THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 21, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 6:36 p.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 evening. My name is Fabian Manning, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting this evening.
Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me 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 Dhillon: Good evening. Baltej Dhillon from British Columbia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia. Glad to have you here.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Welcome. Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Good evening. Margo Greenwood from British Columbia. I am sitting in for Senator Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Boudreau: Good evening. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
On October 8, 2025, 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 Dr. Helen Gurney-Smith, Research Scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, and the lead for DFO at the Canadian Ocean Acidification Community of Practice.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for joining us by video conference today. I understand that you have some opening remarks. I am sure that following the remarks, members of the committee will have questions for you.
Dr. Gurney-Smith, you have the floor.
Helen Gurney-Smith, Research Scientist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Ocean Acidification Community of Practice: Thank you. Good evening, chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I’m calling in from the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Peskotomuhkati Nation in Saint Andrews in New Brunswick.
The oceans play a vital role in maintaining the global climate, absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, the amount and rate of human carbon dioxide emission production means that the oceans are becoming more acidic, as this excess carbon dioxide continues to dissolve in sea water, which is called ocean acidification.
As a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, for the last assessment cycle, one of my duties was to determine the scientific evidence for climate change impacts to marine ecosystems and ecosystem services, as well as examining how different adaptation and mitigation options could be used.
Ocean acidification and other climate stressors, like global warming, are leading to the redistribution and altered productivity of fish stocks, affecting food provisioning and livelihoods around the globe. Shellfish species are considered particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification.
Marine carbon dioxide removal, also referred to as mCDR, is a rapidly evolving space, and the science around the impacts of these new technologies on marine ecosystems is highly uncertain at this point. The majority of research has focused on the efficacy of technologies rather than the biological ramifications for ecosystems. Science to date is centred on short-term, research-scale, non-cumulative studies to the base of the food chain, like phytoplankton, rather than to the fish or shellfish species that we harvest or grow. Marine ecosystems in Canada are complex and varied, and mCDR efficiency will vary in Canada’s oceans.
However, there is known trace heavy metal release from some ocean alkalinity agents in sea water, which could then bioaccumulate in the food web and cause issues for food safety. There is some evidence that suggests that alkalinity agents can precipitate and prevent animals like clams from burrowing in sediment, for example. It is therefore currently unknown what mCDR will mean for fisheries access and productivity, for sensitive ecosystems and the functioning of marine protected areas.
The international scientific community is working to fill these knowledge gaps. This includes the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and related work that other scientists and myself, Indigenous and fisher authors are involved in, but we’re just not there yet with a scientific consensus.
There is also a need for robust considerations on the life-cycle analysis of these climate interventions to ensure that there are net reductions in carbon. The source of alkalinity agents, the generated carbon footprint of the process and the cost‑effectiveness at scale are factors that all need to be included and considered.
There are unknown effects of what this will mean to life in the oceans, the food that we access and the jobs of subsistence and commercial fishers, for example, who have long occupied the spaces that would also be used by mCDR operations. Implementing climate actions that lead to negative outcomes for existing industries like fishing would be maladaptive. The lobster fishery landings alone were worth $1.8 billion in 2023 and support many rural communities and economies.
Although there is no specific regulatory framework for carbon management technologies in Canada, relevant acts such as the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 may apply depending on the nature and location of the activity.
Canada’s policy landscape for aquatic carbon management is evolving, with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, working alongside federal partners such as Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, and Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, to assess ecological impacts, coordinate science advice and explore options for a domestic regulatory framework that supports responsible innovation.
While society undoubtedly needs climate mitigation, proceeding with new ocean-climate initiatives without the necessary knowledge risks potential long-term harm to ecosystems and people. We should consider mCDR alongside the rights of Indigenous Peoples and other coastal communities that rely on the oceans for cultural, social or economic reasons. There should be open and early engagement with Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders, including members of the fisheries and aquaculture industries. Robust and trustful engagement will be key for any responsible mCDR development.
Ultimately, mCDR alone will not be effective to halt the acceleration of climate change. It will literally be just a drop in the ocean if it is not paired with massive and sustained greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
We need to fill these scientific uncertainties to determine how mCDR may be responsibly developed. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Gurney-Smith. Our deputy chair, Senator Busson, will ask the first questions.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much for the information you’ve brought forward. Clearly, you express a lot of caution and precaution as we engage in this basically new technology. Compared to other countries, can you tell us where Canada might stand in the development and research around mCDR? Can you give us any kind of an idea about where we are compared to other countries, perhaps some in Scandinavia? I believe that’s where this is happening.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Canada seems to have a lot of activity, particularly in the Atlantic area. There are a couple of pilot projects on mCDR that are under development.
In terms of what is happening in Europe and places like that, there have been some trials in the U.K. There have been a few trials in the U.S. as well, but a lot of the European Union countries are using a more precautionary approach. They have developed principles around responsible mCDR development. I would be happy to share that document with the committee if that would be of interest.
Senator Busson: In terms of the technology and the research field, would you say that we are neophytes when it comes to this kind of research, or are we considered to be on the other side of the scale or, perhaps, in the middle?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Well, mCDR in and of itself as a research field is very, very new. You can tell that by the fact that during the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s last assessment cycle, there wasn’t a lot of coverage of mCDR at all. It has been in the last maybe five years. The majority of information that we as a scientific community have on the technology right now is based on the efficacy of those technologies rather than on the biological impacts.
The biological impact side is getting filled. There is a lot of interest in these technologies. There is a lot of understanding that we need to have those ecosystem impacts. I would say Canada is on par with other countries. Unfortunately, we are not at the level that we can have a scientific consensus where we can be firmer about these things. We need more research in key areas, such as around fish and shellfish production.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much for your answer.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much for being with us, Dr. Gurney-Smith. We’ve been spending most of our time not on the broader area of mCDR but on ocean alkalinity enhancement, particularly land-based and river-based ocean alkalinity enhancement. I just wanted to be clear on that.
In terms of your concerns, let’s look at the salmon river work that is being done in Nova Scotia and has been done, as Senator Busson said, in Scandinavia for about 20 years. There is a lot of evidence there on fish population and the health that has been brought back to rivers. Is that something that you’ve looked at in your work? That is my first question.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Personally, I have not looked at it, no. A lot of research that has been developed in the freshwater space and in salmon rivers, like you are mentioning, may not directly apply to the marine environment. We still need those marine environmental studies to determine if the effects will be the same for the different populations of fish.
Senator C. Deacon: Fair enough. I just wanted to know if that’s something you had looked at.
In terms of land-based ocean alkalinity enhancement — and that’s where we have been focused — studies have been done on plankton and not beyond that, is that correct?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Yes, the bulk of the literature has been done on plankton, and there have been — thinking about power plants — other industries that may be sucking in sea water. That potentially leads to the entrainment of different juvenile fish and zooplankton, if they’ve been sucked into the process.
Senator C. Deacon: In terms of the geoengineering that is happening to our oceans right now because of excess carbon being pumped into the atmosphere at a steadily increasing rate, you make the point well about the need for reduction and not just removal. Removal will not solve the problem on its own. What are the effects that you are seeing on shellfish? Certainly, lobster fishers tell me that lobsters are walking north at a steady pace. They are all heading to Newfoundland, I guess, having heard what a beautiful place it is to go to past Cape Breton.
The water temperatures in the North Atlantic are rising, I understand, faster at the bottom of the ocean than at the surface. I saw recent reports on that. The acidification is very bad — as you say — for shellfish. We have a significant problem occurring through our involuntary geoengineering right now.
How do you make the trade-off between the other ways that we need to study — increasingly at scale — opportunities to reverse that? How do you see making that trade-off? Yes, we constantly need more research. There is no question about that, but that research has to be increasingly at scale to really understand what’s happening.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Yes. Generally, you would use the precautionary approach, looking at things at a small scale to see if there was an impact. Then, obviously, you wouldn’t proceed past that, or you would try to revise the technologies or the different agents that you were using before you would proceed to scale. One of the things that we’re finding is that with some species, the ocean acidification can affect particular life stages. Different industries, like the shellfish aquaculture industry, for example, actually buffer sea water in the hatcheries to help reduce some of those effects of early ocean acidification because it is that early juvenile stage which is really the most sensitive.
If we stopped greenhouse gas emissions now, there would still be ocean acidification in the ocean for a long time to come. We need to be considering multiple options together, and being able to focus on species and ecosystems that we think are particularly sensitive would certainly be good ones to prioritize studying.
Senator C. Deacon: May I ask for a clarification? I just want to be clear on how you see the research and scaling of technology together. As someone who has commercialized technology, doing the two at the same time is really important, because different issues emerge at different scales as you mobilize the technology. I just want to be clear: I was hearing you say that you see it as doing the research and then scaling it. However, I see it as something that you constantly do in parallel.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: The Government of Canada normally does a precautionary approach with these things. The developments that are happening around research frameworks and things around mCDR are focused first on doing it at a very small scale, learning lessons and then potentially going back and going through to the next phases.
I think to have those two things side by side when we don’t know the risks about the large scale at the moment would be something that could potentially lead to long-term impacts for that particular region where it was implemented. From a precautionary approach, I don’t think that we are at the stage yet where we can speed up and go to the large scale.
Senator C. Deacon: I don’t think that any of us are talking about large scale yet, but can you cite an example where you have been part of a process like that so that we can look into that?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Sure. I’m related to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, or ICES. There is a group of us who represent different governmental scientists, academics, fishers and Indigenous groups. We have come together to try to develop some kind of consensus and also tools on biological impacts and biological impact monitoring. Right now, a lot of the tools that are currently more readily developed or are in a better stage of development are around the monitoring, reporting and verification as opposed to the environmental side. We’re currently going to be moving into becoming a formal working group. In the meantime, we will be producing some papers that we hope will be out in early 2026.
We also invite other people outside our group to contribute to the special theme set.
Senator Boudreau: Good evening, Dr. Gurney-Smith. Thank you for being here with us. As mentioned in the introductions, I represent the province of New Brunswick. I know the commercial fishery is obviously very important to our province. You mentioned some concerns or issues in regard to the fisheries. Whether it be fishing lobster, as was mentioned, cultivating oysters or growing salmon, all these activities are occurring along our coastline, as they are in other provinces.
As part of your work and research with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, have there been any formal consultations with fishers’ associations or unions, salmon growers or oyster cultivators? Are there any formal consultations that have taken place, and if so, what can you tell us about that, please?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Since mCDR is such a new industry and in its very, very early stages, there have not been any formal processes of engagement with stakeholders and Indigenous People. However, DFO does recognize the critical importance of early engagement with these groups as this space starts to evolve.
Senator Boudreau: As a quick follow-up to that, in my experience, especially with fishers’ unions and associations in the province, the sooner you can get them involved in these consultations, the better. Are there any plans to include them more formally in the project planning and long-term monitoring as these new technologies evolve?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: That’s not something that I know about, but I can get back to you on any formal processes that will be happening in the near term. However, as far as I know, there is not. Certainly, Indigenous groups and fishers have a lot of knowledge about the ecosystems in which they work and reside. They would be good people to have involved not only in terms of their perspectives but also because they are Maritime knowledge holders as well.
Senator Boudreau: I would appreciate if you could do that follow-up for us. Thank you.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Yes.
The Chair: When Senator Busson was asking questions, you mentioned a document to her. Please provide that to the committee as well when you have the opportunity. We would appreciate that.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Absolutely, I will do that.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Dr. Gurney-Smith, for being here tonight. I am a new senator to this particular committee, so I am learning as we go along. Can you explain, Dr. Gurney-Smith, in plain language how the work you do to address ocean acidification overlaps with mCDR processes like ocean alkalinity enhancement?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Ocean acidification work is all based on ocean carbon. In the absence of the mCDR people — since this is such a new space, we don’t really have a lot of expertise in that area — it is really the ocean acidification community that is used to manipulating sea water parameters to not only investigate ocean acidification but also, for lack of a better word, to turn back the clock on climate by using ocean alkalinity enhancement to get to previous conditions. It is that kind of community that is coming together to try to help assess what some of these mCDR activities actually mean for marine species.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. Just to follow up, you stressed caution in this work and the risks that are in front of us if it is not complete or done in concert with others. Yet we have an urgency as well to get on with the work. Is there consensus in that thinking where we need to slow down before we speed up and we must understand all the risks and get it perfect and put aside the good?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: There is caution because there are so many unknowns out there. I think other things that we have to consider are the scales that would be needed. I think we all acknowledge that greenhouse gas emissions reductions are really the key way that we need to go.
Just to give you a link to the kind of scales that we’re talking about, the kind of consensus right now in terms of carbon dioxide removals, which are needed, is around 9 gigatonnes by 2050 and 17 gigatonnes by 2100. There has been some work done by the National Academies. Just to give you a concept of this, if you were to do macroalgae aquaculture, to get 0.1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide removal, it would be equivalent to a 100-metre-wide strip around 63% of the global coastline of the world. And that would just give you 0.1 gigatonnes. If you’re looking at the energy that is required in some of these processes, like direct ocean capture, for example, to get 1 gigatonne would take 50% of the energy of the U.S. right now to be able to do that.
When we think about ocean alkalinity enhancement, which I think is the focus here, there are two different ways that can be done. It can be done from the land, but it can also be done off of ships. To get 1 gigatonne of removal, that would be the equivalent of 750 more ships in the ocean just to get that.
Thinking about how we might have to scale up, what is the scale that is actually needed? There are still a lot of questions around that. And the efficacy of some of these technologies —
Senator Dhillon: I’ll ponder on that for a second.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: You mention the potential negative effects of storage through alkalinity enhancement, such as heavy metal release and impacts on marine ecosystems. Are there ways of mitigating these effects? What would the benefit-cost ratio be?
[English]
Ms. Gurney-Smith: In terms of how those things can be mitigated against, different alkalinity agents may have different potential for trace metal release. With any new technology, there may be different processing steps that could be done to ameliorate some of those effects.
In terms of the cost-benefit, I’m afraid I don’t have that information as to how that would be worked out.
In terms of other ecosystem effects, one thing is that not all alkalinity agents perfectly dissolve in sea water. What can happen is you can get a lot of precipitates then going into the sea water. This can then go into the sediment, and some of these can cause altered behaviours in animals, for example.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Am I to understand that the benefit-cost ratio is unclear?
[English]
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Yes. I wouldn’t know how to assess that right now. Maybe there are others who could do that, so I would have to defer to somebody else to give you a cost-benefit ratio there. Also, when thinking about the effects at scale as well, that would be an important point to consider: how cost-effective these different technologies are when they might be scaled up.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you. Could you give us an idea of the potential of carbon storage? I would like to understand what this technology can offer. I’m new to the committee and I would like to precisely understand the advantages of the technology.
[English]
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Thank you for the question, and I also appreciate the clarification too.
Ocean alkalinity enhancement is one of the different mCDR options that are being considered. In general, it is considered a form of mCDR that could lead to durable storage, so it’s storage which is over hundreds of thousands of years, which is what we really need to be doing for long-term carbon storage and for climate mitigation.
One of the reasons why there is interest in this is because we only have X amount of capacity of doing this on land, so the ocean is another potential area where we can do carbon dioxide removals and also storage. But at this point, because the technology is new, there are those uncertainties as to how much can be removed, how durable is the storage for some of the mCDR options and then what are the effects on marine ecosystems. There are seven different types of mCDR technologies out there.
Right now, for the cost-effectiveness, there are some kind of sizable error bars that are associated with that, so that again kind of highlights what the unknowns are right now.
You can consider it as one of the suites of carbon dioxide removal that are possible. As to whether it goes ahead and at what scale it goes ahead, I think that’s for different regulators and society and societal acceptance to decide that.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Surette: Thank you for your presentation. I too come from a coastal community, southwest Nova, which probably has as large of landings of lobster as anywhere in Canada. When you mentioned how it affects shellfish, of course, it is of interest. I think we all understand the impact of acidity in the ocean. The part that seems to be discouraging on many fronts here — and I’d like to have your comment on that — is that the technology is developing and evolving to start with. We’re still on small-scale projects. We don’t actually know the effects on shellfish. And then add the cost-benefit, which we don’t know. How do we keep interest and encourage moving forward? I think some of the figures you mentioned earlier were at the very early stages as well. Is there any hope? I can understand when we’re dealing with rivers and small areas and on land, but here we’re talking about oceans. I’m just wondering if there is even a timeline as to when we can expect this to even move somewhat forward to have any effect in the oceans.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: With any new type of area, one thing that helps trigger to kind of kick-start things is if there is investment in research. Obviously, that helps to fill some of these knowledge gaps that we have.
In terms of urgency for getting these things in place and how quickly we need to get them in place, I think there needs to be a decision framework across many different levels to assess it as it goes and then have that consultation with different groups to see whether it’s applicable for a particular region or not. Some regions will have higher ocean alkalinity efficiencies, for example, than others as well.
Senator Surette: It just seems like a big challenge. I don’t know. I might read this wrong completely. Add that to what was already mentioned about consultation with commercial fishers. We already know even for aquaculture, wind turbines and the ocean, if you don’t consult early, you’ll have major roadblocks moving forward. That’s yet another step we have to overcome. I’m going to try to preserve hope, but I’ll need a little bit more of a push.
Senator Cuzner: We hoped the Jays through to their win last night.
My question won’t be dissimilar to what Senator Surette has posed. Senator Deacon talked about research and scaling being parallel going forward. We’ve long undertaken the precautionary approach to any decisions made around the oceans, and I support that wholeheartedly. I come from a coal mining community. I know that we placed a great deal of expectation on land-based carbon capture and storage. I remember visiting the NRCan lab in Bells Corners early in the 2000s, where they were doing great things in the lab, but the challenge arose in taking it to any kind of a commercial level of viability. I don’t know if they’ve hit that yet. They said that there had to be incentives put in place by the government that would encourage going to that next level of viability.
My question comes back to this: When we look at the oceans, are we closer to still trying to establish a baseline — what’s the science and what are the impacts going to be with these initiatives? Are we scaling side by side? Are we scaling now? Are we closer to trying to establish how close we are to the precautionary approach versus scaling?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Both in Canada and globally, we are at the research scale. There isn’t massive sustained mCDR at scale going on around the world. We’re definitely at that research scale. A lot of advancement has happened over a pretty short period of time. There is a lot of accelerated interest in this. Since there are external philanthropists and entrepreneurs who were interested in determining the efficacy of some of these technologies, there are definitely rapid advancements happening in the scientific field. As to whether something gets implemented at scale or not, that’s above my pay grade. That’s a decision for somebody else to make.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Dr. Gurney-Smith, for being with us. I appreciate listening to your testimony. It’s a new area for some of us around this table.
One of the things you mentioned was that there is no specific regulatory framework with respect to this, but there are a number of different acts that come together to fill the gaps. I think I heard it that way. To follow up from what Senator Cuzner mentioned, are we at a stage where it is essentially too premature for something like that to go into the foray of coming up with a regulatory framework because we still need to do the research and data collection to inform that regulatory framework? Is that where we’re at? When there is discussion of these technologies, there is discussion about the efficacy of the technology, but they’re not getting into the biological impacts. I believe that is what you mentioned. Could you please explain that variance or difference as well? Thank you.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: In terms of the first part of the question where you were talking about regulatory frameworks, ECCC, DFO and NRCan are actively involved in discussions regarding developing regulations for mCDR. One of the things is that it does need to be based upon scientific principles in terms of preserving ecosystems and ecosystem services, and DFO obviously has mandates related to that under the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act and the Species at Risk Act. Also Environment Canada does too under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 as well.
My understanding right now is that those discussions are currently going on. However, in order to have clear operational requirements to enable safe and environmentally sound advancement of carbon dioxide removal in the aquatic environment and potentially in offshore areas as well, that developmental work needs to be done first.
The second part of the question was about different technologies. There are different technologies and different assessments of how much carbon they can store and then the cost-effectiveness and things like that. Ocean alkalinity enhancement is seen as one of the ones that perhaps has the most potential in terms of the amount of carbon that it could store. However, there are other activities as well that can also remove carbon but which also mean that the carbon itself actually has to be stored in the deep ocean bed. That also comes with another process.
When we’re thinking overall about how these different technologies can be implemented, we have to think about the multiple stages of that process. How far are the alkalinity agents coming from? What’s the potential risk of those agents being put into the water? What energy is used? What acid might be resulting from different forms of alkalinity enhancement? Then there is the disposal of such products and then also the storage of the carbon.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: You’ve mentioned that you’re going to start consultations at some point. There is a plan or a thought to start consultations, and you’re recommending a precautionary approach. I’m going to be a little bit confrontational in terms of DFO’s capacity to manage this in a timely manner. I just look at the responsiveness that we observed in our report on Indigenous rights-based fisheries.
In Nova Scotia, regarding DFO’s responsiveness in the tidal energy generation area and certainly very much in our seals report, the precautionary approach has not been helpful to fisheries or ocean ecology on every level that we can see, especially in the seals area. There has been a gap in research that has been done. Basically, what’s happened is that progress hasn’t been made in an area that is very important to the Atlantic fishery and to Indigenous communities.
In that context, I want to challenge you a bit on the precautionary approach and its efficacy.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: I would say that those kinds of questions would be outside of my remit as a scientist. A lot of those questions are bigger questions, so I would defer to other DFO colleagues to provide responses on that in terms of engagement plans and also in terms of whether there would be any risk management going on, which I think is what you’re asking about.
Senator C. Deacon: In our seals report, we found a massive gap in fundamental research on every coast of Canada as it related to the seal population. I hear your precautionary approach, but in our committee, we haven’t seen DFO’s capacity to actually do that in an active and effective manner. I wanted to offer that challenge and ask if you could offer anything in response because you just said that ECCC, NRCan and DFO are now actively developing regulations in this space, but there is a lack of expertise and knowledge specifically in this sector at this point in time. There are also areas where there is knowledge, but there hasn’t been action.
Just trying to square that challenge.
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Yes, I appreciate that. There are active discussions about regulation between those different federal agencies.
In terms of DFO’s capacity, DFO does do ocean monitoring, so they have the baseline, and there are ocean chemists who do the modelling on ocean acidification in our different regions, for example. We do have that capacity. We do also have ocean acidification-related scientists who would be pertinent to this field. There are people who are doing vulnerability assessments. That’s also the biogeochemical modellers who project what changes actually mean in the ocean. DFO has formed a national working group on mCDR, and there is a Maritimes carbon working group as well. Then, within DFO nationally, there is an ocean chemistry working group. We do have some capacity.
I’m a scientist, so, of course, I’m going to ask if there was more money available for research and increased capacity of people, would the response be quicker? I think you would probably find that in most industries and groups, that would be the case. Again, that’s not a decision that I have any influence over at all.
Senator C. Deacon: The opportunity could be to work with academic groups with proven expertise in this space as well, I would think, not just DFO scientists. Would that be fair?
Ms. Gurney-Smith: Yes, I think there is an opportunity for the scientific community as a whole to come together. One aspect with DFO is the independent advice provision, which is separate from academic institutions that may have particular linkages to particular groups, for example. As we proceed, it has to be a case of robust, really good science, transparent processes and some independent research that is used to form the basis of the scientific consensus.
Senator C. Deacon: I agree with all those points. Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank Dr. Gurney-Smith for joining us here this evening for this informative discussion. Certainly, I would ask you for the documents that you had mentioned. If you could forward them to the committee, we would sincerely appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
For our next panel, we will be hearing from Na’im Merchant, Executive Director of Carbon Removal Canada, who is joining us by video conference; and Diane Hoskins, Director, Global Policy at Carbon to Sea Initiative. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you both for joining us here this evening. I understand you both have opening remarks. I will go to our virtual guest first.
Mr. Merchant, you have the floor.
Na’im Merchant, Executive Director, Carbon Removal Canada: Good evening, chair and honourable senators. Thank you for inviting me back to discuss ocean carbon removal and Canada’s opportunity in this emerging field.
Carbon Removal Canada is an independent non-profit accelerating the responsible scale-up of carbon removal technologies. We advocate for impactful policies grounded in rigorous research, we shape Canada’s emerging carbon removal market and we connect the right people to the right information. We’re entirely philanthropically funded and don’t accept industry money. This independence lets us be an honest information broker, working with governments across Canada.
For senators new to this topic, let me clarify the landscape. Permanent carbon removal takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and stores it for thousands of years. These technologies address emissions already accumulating since the Industrial Revolution: the ones fuelling the wildfires and ocean acidification we see around us.
Think of the atmosphere as a bathtub rapidly filling with water. Carbon capture at industrial facilities is turning off the faucet, preventing new emissions. Carbon removal is pulling the plug and draining what’s already there. Both are necessary. Neither alone is sufficient.
This differs from short-term approaches like tree planting, which store carbon for less than 100 years on average. Those methods have their place but not at the scale required to address the climate crisis we face.
When I last spoke to this committee, I said ocean carbon removal represents an opportunity we cannot waste — a chance for Canada to provide climate leadership, to differentiate itself globally and to create tens of thousands of jobs. None of that has changed. What has changed is the urgency.
In recent months, you’ve seen news about U.S. companies relocating their carbon removal projects to Canada. Consider what this means: Amid tariffs and geopolitical tensions, while automakers shutter Canadian operations and shift production south, this sector is moving in the opposite direction. Companies are choosing Canada despite the headwinds. Why? They see what I see. Canada has world-class expertise, supportive communities and the intellectual property that launched this field.
Despite these advantages, Canada stands at a crossroads. Companies considering locating here identify three consistent barriers: First is business certainty. There’s a fundamental mismatch between government mandates lasting four years and companies making 10-year investment decisions. In ocean carbon removal, multiple federal departments all have a hand on the wheel before you even reach provincial jurisdictions. Companies tell me they lack clear direction about who makes decisions, what approvals they need and how long processes will take.
Second is innovation pathways. We have extraordinary talent. Some of the world’s finest minds in ocean carbon removal want to work here, contribute to our economy and help solve our climate problems. The question is how we support not just today’s projects but also the next generation of technologies. How do we answer the pressing questions that the government and communities rightfully have?
Third is trust and partnership. Every sector must build social licence, but carbon removal must earn it daily. Communities need to feel safe and heard, even when they don’t grasp every scientific detail. Indigenous partnership and participation are also critical — not as an afterthought but from day one, as witnesses have shared with you.
This committee can help ensure Canada doesn’t lose its lead. I recommend two immediate actions. First, establish a federally led research road map. We’ve heard repeated calls for “more research” before proceeding, but there’s rarely clarity about what “more” actually means. Which specific topics need investigation? What studies would answer outstanding questions? What are the ultimate goalposts?
This vagueness creates perpetual delay. The federal government should take an active role by deploying its own researchers and funding in partnership with academia and industry. We need specific milestones, defined timelines and clear success criteria — not open-ended investigation.
Second, expand carbon removal procurement. The federal government has started down this path with the Low-carbon Fuel Procurement Program. Working with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we secured an initial $10-million carbon removal purchase commitment. These credits will decarbonize emissions from our national safety and security fleet. We should build on this foundation. Canada’s NATO commitments, which explicitly include domestic investments, present the perfect vehicle to expand procurement and support Canadian companies while meeting both our defence and climate responsibilities. Every procurement dollar creates business certainty, validates Canadian innovation and keeps companies from relocating to jurisdictions with clearer market signals.
The window to lead is closing. Other nations are watching Canada’s hesitation and moving to capture the economic benefits of technologies that we helped pioneer. Some of the brightest minds in this field want to build their futures here. Companies are actively seeking to relocate in Canada right now. The choice is straightforward: Act decisively to lead, or watch from the sidelines as others profit from a transition we began.
I urge this committee to recommend immediate action on research coordination and procurement expansion.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merchant.
Ms. Hoskins, you have the floor.
Diane Hoskins, Director, Global Policy, Carbon to Sea Initiative: Thank you, chair and committee members.
At Carbon to Sea Initiative, we are the largest non-commercial initiative evaluating if and how ocean-based carbon dioxide removal could be part of the global response to climate change. I’ll refer to it as oCDR today.
I’ve spent my career at the intersection of climate change, ocean conservation and policy, so getting this right for our ocean environment and our climate is at the heart of what drives me every day.
At Carbon to Sea Initiative, we work closely with academic institutions, the private sector, civil society and First Nations to fund scientific efforts aimed at assessing the potential of one particular oCDR approach: ocean alkalinity enhancement, which is referred to as OAE.
To date, we’ve spent or committed just under $60 million for research and development initiatives with a substantial concentration with Nova Scotia-based partners. OAE is a carbon dioxide removal approach that has extremely high potential according to leading scientists. Effectively, over long periods of time, as rocks are exposed to elements, their minerals are naturally washed into the ocean. That helps balance out the acidic effect of carbon dioxide in the water. Adding more of these minerals could speed up the natural process, allowing ocean waters to soak up more carbon dioxide without becoming more acidic.
Carbon to Sea Initiative’s research program and grant making centres on rigorously answering three questions: Can we replicate that process safely for people and the environment? Is OAE effective at removing legacy carbon from the atmosphere? And can it be scaled to a climate-relevant solution?
We are outcome agnostic when it comes to those questions. If the research shows that for a particular OAE approach, it is not effective or not safe or not scalable, we would consider this a success because it would free us up to explore and advance more promising ocean-climate solutions.
We have a significant presence in Canada through our grantees, primarily in Halifax, and our work there is led by my colleague Miriam Zitner, who is here with us today.
My written testimony explains why Carbon to Sea Initiative focuses on OAE, drills down into the details of why OAE has so much potential and gives an overview of how the United States has advanced oCDR research over the last several years.
I hope it’s a useful resource, but in this setting, I’d like to emphasize three key points. First, carbon removal is a necessary complement to aggressive emissions reductions. Carbon to Sea Initiative focuses on OAE because major scientific bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have concluded that deep emissions cuts alone will not be enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change and meet our climate goals.
The world must also remove carbon at a gigatonne scale this century, which is no small feat.
Second, governments have a unique role to play in shaping oCDR. Today, private and philanthropic investments are driving most ocean-based carbon removal research, but evaluating oCDR is a public interest endeavour at its core. Governments have a critical role to play in steering responsible research, setting clear rules and ensuring the field develops with transparency, safety and the public good in mind. That is especially true in the ocean, a shared global resource where public trust and stewardship are paramount.
Third, Canada can lead by supporting research, development and demonstration. Through its Greening Government Strategy and the Treasury Board’s plan to procure carbon removal services, Canada is already showing foresight and adopting a forward-looking posture on climate. With the longest coastline in the world, globally recognized academic institutions and a robust ocean-based economy, Canada has a huge opportunity to deepen its leadership by focusing on and advancing responsible research and development of ocean-based climate solutions. That means dedicating public funding to support OAE research and development efforts, ensuring the Treasury Board’s upcoming request for proposal, or RFP, advances eligibility for ocean-based approaches deemed appropriate, establishing specific carbon removal targets and expanding investment tax credits to incentivize private sector investments.
Let me conclude by emphasizing Canada’s opportunity right now. It is widely expected that carbon removal, and ocean-based carbon removal specifically, will be a major industry by mid‑century. But how the industry develops will be determined right now and how governments engage at this stage. Now is the time to be involved. If Canada steps forward by investing in research and clarifying regulations, it can help set the global standard for responsible oCDR while protecting its coasts, creating potentially thousands of jobs and contributing to the global effort against climate change.
Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hoskins. Our first questions will come from the deputy chair, Senator Busson.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much. Without being glib about the whole matter, it lends me to ask the question: What colour is the sky on your planet? Because the person we heard from before and the testimony you are giving us are like night and day as far as the ability to hope for a clear future and the possibility of oCDR or mCDR.
Can either one of you attempt to reconcile the precautionary policy approach of DFO using words like “slow down,” “be careful” and “regulate” with the conversations that you bring to us, which are framed with words like “innovative pathways” and “positive results” within 50 years or 30 years, I think you said — they’re positive results within a lifetime? Can I get both of you to comment on that observation of mine, specifically whether I am right and what we can do about it?
We can start with you, Ms. Hoskins, if you would like.
Ms. Hoskins: Dr. Gurney-Smith mentioned a big focus on efficacy and emphasized that there was more work needed on environmental safety. On that, we agree. That’s what Carbon to Sea Initiative is doing in terms of making investments around these key questions that we have: Is it safe? Is it effective? Can it scale? And approaching those in a stepwise fashion is prudent.
Another consideration to put into the conversation is how should we and how can we be thinking about the precautionary principle? This is something that environmentalists think a lot about. It is near and dear to our hearts. But the truth is that unmitigated climate change is the greatest threat to our ocean health and ecosystems.
In-water field trials and research are required to fill the gaps in our knowledge, as the previous witness mentioned. On that, we agree. While some research could pose some risks, we believe they can be managed through appropriate regulation and oversight by competent regulators. That’s why it is so prudent that the government get involved at this stage and learn alongside the investments by the private sector and philanthropy.
Mr. Merchant: Thank you, senator. That is a good question. We also agree with Dr. Gurney-Smith about the importance of taking important consideration of ecological impacts and potential ecological impacts.
Where we may differ slightly is we see that the research and demonstration efforts need to be done in a parallel multi‑stakeholder fashion, and we can’t focus only on biological impacts before we get to studying societal issues, or before we bring in stakeholders like fisheries into the conversation, or before we decide to validate commercial viability. We believe these things can happen in parallel.
We advocate for a research agenda that brings diverse stakeholders together to work different aspects of the problem with a coordinated approach — an approach that benefits from a learning-by-doing methodology and that brings different stakeholders to the table at the outset, allowing us to then lead and set the standard for what responsible marine carbon removal looks like, defined here in Canada as opposed to elsewhere where they are trying to advance research in this area as well.
Senator Busson: I have just a very quick question. I kind of alluded to it in the first part of my question. You’ve brought it up: Clearly, the government is a huge player in this. What can we do to accelerate the possibility or encourage the energy of government officials?
I don’t mean to criticize Dr. Gurney-Smith. She is clearly well focused on her job, but what can we do as a committee to help you perhaps turn the page on the naysaying tendencies of people like DFO? Do you have any ideas or suggestions as to how we might approach that?
Mr. Merchant: I think one way to do that is we bring together different departments and different experts, industry representatives and community leaders to discuss the challenge and work this problem together. I think that if we attempt to address these issues in a silo, we won’t make the progress that we need.
DFO brings some important concerns to the table that need to be taken very seriously, and I think that there is an important need to consider and to consult proximal communities, like fisheries, for example, and different industry groups. I think there is a way to advance the conversation by bringing together different stakeholders and having a multi-stakeholder approach to determining what questions need to be answered and how we can advance the field.
Ms. Hoskins: One example to share from the U.S. context would be last year, the White House put together the Fast Track Action Committee on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal. It was an all-of-government approach to bring together all of the agencies across the U.S. government that had equities in ocean-based carbon removal to surface equities, concerns and opportunities across government. As a result, it was the multi-stakeholder process that Mr. Merchant alluded to, and it was able to get folks coordinating faster than they otherwise would have been able to with the day-to-day responsibilities of their individual mandates.
Senator Busson: Are oCDR and mCDR the same thing?
Ms. Hoskins: Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: I appreciate the opening statements from Mr. Merchant and Ms. Hoskins.
Perhaps both of you could address this, and maybe you can start, Ms. Hoskins: There has been a change in direction in the United States since the event that you described of regulators being pulled together for a fast-tracking. There are changes around the world right now where Canada does have an opportunity to lead.
I would love for you to speak about the quality of the science available in Canada, the expertise, the speed and the number of academics who have been studying in this space in Canada. You have been attracted here as a U.S.-based entity to work in Canada. I have a sense that’s one of the things that has attracted you. Could you also speak about how you see Canada’s position having changed in the last year? Perhaps both of you could just look at that a little bit. Thank you.
Ms. Hoskins: Carbon to Sea Initiative is a global entity, so we think about the world at large. I would say that Canada certainly has been a major focal point, as I mentioned. A large proportion of our initial grant making has centred on the Nova Scotia area. Researchers at Dalhousie University and their partnership with Planetary Technologies has been an incredible test bed for the field and trialling ocean alkalinity enhancement research in the Bedford Basin. As a result, we are able to learn much faster.
Notably, the ocean is an incredibly difficult place to conduct research. Going from a lab to a benchtop to in the water can be tough. Technology development, from research to development to demonstrations to small scale, is typically supported by both public sector dollars and government as well as philanthropy. Public funding has been quite scarce for mCDR, and that has made private sector financing even more critical at these early stages of development. Planetary Technologies’ investment in Nova Scotia has given the researchers at Dalhousie University something to research. That’s been a critical part driving the research and progress that we are learning from.
Senator C. Deacon: In terms of the U.S. federal government’s involvement in the space now, it seems to have changed in the last year, particularly around research and regulation. Is that correct?
Ms. Hoskins: There have been some shifts in U.S. policy, no doubt, but the lessons from the last year can offer insight to Canada on how Canada can rapidly advance progress. My hope is that there are opportunities for future collaboration between our governments and academic research institutions.
Senator C. Deacon: We hope so too.
Mr. Merchant: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for the question. I agree with everything that Ms. Hoskins just said, but I will add that in the context of Canada, while we’ve seen some policy shifts in the United States, there is a need to move quicker in Canada to embrace this window of opportunity in front of us.
We have companies, like Planetary Technologies, CarbonRun and others, and great world-class researchers at Dalhousie University and elsewhere who are eager to move the ball forward in this field. They are doing excellent work. They are truly leading the world in their respective fields. What we need is for supportive policy around ocean carbon removal to keep up with it and, in fact, to help chart a path forward that helps stimulate even more innovation and even more research.
My concern is that from a policy standpoint, we are not keeping up with our innovators. That might mean that we are not able to embrace the opportunity that exists where we’ve seen a less favourable policy environment in the United States that could attract more research, more innovation and more jobs here in Canada and create an opportunity for Canada to define what responsible ocean carbon removal looks like. That’s what leadership can bring from an ecological standpoint and from a measurement, reporting and verification standpoint and from an economic standpoint. There is an amazing opportunity here, and despite the early progress that I mentioned in my opening remarks, we need to build on this and we need to do it faster.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: I have a question for Mr. Merchant.
You mentioned in your remarks that you were satisfied that the communities support the new ocean carbon storage sector. You talked about social licence for the new technology. You may have heard the first witness panel. When I questioned the scientific researcher from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, she confirmed that no consultations had been held with our fishers or our fishing industries.
I think you also mentioned that there had not yet been any meaningful consultations. How can you say that there is social licence and you have the support of the communities if the people who earn their living on the ocean and our waterways have not yet been consulted? Who has talked with whom to justify a comment like that? I would be curious to know.
[English]
Mr. Merchant: Thank you for the question and for the opportunity to clarify. We’ve been impressed by the activities of companies like Planetary Technologies and CarbonRun, as well as researchers at Dalhousie University, and their engagement of the communities involved in the projects they are working on. In the context of working in Canada, they have done a good job of community engagement. There is always more that can be done. We can always improve on that, but I think they have started off well in that respect. They have been pursuing their work with a very intentional community engagement strategy.
It is important that we give these companies and these researchers the credit that they are due for the community engagement they have done to date. Does that mean that we have engaged every potential community, Indigenous nation or economic group that would be affected by marine carbon removal? Absolutely not. There is so much more work to be done there. Relatively speaking, for an emerging technology and for a new suite of technologies like ocean carbon removal, we’ve seen promising early community engagement that, of course, can always be improved upon and built upon. But it suggests strongly that we have a good start in this area, that communities are pragmatic and willing to listen, that companies are willing to listen to them and that there is potential for getting that social licence.
While I don’t think we have universal social licence around carbon removal, I do think that relatively speaking, we have supportive communities in Canada, and that’s largely due to the wonderful work being done by researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs in Canada right now, as well as the policy-makers who engage on this issue. I think we may ultimately have more work to do in this field, and it’s something that we are committed to supporting.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: I have another question. I am not against a new industry or new technologies, but I think that if we need to take this approach, the people who could be the most affected should be consulted. This is their job, their livelihood.
It’s been said that the sector could be a new billion-dollar economy. The commercial fishery, aquaculture and seafood processing economies are worth over $12 billion to Canada. We cannot undermine one sector or industry to the benefit of other ones.
I don’t think you can say that you’ve consulted the communities when you haven’t consulted the most important one. I think they should be included early in the process rather than later if you want a chance of success. You cannot neglect or ignore the fishing, seafood processing and aquaculture associations and unions. That was a comment rather than a second question. They need to be involved in the debate very soon.
[English]
Mr. Merchant: Thank you, senator. I couldn’t agree more. We think a lot about industrial integration of marine carbon removal and carbon removal methods broadly in existing industries to revive those industries or to improve the business case of certain industries, enabling them to decarbonize. There are a lot of opportunities for integrating marine carbon removal within existing industries, and that’s an area of research that’s worth undertaking in a way that could strengthen the jobs and industries that already exist in many of these communities.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you for your presentations, which helped me understand that there is major potential in these sectors. My question is for both of you.
Based on current costs, which are fairly high for ocean carbon removal techniques, how do you evaluate the short-term economic viability of these technologies? Do you think their development and rollout should mainly be funded by governments, rather than public-private partnerships?
[English]
Ms. Hoskins: I’m happy to take the question first. There’s short-term viability. Climate change is a big problem that we’re not doing a very good job of solving, which is creating all sorts of market challenges in all of the solutions to the challenge of climate change. In the short term, there is a big opportunity and there is some viability within the voluntary side of the equation.
As we decide to, hopefully, collectively take bigger action to avert the worst impacts of climate change that disproportionately affect our ocean ecosystem and all of the fish that live in it, we will see compliance markets stand up and that economic viability, both in terms of the existence of transitioning from voluntary to compliance as well as the technologies running down their technology readiness levels, or TRL, and cost curves — those two dovetail, hopefully, nicely in the future for us all.
The more the public sector plays a role in learning alongside the private sector at this early stage, the better effects we’ll see in terms of regulators being able to monitor for environmental safety as well as — on the efficacy and quantification side — the rigour of carbon accounting that we all want to see for the climate math to work out.
Mr. Merchant: Thank you, senator. I would just like to add to the points that were already made. The public-private partnerships can work in both directions and can support one another. For example, currently, the private sector through the voluntary carbon market is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in advancing ocean carbon removal, and that has been very catalytic to date. But by including the public sector through investments, research and development support and demonstrations, the public sector can help define what a gold standard for carbon removal looks like and establish regulations that ensure that this is done in a responsible manner as the technology develops and grows and scales.
Conversely, the public sector has shown significant leadership through the development of the procurement program that I mentioned earlier, with their initial $10-million commitment to buy carbon removal credits from Canadian companies. It would be great if the public sector increases that procurement program in the future, but we also think there is a really important opportunity for Canadian businesses that are also on their own decarbonization pathways to match the ambition of the government and also commit to buying permanent carbon removal so that it has a multiplier effect. Every public dollar can generate $5 or $10 in private dollars for buying carbon removal services from Canadian suppliers. We think that the public-private arrangement can be really reinforcing, and the public sector and the private sector can complement one another really well.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you for your answers. Mr. Merchant, I’ll continue with you. In your remarks, you compared land-based carbon removal, such as tree planting, and ocean-based techniques. Could you come back to the advantages of ocean-based techniques and how they work hand in hand with land-based techniques?
[English]
Ms. Hoskins: The scale of the problem means that we’re going to need as many solutions that are viable and cost-effective as possible. That’s number one. Number two is the ocean represents 70% of the planet, so it would be a mistake to discount the opportunity. There is the fact that 25% of human-caused emissions are actually naturally going into the ocean every day, and that’s what’s driving ocean acidification. There are these natural processes. It makes sense to look at it. What are the co-benefits, and what are the opportunities? That’s what we’re trying to chase down. We’re going to need all of the options on the table to meet the challenge.
Senator Dhillon: I’m just trying to make sense of this whole thing. I hear you talking about opportunities, and I also hear you talking about consequences. Mr. Merchant spoke about carbon capture and carbon removal working in tandem and one not being able to do it on its own. He spoke about urgency and companies choosing Canada. We talked about making it safe, making it effective and whether it can be made to scale.
Rather than repeat all that has been said, the themes that came to me were opportunity and consequence: the consequence of not acting and the opportunities that are in front of us that have proven measures. This is the question for the layman and the folks who are watching this, particularly the Canadians and the British Columbians where we come from: How are you modelling this? How are we presenting this to the common person every day who passes? You just said that 25% of our pollution is being captured in the oceans. Every day that passes where we continue to have these conversations, we have DFO here saying we need to do more of this and less of that and maybe some of this. How are we presenting this to folks so that they understand that there may come a time where — and maybe I’m wrong in my assumption — it doesn’t matter how big you scale this, it’s not going to work because we have gone too far or haven’t done enough.
My earlier question was: When do we move on the good and not continue to try to aim for perfect? Are we presenting that risk in a way that is consumable to everyday people?
Ms. Hoskins: There might be geographic differences in terms of what is most resonant in area A versus area B — the coastal environment and inland environment. I think what I’ve seen in terms of talking to regular people is that people care about what they think about every day: feeding their kids, paying their bills and those types of things. The more that we can connect it to how this helps their day-to-day lives — reducing extreme risk from climate change, so climate action means hopefully fewer extreme impacts from climate change — and the more that we can connect it to what people really care about, I think the better we’ll all be.
I can’t remember who made this point, but there was a point in the previous panel around regulation serving two functions: One is around rules safeguarding the environment and the other is around social licence. And I think that’s true.
Senator Boudreau, you also mentioned the need to consult fisheries, existing industries and existing ocean users. Our ocean users and ocean-based industries are going to be some of the most impacted from a declining ocean health base as impacts from climate change increase. The more that we can engage them, directly understand their concerns, work with them and get the data that they actually want alongside the research happening, the more that we can help folks understand this is not a long-term future problem; the impacts are happening right now, and people are seeing those impacts right now.
I have just one quick example of how one researcher engaged the fishery industry. The fishing industry often has observers come on their vessels to watch them and hold them accountable. In the United States, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution conducted an offshore research trial this summer, and they invited a fishery observer to join their research and sit on the vessel to watch exactly what was happening and document it and then go back and talk to their communities about what they saw and what they learned, which then can be flowed back into the research plans. It’s all about the people who live and breathe the day-to-day and connecting to what people care about.
Senator Dhillon: I have just a quick follow-up. I appreciate that, and you folks are very learned and have done a lot of work on this. In my view, we sometimes lose touch with the folks who are going to be impacted by it all, but I’ll leave it there. I guess I was asking for something a little bit more tangible and something that we can give folks to have an understanding of how urgent this is. If you come to this line, folks, don’t bother, because now we’re going to be putting on masks and doing other things because there is not anything more we can do.
One bright light that I did hear about, which you spoke about, is the Fast Track Action Committee on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal. Maybe this committee knows about this already. I hadn’t heard about it. Is there a paper or documentation or work that has been done on that, or any evidence that we can be presented with on that?
Ms. Hoskins: I’m happy to follow up with that.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. I’d appreciate that.
Senator Surette: I had two parts to my question. You may have answered the first part and the second as well. I just want to clarify.
We talked a little bit about the role of government. It seems to me — and I’m new here as well — that it is a very fragmented approach to all of this. It’s as much on the industry side and your organizations — the number of organizations — as it is on the government side. Is this report that you’ve just mentioned making reference to that? And if not, what is the plan for a strategic approach as much on the government side as on the industry side?
Ms. Hoskins: I heard: What is the role of government and how to manage some of the fragmented silos? In my experience, agencies have a mandate and a mission, and that’s their focus because they’ve been told to do that. Then sometimes there are new ideas that come to the fore that challenge everyone to think new and different and outside of a specific mandate that was previously envisioned. So how do you move beyond that construct?
One way in the U.S. context was through the Fast Track Action Committee on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal. In the case of the U.S., ocean stakeholders are often very focused on their mandate and mission. Climate and energy stakeholders are very focused on their mandate and mission, and never the two shall talk. However, there is a lot of room for collaboration here, and, for example, there was a memorandum of understanding that was signed between the United States Department of Energy and NOAA, which oversees the fisheries service in the U.S., to help bridge that and help clarify exactly who is doing what, as well as what the coordination and collaboration could look like to help give folks direction that this is something they should be prioritizing, thinking about and collaborating on.
Senator Surette: On the government side, obviously there are a number of departments that could be impacted here. Is there any government department specifically that should take the lead on this?
Ms. Hoskins: I would defer back to you on that, and maybe Mr. Merchant has a perspective.
Mr. Merchant: I don’t have a direct point of view on that other than I think that the Fast Track Action Committee on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal is an interesting model that we could apply and adapt in a way that makes sense in our system, but we don’t have a specific idea of which department should lead. There are a number of different benefits in going one way or another, but we have nothing to add there.
Senator Surette: This question is on the investment side. There has been mention of U.S. investment. You mentioned investment that you were already making in some projects, yet there doesn’t seem to be a lot of government funding or investment in this. You mentioned increasing the research funding, and there are carbon credits in here as well.
Can you explain a little bit as to where the funding is coming from now? In the reading I’ve done, I’ve seen a lot of figures on an increase in GDP and the number of jobs and so on, but I’ve never seen any figures as to what you would expect from government or where we would start with this and how much, even percentage-wise, we would like to have from each of those sources.
Ms. Hoskins: I don’t have the number in front of me, but a good source for the scale of recommended investment would be with the National Academies. They actually created a table where they costed out what they would recommend in terms of the scale of investment over the next 10 years for advancing the research and development.
For context, in the previous fiscal year in the United States, there was about a total US$60 million invested from the U.S. government into research and development. I think the annual investment over the 10-year period that the National Academies looked at was north of $2 billion, which is about $200 million to $300 million per year. I can send you the exact numbers so that you have those.
The Chair: Please do.
Mr. Merchant, do you want to add to that?
Mr. Merchant: Yes, I was hoping to just say that I think the question is really germane. It is exactly why we set out and recommend a research road map for advancing this sector in Canada so that we can rightsize a research agenda — by deciding what specific research questions that we in Canada can address directly and how we can be targeted and focused in our research questions as well as what are the most pressing issues — and then make research allocation decisions and prioritization decisions based on that. That can help us move more quickly and be more focused in answering some of the key questions about this field and then continue us on a path where we can play a leadership role.
The Chair: Mr. Merchant, would you like to answer Senator Gerba’s question from earlier before we lost contact with you?
Mr. Merchant: If you could repeat the question, I can try. I think I might have missed it.
Senator Gerba: I think you already answered. You mentioned that the federal government should establish a road map to guide the structured research on topics. I wanted to know if you can elaborate on what this road map should look like and the objective it should aim for.
Mr. Merchant: I could add a little more specificity. A road map would help us toward a North Star of how we should scale up carbon removal in Canada in a safe, effective and commercially viable way. It would be focused on questions around the science and biological impacts of marine carbon removal. It would also make sure that we are advancing something that can be done in a commercially scalable manner and that it takes into very significant consideration — as a major pillar of this work — building the social licence that is necessary and engaging with communities around concerns or opportunities that exist, as well as in existing industries where integration of marine carbon removal could benefit those industries.
If we can take a multi-pronged approach here to not just focus on the science of it, which is absolutely critical and central to this, but also the societal and the economic impacts, then we can land at an outcome where we know how to allocate resources such that we are able to scale a safe, effective and commercially viable carbon removal industry in Canada.
Senator Poirier: Thank you both for being here. I’m pretty new at this too. This is my second meeting back at the Fisheries and Oceans Committee after many years of being away. Like some of my colleagues, this is very new and I’m in a learning process here also.
I want to thank you for all of the work that you have been doing on this, not only on the private sector but also the scientists and the universities that are involved in this and looking into this. But I do share a little bit of concern, like some of my colleagues have also mentioned. Some of the comments that I’m hearing are that there is a risk from climate change and that you’re seeing the impact already now in the oceans, with 25% of the pollution going into the oceans daily. You are all aware of that. We’re talking about ocean-based carbon removal. We heard the previous witness talk about the ocean storage possible for the carbon emissions that are collected.
I guess it’s good that we all know, but for our everyday morning, when the fishermen, whether it be the crab fishers or lobster fishers — I’m in east New Brunswick right in the fishing industry all the way. When people don’t understand what’s going on and when all of a sudden something comes to them, I know how their reaction can be.
I think it’s extremely important for not only government but also for everybody to be proactive and actually be speaking with them before they find out that something’s going on that they don’t understand. They could see this as a possible risk to their lifestyle, their business, their own community, their own lives, their own paycheque and their own everything.
Being a former member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and a minister in New Brunswick as well, I’ve seen things like this happen. You just have to remember the Shell gas issue years ago.
It is extremely important that you let me know and let other people know, specifically the people out there, what kind of security do we have by removing this carbon out of the ocean and the storage? How secure is the storage? If it’s not secure, what are the risks to the marine and whatever marine activities are out there? I guess I wanted to know where we’re at with this because I do have a little bit of concern about the impact. And I’m not saying just the fishermen in my area. I’m also talking about the First Nations communities that are the fishermen in my area also.
I would like to have some reassurance that we’re going to be talking not at the end of all this exercise but at the very beginning, and if we can find a way to reassure everybody.
Ms. Hoskins: Thank you for your question. I think I heard two big themes. One is around: Is it safe for the fish? The second is: How do folks who are engaging in this research ensure that the people who earn their livelihoods on the water understand that and are engaged far before they’re presented with a question around a potential project? I think those are two areas where we have leaned in on our grant making. First, on environmental safety, we’ve funded — far before the projects are getting to the water — lab-based research to study the phytoplankton-level responses, so the base of the food chain is the first thing. If you were to see an impact there, then you would expect additional impacts. The research coming back at that level is extremely promising around the operating levels of the tested feedstocks and safety. So that’s very promising.
We also heard from Dr. Gurney-Smith that we also need to be thinking about what people really care about: the actual fish. Going up higher trophic levels is an additional pre-water research area that is an active area for us.
That’s going to differ area by area and in part is going to have to be informed by constituency-based conversations and input to make sure that the right species are being tested for the specific area. I think to your point, we agree that’s got to be a part of that process and engagement with communities.
And then the second was how do you actually communicate with folks? From my perspective, that means folks who are advancing projects have budgets associated with this specific activity, and the capacity required to carry out those activities are hired and acquired at the same level of intensity as your engineer, so they are given the level of prominence and importance that is required to be successful.
Senator Poirier: You don’t know if there are any conversations that have been had on the ground with the local fishermen or unions or fish plant owners or anything like that at this point?
Ms. Hoskins: I don’t know if there is a specific area that you’re referring to, but in terms of the projects that we’re involved with, there is extensive engagement happening on the ground. Can there be more? Absolutely, always. We’re committed to doing more, and I’m aware of a lot of engagement that’s happening.
Senator Poirier: Is that in the Nova Scotia area that you’re talking about?
Ms. Hoskins: Absolutely.
Senator Poirier: But nothing in New Brunswick that you know of yet?
Ms. Hoskins: I’m looking at my colleague Miriam Zitner. I am not aware of that to date, but I’m happy to follow up and share more if that’s helpful.
Senator Poirier: Okay. I understand what you are saying and you are seeing the risk. But I don’t know if the fishermen are seeing the risks. Have they seen a difference in how much they’re catching, and is it affecting their catch? How are they seeing the risk of what the carbon is doing and the importance of the removal? I think that is the first thing that they need to understand: If there is a risk, this could affect their future lifestyle and income.
Ms. Hoskins: I think your point is well taken. I know that one of the other members mentioned the shellfish industry and their movement north. I know that there are probably unequal levels of awareness, and more can be done.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank Mr. Merchant and Ms. Hoskins for a very informative session here this evening and thank our senators.
If I could ask the members of the steering committee to stay around for a few moments after our meeting just to get a checkup. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)