act. It is not captured by the disposal-at-sea provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act because the effluent will be emitted from a land-based source. The Fisheries Act will apply, but likely in a retroactive fashion and only if there are sufficient monitoring and testing.
As this demonstrates, depending on project design, it is possible for for-profit companies to proceed in this space with very little regulatory oversight and without public awareness. As a result, crucial questions about these projects are not being addressed.
First, it’s important to note that we don’t yet know whether these technologies will have the desired effects or if they can be operated at a low enough carbon debt to achieve a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions. I think that’s an important starting point.
Second, while the chemical and physical aspects of marine geoengineering technologies may be at least partially understood, little is known about their impacts on the biology and ecology of our coasts. The ocean is a complex living system that we depend on for fish, food security and livelihoods and that marine life depends on for survival. The impacts of deploying marine geoengineering at the scale required to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions are unknown.
We’ve seen time and again that when we affect one part of a living system, it can have cascading negative effects beyond our ability to predict or control. We are understandably desperate for solutions to the climate crisis, but we must ensure that we are choosing those with the greatest impact and proceeding in a way that doesn’t risk causing greater harm. Thankfully, there are tools available to us to begin to address these questions and to effectively assess and regulate these novel projects.
The first and most logical step is for Canada to conduct a strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, of marine geoengineering technologies under the Impact Assessment Act. Such an assessment would allow independent scientists to participate and to begin to address questions about the efficacy of these technologies, the risks they may pose to our coasts and the opportunity costs related to other climate interventions as well as the potential benefits.
Second, it is critical that Canada develops mechanisms to govern geoengineering research projects as a priority. This research is necessary to make evidence-based policy decisions about these technologies, but it requires oversight. Canada must establish mechanisms for independent assessment, public participation and a clear line between legitimate scientific research and commercial deployment.
Finally, Canada should use the information identified through the strategic environmental assessment and well-regulated research trials to develop a robust regulatory framework for marine geoengineering and should not proceed with the commercialization of these technologies until this is in place.
Thank you for your time today. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hewson. Dr. Snelgrove?
Paul Snelgrove, Research Professor, Department of Ocean Sciences and Biology Department, Memorial University of Newfoundland, as an individual: Good morning to the standing committee and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I’m a professor of ocean sciences and biology at Memorial University of Newfoundland as well as Associate Scientific Director of the Ocean Frontier Institute, which is the umbrella organization that houses the Canada First Research Excellence Fund Transforming Climate Action research program. Within that program, I also co-lead two projects looking at carbon sequestration potential in the deep sea, an environment I have worked in for all of my career.
The ocean can help increase carbon dioxide removal through two main pathways. The first pathway is natural carbon uptake, noting that the ocean absorbs some 30% of our CO2 emissions and has greatly dampened atmospheric warming since the Industrial Revolution. However, now we look for opportunities for enhanced ocean uptake.
Some habitats, such as seagrasses and salt marshes, store disproportionate amounts of carbon relative to their area, and continental shelf sediments also store large amounts of carbon because they cover so much of our coastal and offshore waters. Some scientists have argued that expanding seagrass and salt marsh habitats through restoration or creation of new habitat can increase carbon sequestration.
That capacity for carbon sequestration is real, and we know these habitats also provide important co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration. These include protective habitat for juvenile fishes such as cod, shoreline protection and cultural and aesthetic values. However, the data available to date suggest that blue carbon storage in these habitats cannot substantively move the needle on atmospheric carbon removal. The scaling simply does not work in terms of the additional habitat needed and the time scales involved.
Protecting existing carbon stores rather than releasing that carbon is hugely important, and so are the co-benefits I just mentioned, but nature-based blue carbon solutions alone will not get us out of this climate change mess.
The second pathway to carbon removal involves increasing carbon dioxide uptake within natural ocean systems but combined with geoengineering, such as alkalinity enhancement, iron fertilization or pumping different forms of carbon into the deep ocean, potentially isolating that carbon for hundreds of years. All of these solutions merit discussion and research, but they also share the common concern of potential large-scale environmental impacts, particularly on ocean life and ocean processes. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has identified blue carbon nature-based solutions as the only low-risk option currently in play with today’s knowledge.
I will conclude by saying that many researchers are looking for blue carbon silver bullets to address climate change, and I hope Canada will continue to support those efforts, particularly the role of independent, objective scientific expertise. But we must also ensure that the medicine is not more damaging than the disease. I would be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Snelgrove, and thank you to all our witnesses. We’ll go to our deputy chair for the first question.
Senator Busson: Thank you, everyone, for being here. I notice, Ms. Hewson, it is still dark where you are in B.C., and I have felt your pain a number of times. Those early morning meetings here are very early on the West Coast, so thank you especially for being here.
When officials from Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, and Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, appeared before us on November 28, the committee learned that Canada does not presently have a framework in place to enable the scaling up of ocean-based carbon sequestration technologies. You have expressed a lot of concern about doing that and that we needed a great deal of caution as we move forward.
Do you see in your work and from your perspective any value in the government taking on a framework that looks at proactively putting together a regulatory formula for enabling this to be a high priority for the government?
Ms. Hewson: Thank you for the question. I think that the steps that we need to take include continuing research, but looking at oversight for that research, which we don’t currently have. We do have a really useful tool under the Impact Assessment Act, which is a strategic environmental assessment process that would allow us to look at some of the costs and benefits of this research. We do this regularly — I can only speak for the ocean; that’s my field — with changes in technology and industry.
For example, with renewable energy and offshore renewable energy, the steps toward implementing these technologies involve regional assessments and the development of a very robust regulatory framework. We had Bill C-49 go through. There is also the development of offshore wind regulations under a different act for the rest of Canada. Only after that do we start commercial deployment.
In this case, there are a lot of unknowns to even allow us to start making evidence-based policy decisions. That’s why it’s important to have research that’s ongoing but with oversight.
Senator Busson: To add to your comment, do you think this should be a priority for the government to be following this path?
Ms. Hewson: To be following the path —
Senator Busson: — of research and development of carbon sequestration.
Ms. Hewson: It is already happening right now. It should be a priority to look at how we are going to regulate and manage these activities. Right now, it’s happening in a bit of a “Wild West” scenario where there is nobody looking at what research is happening and what the limits should be between research and deployment. We need to be conscious of that and start managing that research. That’s the starting point. It is already happening, and we need to make sure it is being done well and in a controlled way.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much. Does anyone else have any comments?
Mr. Snelgrove: If I could add one thought there, I think inaction is a problem. I agree with Ms. Hewson’s suggestions on a pathway forward, but the evidence for climate change in Canada is overwhelming. We are already seeing very clear changes in the ocean, so I think inaction is not an option anymore.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
Mr. Heintzman: I have two comments. I made one of them in my initial remarks, but I think it is important to distinguish between river CDR and ocean-based CDR. River CDR has been going on for a long time, and there is extensive evidence on it. Obviously, we are starting carbon sequestration more generally. In-ground has a whole different series of rules and science. I would just caution against painting with one brush.
Second, I think that regulation will ultimately be necessary. However, I caution that this is a rapidly developing business area. In the analogy to renewable energy, Canada is not a leader in renewable energy manufacturing. To the extent we are going to regulate, I think we have to understand this is an area where Canada could be a leader worldwide and that we don’t get so carried away with extensive regulations and investigation that we paralyze ourselves. It probably shouldn’t be at either end of the spectrum, but we do need to take into account that this is moving extremely rapidly, like at the pace of venture capital. If Canada wants to maintain a leadership position, it will also have to move very quickly.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to all of our witnesses. I will direct my first question to Dr. Snelgrove.
What opportunities do you see for Memorial University to collaborate with Canadian and international institutions as well as private sector partners to develop and test innovative ocean carbon sequestration technologies? I’m asking this question in the context of Memorial University’s ocean supercluster, which I think is getting a lot of traction and international interest. To what extent does your research include looking at external factors including oil exploration, pollution, waste water, et cetera, impacting the ability of the ocean to sequester carbon? Thank you.
Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you for the question. There is a lot packed into that. I will start by saying that Memorial University partners with Dalhousie University and other universities in Eastern Canada on the Transforming Climate Action program, which is a large initiative looking at climate change solutions, in essence. These do include working with some companies that are trying to develop some of these alkalinity and other pathways to address climate change issues. There is a lot of activity.
I will also say that the universities have the advantage of providing independent expertise where they are not owing to anybody else in terms of their work. There is also a lot of expertise on some of the issues that I raised regarding potential impacts and understanding how these activities could influence the oceans and ocean health more broadly speaking. I think there is plenty happening there, and I think there are still other opportunities as well.
The other issue you raised regarding other activities, including oil development and other activities, is an extremely complicated one. It is something that is getting a lot of interest in the scientific community, namely the issue of cumulative impacts. We know, for example, that if a series of insults to our bodies happens at once, it is a lot harder to deal with than a single disease. The same is true of the ocean. I would say the challenge is trying to extract these issues and understand the individual components. There is activity going on with that sort of research, but it is extremely difficult to do.
Overriding all of this, which is perhaps a point that Mr. Heintzman raised, is that scaling is a real challenge. A lot of the measurements we make are on relatively small scales. How do we scale that up to larger scales that are relevant to issues such as carbon removal?
Senator Ravalia: Thank you. If I could just follow up, we have heard about technology being developed in rivers and fresh water. To what extent have those learnings been transposable to our ability to actually impact the oceans?
Mr. Snelgrove: That is less of my expertise, I would say. We do have some work within this Transforming Climate Action program in trying to address some of the impacts of river alkalinity types of approaches, but, more specifically, what happens when that reaches the ocean and the effects it will have on ocean systems. There is still work to be done there. That work is already under way, at least some of it.
Senator Ravalia: Mr. Heintzman, did you have a comment on this?
Mr. Heintzman: I would defer to the scientists on this one. We’re predominantly in the area of the impacts, and that is a bit out of my league.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. I have no preamble. My questions are to Ms. Hewson and Dr. Snelgrove.
Dr. Snelgrove, your comment about the medicine being potentially worse than the disease is an important one. I am a physician. It reminds me of the comment that “the surgery was a success, but the patient died.” We don’t want to go there.
Mr. Heintzman, I am not asking you because my focus is on the ocean as opposed to the rivers, and I think there are differences here.
For Ms. Hewson and Dr. Snelgrove, are our scientific knowledge base and our legal and regulatory framework at the point where some ocean carbon sequestration options are ready to be brought to scale? If not, what else needs to be done? If so, which particular ones are ready?
Would creating a dedicated secretariat in the federal bureaucracy to oversee ocean carbon sequestration initiatives be of value?
Mr. Snelgrove: I will start with a comment on the science, and then Stephanie can comment on the regulatory framework.
Senator Kutcher, the key comment you made is “at scale.” I would be comfortable saying that some small-scale experimental work is appropriate to try to understand these impacts, but I do not believe we are ready to deploy any of these actions at a scale sufficient to actually move the needle on carbon uptake and carbon sequestration. The science is under way. It certainly could benefit from enhanced coordination of the activities that are happening on both coasts of the country, but I don’t think we are there yet, in my opinion. Stephanie?
Ms. Hewson: Thank you. I won’t comment on the science because Dr. Snelgrove just has, but from the perspective of the regulatory framework, as I mentioned, we really have nothing right now. What we do have to monitor ocean pollution and the health of the oceans doesn’t apply to all of the projects that are currently happening, particularly because CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, doesn’t apply to emissions from land-based sources. That is a big gap.
What we need in order to get there is more research because we don’t have the evidence now to be making policy decisions on what deployment at scale would look like and what it would require. We don’t have the evidence that these are going to be the most effective climate solutions, and there are always opportunity costs to policy decisions.
Further development of a regulatory framework, as I mentioned, beginning with an environmental assessment to understand all of these factors and to determine the level of research required to move forward into scalable deployment, would be the next step if that were deemed to be the best option.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. I had the dubious pleasure of leading the last amendments to CEPA; I can concur with your assessment of that.
Thank you, both, for your answers. I do want you to think about the last part of my question. Would having a dedicated secretariat focusing on the promise of ocean carbon sequestration be of value to help us understand how best to invest in the science, support the science and develop the regulatory frameworks that we need? Would that be of value?
The question arises from listening to the officials. This is an issue they are dealing with, but it is one of a gazillion different issues. I just wonder because this seems to be a promising solution. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Snelgrove: Again, I can start if you like, Senator Kutcher.
I’m certainly a big fan of coordination, avoiding duplication and trying to make the best of our scientific efforts and also our efforts as a nation and as a society to do better.
The ocean is a particularly complex space to work in. The different agencies that are involved in ocean regulation and ocean use create a complicated space, so the short answer to your question is yes. I think a group that could help to coordinate that activity, both in terms of ongoing science and in terms of thinking about how best to develop a regulatory framework, would be useful. That is more Stephanie’s ballpark.
Ms. Hewson: Yes. I would say we definitely need more capacity within government to deal with these questions. We need the capacity for an independent assessment of these projects, which means scientific capacity. Whether or not that is a secretariat or just increased capacity within the departments that we already have is a question.
We need to be conscious that we don’t know whether these are promising technologies yet, so we can’t move to scale until we know if that is the case. Having greater capacity and coordination will help with answering that question.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Senator Petten: My question is for Mr. Heintzman. It sounds like CIBC is being visionary and thinking about future opportunities. How do you balance the economic opportunities with the environment?
Mr. Heintzman: Good question. The first thing I will say is that I began my career in the environment. I helped found Sierra Legal Defence Fund in Ontario. This was back in 1995. First and foremost, I am sort of an environmental regulator and lawyer. There is no question that neither can trump the other, the economic opportunity or the environment.
That said, more and more of the economic opportunities in the energy transition are offshore, whether that is Chinese batteries or Chinese solar, wind in Europe, et cetera. There is a limited number — but they’re very important — of areas where Canada can be a leader. Critical minerals would be on that list, as well as renewable energy generation — not the technology itself.
I do believe that carbon capture and storage in all its forms is an area that Canada can be a leader in. This is extremely rapidly moving. I would be exaggerating if I said as much as AI, but there is a lot of venture capital going into this space around the world. It is moving quickly, and there will be champions.
I am not at all saying to abandon the environmental consequences, but I am saying we have to understand there is a business and an economic reality to this, too. To the extent that we’re going to regulate and study, it is incumbent upon us to do it as expeditiously as possible because it is an opportunity we don’t want to let pass.
Senator Petten: As a supplementary question to that, how far away do you think we are in Canada from the commercial, economic opportunities?
Mr. Heintzman: It is occurring as we speak. There are a number of companies. I am working with probably at least a dozen companies with various technologies, and only one of them is water-based. This is happening right now. These are the early days when many of the champions or ultimate champions will rise. I do think we have to support our domestic industry to the extent possible.
Senator Cuzner: Coming off of Senator Petten’s questions to Mr. Heintzman, we had the officials from NRCan here, and I reflected back to 2002 when I went to Bells Corners, and they were doing the sequestration. They were very much at the forefront of a lot of the research around capture and sequestration, land-based, and the fact that it really has not come up to scale and been commercialized until tax incentives had been introduced in the sector. They said they were starting to get much more activity around investment in capture and sequestration.
If you could reflect on that, Mr. Heintzman, are you seeing that from where you sit now? Is there potential? If there were something more focused on the marine sector, would that be of benefit to proponents, or the current menu of tax incentives, would they be adequate?
Mr. Heintzman: Thank you for your question, senator.
Starting at the very high philosophical level, ultimately, no one really needs a carbon reduction. It is an additional cost for just about everybody. The cost and the economics of it are a fundamental challenge to its adoption, unlike virtually any other good or service in society. Cost and incentives are crucial unless we are going to mandatorily regulate this. There has obviously been reluctance to do that, not just in Canada but globally.
I would say that, yes, I am seeing significantly more pickup with tax incentives. The Canadian investment tax credits, or ITCs, have taken quite a long time to roll out. There has been wider adoption in the United States as a result of a simpler formula. Sometimes getting things perfectly is not as important as getting something that works and getting it out quickly. I do emphasize the importance of speed in this.
Yes, I believe the economics, whether it is in some form of a tax credit or some form of a carbon price or some form of a cap-and-trade system that forces emitters to buy, is important. You could definitely either tweak current incentives or import some from other countries that are more applicable towards marine or directed towards ocean CDR.
The last thought I would leave you is we have a patchwork of carbon regulations in the country by virtue of our Constitution and the way the different jurisdictions have divided it up. To the extent that CDR could be counted towards cap and trade, that would definitely increase the demand for it.
To the extent that we could harmonize the systems or some of the systems across the country in order to create a broader Canadian market, that would help not only on the generators of these credits — because they would have a bigger market — but also on the consumers. There would be more liquidity, and we would be gravitating towards the most cost-effective.
I recognize the constitutional impediments, but this is one time or one example where Canada would be stronger were we all to work together in a more coordinated fashion.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you. I have a quick question for Ms. Hewson. I should confer with my Nova Scotia colleagues across the way. Ms. Hewson, you mentioned Planetary and that they are selling carbon credits because of the work they are doing in Halifax Harbour. I’m not familiar with it. Do you guys know about that? If you wish to comment on it, Ms. Hewson, then I will close the loop with my two colleagues here.
Ms. Hewson: I am based in British Columbia, but what I know about the Halifax Harbour project is that they are running something substantially similar to what they are proposing in Burrard Inlet. It would be discharging an alkaline substance into the ocean from an outfall pipe.
I think this is the second year of the project so far. I read on their website yesterday that they have moved to 24-7 discharges of this alkaline substance. They are moving along quickly.
They have started selling carbon offsets. They have sold about 7.5 times as much as the carbon they claim to have sequestered so far. They have claimed to have sequestered a certain number of tonnes through that project.
That is the extent of my knowledge of what has happened there.
Senator Cuzner: Okay, maybe my colleagues will be able to fill me in. Thank you.
The Chair: Myself and Senator Deacon visited Planetary a while ago. It is an impressive operation. You should take the opportunity to have a look yourself.
Senator C. Deacon: The conversation has reminded me of the work we tried to do to coordinate an effort between Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO; ECCC; and Transport Canada on enforcing the MARPOL Convention to reduce the petroleum waste from small craft and the absolute, utter inaction between those three departments on a convention of which we have been members for 40 years.
I am appreciating this conversation about how we regulate in an appropriate manner when the regulations need to be agile because what we are learning is going to be crucial to identifying risks and monitoring effects and ultimately mitigating any negative effects as we scale. It is not either/or. You have to do it at the same time. The climate crisis is significant. We have to reduce emissions and remove past emissions.
The conversation was inspiring about getting to a single body, whether that is a non-governmental body with shared authorities provincially, municipally and federally or a federal body, or we go and duplicate it across departments. That is the big question we are all facing. How do we do this safely, in an agile way where we are identifying risks?
I want to focus in on what will allow us and what the risks are of sticking with our multiple departments and levels of government or finding something united. I want you to give us your best dream about how we might move forward if each of you could, please. Let’s start with Ms. Hewson and then Professor Snelgrove, then Mr. Heintzman, please.
Ms. Hewson: Thank you for the question. It is an important one.
We actually do have some guidance on this from international conventions that Canada is a party to. The London Convention and the London Protocol, which deal with ocean dumping, have been thoughtful about how to move forward with regulating marine geoengineering projects, noting that they may potentially have benefit for climate, but they also have risks. The benefits and risks are both unknown right now.
Their advice is, essentially, to not move forward with commercial deployment and scaling until we have understood and done legitimate scientific research on these different technologies. They have been thoughtful in laying out a program of how to have oversight over those research activities in the interim.
Senator C. Deacon: To be clear, you are really keen on doing nothing, no scaling at all, until we have a lot more evidence, versus scaling and gaining evidence at the same time. You are in the former; is that correct?
Ms. Hewson: I am interested in Canada doing legitimate, credible research to understand the risks of these projects. I don’t know that we have the information to start scaling now. From the research I have done, that doesn’t seem to be the case. There are significant risks.
When we are thinking about regulation, that is the starting point. From there, from that information, we can develop a framework that — if we decide to move forward with these projects — would allow them to do so safely. How that is done within government, I think you are right that intergovernmental coordination is critical on all ocean issues and can be hard to achieve. A form of governance that would allow for that to happen is very important.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you for the question. There are questions related to science and questions related to regulation. The science itself, most of that relevant to ocean processes, does take place within the DFO, but the regulatory pieces, of course, involve other departments. In that sense, the answer to your question is that it has to be some of both, so a mainly within-departmental effort but also with some enhancement of trying to link those pieces among the departments that are involved in ocean legislation activities.
One other point I would like to make is about your question on scaling. Scaling, I think, is part of the research. I don’t think we necessarily need to wait until the bitter end to figure out that aspect, at least in terms of the environmental impacts. We can start to address that through some forms of research that actually address impacts. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: If I could, professor, so we really understand — you see keeping scaling and research tied together so we can keep learning as systems grow, because risks may change over time. Is that a way to characterize what you said?
Mr. Snelgrove: I think that is a fair characterization; thank you.
Mr. Heintzman: Senator, I will be brief. Both the science and the regulatory structure are maybe beyond me, but there are two things I will say.
One, I would hope there is a level of common sense that can apply to this. There are some procedures that have been done for decades, if not 50 to 100 years, and can demonstrably be shown to adjust the pH levels and bring back fish populations. There is an intuitive sense of which ones are more profound or potentially profound in their effects and novel versus those that are more tried and true. I hope there will be a level of common sense to this so that, on the one hand, we do not wantonly allow dangerous activities to occur, but, on the other hand, we don’t preclude Canada from competing on an international scale.
The second point is more an expression of support for your — frankly, I don’t know what the right structure is. The senators are much better versed at that than I am. Having been in this space for a long time, I have seen many opportunities slip through Canada’s fingers. I would love for us to be able to move quickly and efficiently on this one.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. I had never heard the phrase “active neutrality” until our meeting with the regulators. Right now, the regulators, it seems, are not engaged heavily in this. They are just observing, whereas there are researchers around the world who are independent and funded independently from the businesses who are studying this intensely from a huge number and a wide variety of areas of expertise.
I want to specifically ask about the importance of having government oversight through, perhaps, an independent expert body or government regulation. I am very much in favour of the former being important in this rapidly changing area.
If each of you could comment, in 30 seconds, that is the spectrum we’re looking at: government-run regulation or government oversight of an independent expert group of constantly changing experts who are independent. Thank you.
Ms. Hewson: I am sorry; I do not know if I totally understood the question.
Senator C. Deacon: Our regulators are taking a position of active neutrality, whereas we have global experts and independent researchers who are moving quickly. Is it better to formalize something with those global researchers that is seen as government oversight and perhaps has the authority to be an oversight body, or should we just keep this in the government departments, as it is? I see those as two separate options that we have heard today.
Ms. Hewson: When I was talking about the strategic environmental assessment tool that we have, there is an opportunity to establish a committee with independent scientists who could advise the government on how to proceed with those projects. That is an important first step. I think anything that happens in the ocean space that could have impacts on the marine environment requires some form of regulatory oversight.
Mr. Snelgrove: I would add that I agree independent advice is extremely valuable in that people within the government have multiple issues they need to deal with. Often there is value in having that outside view and perspective both in terms of the optics of decisions that are made and also in terms of truly finding outside objectivity to balance the internal expertise that may be associated with that.
Mr. Heintzman: My addition would be that the scale today is not very large. We’re talking about handfuls or dozens of projects. Now is the time to scrutinize. Regulating at this point, at least a study in the way that Ms. Hewson is suggesting under SEA, may be an appropriate way of gathering information in order to be able to draw appropriate lines in due course.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, all. The discussion has been very useful and helpful.
I think about how we approach this in the public health sector. We start with a body of evidence, which we are comfortable with. As we implement it, we evaluate the impact of the implementation. There is a difference between discovery science and implementation science. When we scale up, we do the implementation science to see impacts we could never have guessed before. At the beginning, there is a discovery science that we are relatively comfortable is going to meet the point we are at. I am bringing this forward because I think this is part of the discussion we are having.
In both those areas, where are we when it comes to ocean carbon capture, both at the comfort level that we have enough evidence to move ahead into the implementation side and in terms of whether we have the structures in place? Do we have the capacity, or do we need to build it to do the implementation science as we roll these things out?
I would agree with my colleague: You cannot do one and then do the other. It is not a linear issue. You have to fix the airplane as you are flying it.
Mr. Snelgrove: I think we’re still in the discovery science phase. It is under way. There are activities going on. We are learning quite a bit very quickly, but we are not in the implementation phase yet. Hopefully, that can come soon.
I know Tom has expressed a concern that there is an opportunity here. I would also say that climate change is a very urgent concern. At the same time, I do want to make sure, personally, that we have the scientific knowledge to come back to the cure not killing the patient.
Ms. Hewson: I would support that. That analogy to health care is helpful in some ways.
Coming back to talking about oversight of research trials, when we test a new drug and propose the use of it, we don’t do that without research, and we don’t do that research without rules. Having that kind of oversight built into the process is really important.
Mr. Heintzman: I agree with Professor Snelgrove’s point that we do know enough, at least on certain forms, to begin deployment and testing. We are still far away from gigatonne scale on any of these, but I think we can deploy at the scale we are at today, study the impacts and be in a position in due course to be able to draw more defined bright lines.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for another informed discussion. Thank you to Senator Kutcher on second round for his brevity. I want to thank everyone, especially our witnesses, for taking the time to join us this morning and add to our work here. If there is anything you think you may have forgotten to elaborate upon, feel free to send it to the clerk at any time as we continue with our work here.
(The committee continued in camera.)