THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 30, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 8:34 a.m. [ET], to examine and report on ocean carbon sequestration and its use in Canada; and, in camera, to consider a draft report.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Fabian Manning, I’m from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure of chairing this morning’s 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 your issue.
I’ll take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, from New Brunswick. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Good morning. Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good morning. Victor Boudreau, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Busson: My name is Bev Busson, and I’m from British Columbia.
The Chair: On October 28, 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 Anya Waite, CEO and Scientific Director of Ocean Frontier Institute; and Professor Dr. Abed El Rahman Hassoun, scientist, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here — senators, it seems as though we’re experiencing technical difficulties.
Senators, we’ve resolved the issue. I apologize to our witnesses for our technical difficulties.
As I’ve already introduced the witnesses, Dr. Waite, we’ll allow you to go first.
Anya Waite, Chief Executive Officer and Scientific Director, Ocean Frontier Institute: Thank you so much. It’s a great pleasure to be here today to talk to you. I’ll jump right in.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, has made it clear that carbon dioxide removal will be necessary if we are to achieve net-zero emissions for the world. The ocean, which already absorbs roughly a quarter of the carbon dioxide we emit each year, is the largest natural carbon sink on Earth, and its role in slowing climate change, as you have heard in previous testimony, is absolutely indispensable. With that comes a responsibility for us to investigate the potential of marine carbon dioxide removal, mCDR. That is written into some of the texts of the IPCC and the Paris Agreement.
The Ocean Frontier Institute, led by Dalhousie University, manages Canada’s largest investment in ocean-climate research, which is our Transforming Climate Action, TCA, program. In collaboration with partner institutions, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Université Laval and Memorial University of Newfoundland, this initiative is advancing the science, policy and community engagement around mCDR. Our work is not about promoting deployment, though; it is about ensuring that decisions are informed by rigorous, independent and completely transparent research.
In addition to the scientific uncertainties — and you have heard about some of those — there are really important social considerations that need to be addressed. Social licence to operate cannot be purchased; it must be worked for and earned. Through the Ocean Frontier Institute’s CONVERGE CDR initiative, we are co-designing research with Indigenous leaders and community members to really disentangle this. These projects will focus on the specific questions that communities care about most, including how mCDR might affect ecosystems close to them and their fishing. This work proceeds at the pace of trust, and academic institutions are uniquely positioned to lead it.
We also recognize the importance of the precautionary principle, which has been spoken about before. Too often, that principle is interpreted as a reason for inaction, but in the face of serious and irreversible threats to ecology under climate change, precaution should actually mean advancing careful, science-based inquiry, not turning away from it. To halt research now would risk setting back our understanding by a decade, at a time when the impacts of climate change on ocean ecosystems are already profound.
Canada has a real opportunity to be a global leader in this space. With the world’s longest coastline, trusted academic institutions in the ocean space and strong traditions of Indigenous and community partnerships, we are well placed to shape how mCDR can be explored responsibly. This leadership can also support sustainable economic opportunities that are important for Canada and train the next generation of Canadian scientists, policy leaders and innovators.
I believe we need a coordinated, cross-governmental approach, including a regulatory environment that evolves closely with the science as the science grows; investment in independent, non-industry research to ensure unbiased results while collaborating closely with industry; support for engagement and ocean literacy efforts that build social licence across our many communities in Canada; and a clear, federally led research road map to reduce the fragmentation of this conversation and signal to Canadians and investors alike that this work is worth pursuing as part of our climate solutions in Canada.
The Ocean Frontier Institute is committed to advancing this agenda. Through our leadership in international collaborations, such as with Horizon Europe, and our Transforming Climate Action and CONVERGE CDR programs, we are building the science, partnerships and trust required to responsibly explore mCDR.
Honourable senators, the stakes are very high. The ocean has already given us a buffer against the worst impacts of climate change, and it is now our responsibility to ensure that any interventions we consider are well guided by science, shaped by community wishes and aligned with the true spirit of the precautionary principle here in Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Waite.
Abed El Rahman Hassoun, Scientist, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel: Good morning, senators, and thank you for having me.
Let me begin with a simple fact: Canada is surrounded by three oceans — the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic — each playing a vital role in shaping our climate, our economy and our future. Yet, while the oceans absorb about one quarter to one third of human carbon emissions every year, we still have only a partial understanding of how this capacity is changing.
The ocean has buffered humanity’s climate impacts for decades, but this service is neither infinite nor constant. As warming, acidification and circulation shifts accelerate, the ability of the ocean to continue absorbing carbon is becoming less predictable. In other words, the largest carbon sink on the planet, our oceans, is changing faster than we can measure it.
Around the world, marine carbon dioxide removal, known as mCDR, is moving rapidly from concept to experimentation. Reaching net-zero and then net-negative emissions by mid-century will require solutions related to carbon dioxide removal on the order of 5 to 10 gigatonnes of CO2 per year by mid-century. A growing fraction of climate discussion is turning to the ocean, as it holds 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere and regulates Earth’s climate.
Over the past three years, we’ve seen countries launching carbon dioxide removal research and development acts; investing heavily in ocean-based CDR testbeds; expanding marine carbon programs, such as through the EU’s Horizon Mission Ocean and Waters; and running open-ocean field trials on alkalinity enhancement and seaweed-based pathways, such as Australia and Scandinavian countries have. We’ve also seen private investors pledge over $1 billion toward ocean CDR innovation, but often ahead of the science and without consistent standards for monitoring, reporting and verification, known as MRV.
That is precisely why research leadership is critical: not to promote mCDR uncritically but to ensure that it is done well, safely and transparently, based on solid science, ecosystem understanding, and with both social consideration and consent.
Canada cannot remain a bystander in this emerging field. Canada is an ocean nation — as Anya mentioned — with one of the largest exclusive economic zones on Earth, world-class ocean-observing expertise and strong environmental values. But today, Canada still lacks a coordinated ocean carbon observation and MRV system that can quantify carbon fluxes or validate any ocean-based removal approach. Without this foundation, Canada risks falling behind scientifically in better understanding with high-quality precision how its three oceans, each with different dynamics, are responding to climate change. Canada risks falling behind economically, from being a policy-taker rather than policy-shaper, as markets emerge for verified marine carbon credits. We also risk falling behind diplomatically, as Canada should keep its high credibility in meeting its climate targets, which requires that Canada base its policies on the best available science.
To seize this opportunity responsibly, I urge Canada to invest across the full ocean carbon-research continuum, from MRV monitoring, reporting and verification infrastructure to controlled testing of promising solutions, anchored in transparency, precaution and collaboration; and to support a national MRV backbone, linking existing infrastructure into a coherent system. For example, there is a very promising proposed North Atlantic Carbon Observatory, NACO, that can serve as an exemplar, showing how real-time data can guide decisions. Similar capabilities and visions are needed in the Pacific and the Arctic. Canada should host science-led demonstration zones where potential mCDR methods like enhanced alkalinity and others can be tested safely, with independent oversight, open data, and Indigenous and community participation.
The ocean must be fully accounted for in Canada’s net-zero planning, with ocean data feeding into the national greenhouse-gas inventory, adaptation strategies and the “blue economy.” Through initiatives like the Galway Statement and programs like Horizon Europe, Canada can strengthen trans-Atlantic and -Pacific partnerships, help set global MRV standards and ensure that the ocean dimension is fully integrated into future IPCC assessments.
In closing, research is not optional; it is the safeguard and the enabler. It ensures that ocean carbon sequestration, if pursued, is guided by evidence, not enthusiasm, and by cooperation, not competition. By investing in science-based monitoring, reporting and innovation testbeds and open international collaboration, Canada can help fill the biggest blind spot in the global carbon equation and lead the world toward responsible, verifiable and equitable ocean climate action.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Hassoun.
Senators, if you’re asking the question to either one of our witnesses, direct it directly to them. If you want both to answer, do the same thing.
Senator Busson: Thank you for being patient through our technical difficulties. It was wonderful to hear your presentations this morning. We’ve had some other scientists here who weren’t quite so optimistic and encouraging when it comes to the technology around mCDR.
I will ask each of you to perhaps give us a little bit of a suggestion. You both come from post-secondary academic backgrounds and are heavily involved with universities. We just heard that, for instance, Memorial University — it was announced this morning, and you might have had advance notice — got a substantial grant of perhaps up to $5 million for some research. You mentioned that Canada is falling behind. Would you have some specific recommendations for the Government of Canada and for us to include in our report that might help encourage Canada in a way that we do not fall behind in this incredibly important research? I’ll start with Dr. Waite.
Ms. Waite: Thank you, senator. That’s a great question.
Canada has an opportunity now because you have a very fully engaged research community that has a lot of expertise in this area. We’re working right now to reduce the uncertainty in the carbon budget of the ocean. That work can provide a perfect context and testbed for the kinds of solutions that we have been talking about.
It is really important to recognize, though, that nothing is absolutely certain as yet. What we know is that the opportunity is huge.
I was just looking at some of the lists of carbon credits that you can buy, and one of the things you notice is that some of those are not very good quality. For example, Tesla is saying that they’re avoiding burning oil because they’re creating an electric car. They’re attempting to sell that as a carbon credit. In the ocean, on the other hand, you’re dealing with a system that pulls out legacy carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it, long term, in the ocean. In other words, you have a blue-chip carbon credit there. That is the real thing. That is pulling carbon dioxide from where it shouldn’t be and storing it long term in the ocean.
The opportunity is huge. This is why this problem and this opportunity have the attention of researchers. We see that it’s the real deal for climate change, so it’s worth the work getting through where we are right now, which is testing. There have been some successes. The first carbon credits have been released from ocean alkalinity enhancement.
As an academic community, we still feel that we want to critique very hard and take tough questions to the start-ups that we’re talking to. For example, at the Ocean Frontier Institute, we literally bring in some of these early start-ups that are setting themselves up to sell carbon credits in the ocean, and we pepper them with questions. We cross-examine them. We ask them to be accountable to our standards of measurement. That is where we need to be right now, because a lot of companies are getting ambitious. They have had their first successes, and they are starting to accelerate their ambition.
Where Canada can really be useful here is to broker that conjoined conversation between academia and these start-ups. It’s not always an easy conversation. Sometimes it’s tough. Sometimes the researchers are unhappy. Sometimes the start-ups feel as if they are getting dragged backwards, et cetera.
I’ll wrap up by saying that when you look at the land carbon dioxide removal situation, they have been selling carbon credits as mostly forest credits. The afforestation is sold as carbon credits because it removes carbon from the atmosphere and puts it into trees. They had a crisis of confidence back in 2002, 2004. That was because the research and the industry drifted apart a little bit. The research started to criticize the industry, and the industry started to stop listening to the strong science that could ensure whatever they were doing was rock solid. That’s what we don’t want to do.
The marine carbon dioxide removal opportunity is much larger than that on land just because the size of the ocean and the size of the sink is so much bigger. We want to do this right and do it right now. That’s where Canada can really take leadership, because we have such a strong ocean research community with the technology and the skills to measure carbon really well, and we can bring that into the conversation with these start-ups that are trying to create a new industry for Canada.
There are two things that I think Canada needs to do. First, get the regulatory framework right so that these start-ups that are pushing for economic development, and rightly doing that, are not held back simply by fear, that they are measured and meshed in with the research so that whatever happens is happening correctly. That definitely has to happen. But not doing the research or not doing those perturbations is not the right execution of the precautionary principle. We have to act now. We have already impacted the ocean hugely.
I’ll just leave it there because I know Abed will have interesting things to say as well.
Mr. Hassoun: Thank you, Anya. I would actually second Anya’s comments. It’s very important that Canada act now.
I would simplify it into three pillars: to build the science, to invest more in the science, the ocean observation, the monitoring, reporting, and verification aspects so Canada can really lead. There should not be fear of any ocean-based solution that is proposed now on the market, as long as Canada regulates innovation, and regulating innovation is very important; and also to lead in that sphere of ethics and the consideration also of the social and economic aspects of this sphere, and to integrate, of course, the ocean into policy in a more regulated way. In these steps, Canada cannot just catch up. It can lead very easily globally as well because Canada has all the needed expertise. That’s how I can simplify it.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses for your very informative presentations.
I was wondering if, within your science, you have done a comparative analysis between our three oceans. We have heard a lot about what is happening on the East Coast. Are you able to comment on what is happening on the West Coast and, in particular, on the Arctic frontier, given the fact that each of these areas has different pressures on it, be it exploration, be it traffic, be it pollution, spillage, waste, et cetera? To what extent do we partner with our international relationships and international partners in this type of research?
Ms. Waite: Thank you, senator. That’s a great question.
On the West Coast, I’m aware of at least one major research initiative that is looking at how to store carbon in the sub-sea rock formations. That is also a very interesting and valuable exercise. You can inject types of carbon dioxide into cavities in the seafloor, and they will, under certain time scales, crystallize into hard carbon formations that are then a permanent rock beneath the seafloor. That work is being done on the West Coast, I believe, through Ocean Networks Canada. That’s a really nice study.
The work in the Arctic has not really taken off in terms of marine carbon dioxide removal. We’re very interested in understanding what communities in the North are interested in doing. Right now, obviously, with the focus on the Arctic and the current government also, there are going to be some big questions about how we engage communities to best effect. How do we bring economic value to communities? Certainly, marine carbon dioxide removal is a huge opportunity there.
Also on the West Coast, we know that Indigenous communities have been facing this new regulation of removing open-net salmon farms. That was a big industry for B.C., particularly British Columbia First Nations. It has been controversial there. Marine carbon dioxide removal is the sort of perturbation of the ecosystem which could also be beneficial locally. For example, if you bring a kelp farm, if you bring alkalinity or antacid to the ocean, those sorts of things can potentially be positive local perturbations and can also support Indigenous communities with a new livelihood. Those are the kinds of conversations we want to have, because those communities are right now dealing with the shutdown of a long-term industry that they have built in their back yards.
Mr. Hassoun: There is a report worth mentioning here entitled The Potential for Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal in Canada. It highlights Western Canada, especially British Columbia.
However, even though Western and Arctic Canada have large coastlines, potential deployment is still at the pilot stage. From what we have heard from Dr. Waite and from my humble knowledge about this, any methods are untested at scale. Of course, we need more studies there.
There is huge room for international collaboration in these areas, for example, in the Arctic, with countries like Germany and, of course, our colleagues in the U.S. We are already collaborating in some nearby areas such as the Labrador Sea where we will soon have a cruise, where we are retrieving moorings and deploying moorings and these things. Collaborations are already there, but leveraging these collaborations and investing more in these existing collaborations would definitely benefit and would close these gaps of knowledge in these very key areas, not only for Canada, of course, but also worldwide.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Ms. Waite: I put in the chat a link to the report that Abed mentioned. Canada’s Ocean Supercluster has just released a report on the potential impact of carbon dioxide removal in Canada, and they see it as a potential positive for our economy.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses for being here and their incredibly compelling testimony to get us started, and apologies again for our technical challenges.
We’re faced with massive geoengineering occurring in the oceans right now. I think, as you said, Dr. Hassoun, the ocean is changing faster than we can measure it. That’s a reality. When we have heard pushback, I’m far more comfortable with the precaution you’re proposing than what I’m hearing from those who are trying to have things stopped while we prove everything is safe and move forward, because we know the amount of harm being caused today.
I really wanted to put on the table something that troubled me that I saw again at the London Protocol meetings that I think are ongoing right now. There is another statement in resolution that could bring this field of research to a halt if it were to pass. I understand it has been tabled by a large European country. Literally, it would be suggested right up until our shores, well past the 200-mile limit, right up to our shores, we would be stopped from doing this research.
It puzzles me that this is on the table again. There was pushback last year. Can you help us understand why that keeps re-emerging? What is the genesis of that pushback? It’s something we really need to understand in order to complete our report from a balanced perspective. Maybe I would start with you, if I could, Dr. Hassoun.
Mr. Hassoun: Thank you so much. That’s a very critical point.
Ocean-based solutions and proposed mCDR techniques and approaches have many aspects. Also, they have ethical, social and economic aspects. Sometimes these aspects are not well considered when it comes to implementation in the real world.
This discussion is emerging again because there is a necessity, actually, to strengthen the monitoring, reporting and validation aspects of our infrastructure, whether in Canada or elsewhere, before any implementation at large scale. This is very important because, in order to apply a solution — and that we call it a solution — we have to have an agreement and also the public trust from Indigenous peoples, Indigenous communities, coastal communities, et cetera. We have to really know, with good precision, good certainty, the collateral damages. That’s why the observational aspects, the monitoring aspects of the proposed mCDR techniques should be leveraged. This is the main reason why this discussion is emerging again. That’s why for me as a scientist, and for many colleagues in general, working on the biogeochemistry and this sphere, we always advocate investing in solutions and trying it out at very small scales and in labs first. We always have to be careful and cautious when it comes to large-scale implementation. That’s why we believe that it is very important to take the social and the ethical aspects of any proposed mCDR solution.
Canada can play a very important role in that. I’m aware that, in transforming climate action projects, there are some very nice colleagues who are working on the ethical aspect and how to actually involve Indigenous communities in any proposed solution, whether it is a nature-based or a geoengineering solution like mCDR techniques.
I think it’s healthy that this discussion is emerging again. It’s not really that problematic. Colleagues who have a background in ethics can lead, while lots of monitoring, reporting and verification aspects should be leveraged and strengthened in parallel, not after the discussion is concluded.
Ms. Waite: I will speak a little more to the specific issues in the London Convention and London Protocols.
I will just say that all of these international conventions are blunt instruments at this point in trying to deal with a very rapidly changing environment. If you look at the discussions at the London Convention, London Protocol, they are currently dominated by a number of groups who are very environmentally conservation-focused. In good faith, they think that any kind of perturbation of the ocean is the wrong thing to do.
To your point, Senator Deacon, the challenge here is that, just with bottom trawling and with oil drilling, we have already created massive negative impacts on the ocean. One of the biggest negative impacts on the ocean which is recognized as the biggest pollution problem in the world is increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere pumping into the ocean and acidifying the ocean. We are already creating massive negative perturbations in the ocean.
The actors in the discussions with the London Convention are invoking the precautionary principle. They are saying, “Oh, we shouldn’t do anything because we might hurt the ocean. We might cause a negative impact.” But in fact, we already have, and we are already endorsing the continued perturbation of the ocean by not reducing emissions, by allowing all sorts of unregulated fishing to occur and by the kind of plastic pollution, oil pollution and other things that we allow to happen.
It’s a misapplication of a well-intentioned precautionary principle. In fact, the precautionary principle, the central precept in environmental law, is that, given the uncertainty of policy choices’ impact, the uncertainty per se should not prevent us from taking action. In my view, in the face of serious or irreversible threats to the marine environment, one of the big threats is climate change, and the precautionary principle should empower us to act.
The problem is that we have three conflicting international conventions. We have got the Convention on Biological Diversity and the London Protocol, both of which say, “Don’t do anything because you might hurt something.” Then we have the Paris Agreement which says, “Must trial marine carbon dioxide because it is one of the only solutions that actually has the scale to impact the problem.”
In my view, while it is healthy to have a robust conversation, the problem is that we’re not having that robust conversation in each of these places. Each of these international groups is being pulled by actors in a different direction. For example, Greenpeace has a major impact on the London Convention discussion. They have a very strong, intellectually based, super thoughtful interventionist there who is pushing that conversation in one direction. Canada needs to resist that. It’s very important that, internationally, we are building the right kind of precautionary principle focused around the Paris Agreement and climate change because that is the single-biggest perturbation that is happening to the ocean today.
It comes from the right place. It comes from a thoughtful “let’s not hurt the ocean” point of view. The way to take it forward is to identify that there have been marine carbon dioxide removal technologies and processes that are shown to be mildly positive and do not have negative effects. Once we get those, then those need to be tested and scaled up for the good of the planet. That is a conversation that is a little bit hard to convene in some of these what we might call a little extreme environments in some of these international discussions. So forgive me for being a little frank there.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. You have clarified for me the role of government in funding research and coordinating the building of social licence, which I think both of you have emphasized in your testimony. You have really clarified it for me. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: I would like to ask my question in French, but feel free to answer in the language of your choice.
My question picks up where Senator Deacon’s left off. We’ve heard a lot about social acceptability and social licence for this new technology and this new industry that people want to develop in Canada.
Some witnesses have talked to us about the importance of achieving social acceptability. Others have given us the impression they have already achieved it, but when we ask questions about public consultation, they talk about international conferences and forums, but they don’t talk about consulting our fishers and coastal communities.
It’s very important to have those conversations.
In your opinion, what steps can the federal government take to strengthen partnerships with fishers and indigenous and coastal communities as quickly as possible so that this industry can reach its full potential?
[English]
Ms. Waite: Thank you for that question, Senator Boudreau. I completely agree with you.
Yes, some of these small companies or start-ups that are doing carbon dioxide removal have started to obtain the sort of social licence they need to move forward. However, none of them have enough, and as we scale up — or as we think about scaling up — this is not a once-and-done sort of event. This is continuously keeping communities informed, learning more about what they need and how the industry itself, for example, can bring value to the community.
One of the things that we’re doing here at Ocean Frontier Institute is something called the COMPASS program, in which we’re bringing together researchers who think about social, scientific and regulatory aspects. We are bringing them all together in a small think tank to get this communication going and continuously reach out to communities and work with the different sectors to understand what their needs are and how they might benefit from this industry going forward. However, we also need to understand when we need to slow down, and that’s not easy in an industry that has this pent-up sense of urgency about it.
You’re absolutely correct that there are some parts of the industry that have done the work to obtain social licence. I don’t think any of them have done enough there. We all need to continue to work with them to remind them of those responsibilities. The Government of Canada can support the kind of work we are doing in communicating with communities and the industry. We’re in the middle trying to broker that conversation so that it’s a constructive one. We would like to continue that. Our researchers need to do that, but they also need to be supported. They need to know that the government cares about it and that they will receive the kind of support they need. This is difficult work. You can go into a town hall and you can get pushback. It’s not easy work. Certainly, scientists don’t find that easy to do. We need all the support we can get to do this consultation across Canadian communities in the best possible way.
Mr. Hassoun: I totally agree with Anya’s comments.
[Translation]
Public trust and support is essential to the success of marine carbon capture solutions in Canada and elsewhere. Canada must adopt a participatory approach by developing projects in partnership with indigenous and coastal communities by ensuring total transparency around research activities and data and by incorporating major ethical and social impact assessments every step of the way, not just at the end.
It is crucial to raise awareness and educate the public, particularly young people, in order to develop a genuine culture around marine carbon.
I believe that Canada must shift from an authorization model to a partnership model in which citizens and communities are fully involved in the design, monitoring and governance of marine carbon removal, also known as mCDR, within the industry itself.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Thank you to both of you for sharing your vast knowledge on a subject that I am quickly learning more about.
From listening to your testimony, it almost seems that we’re searching for a balance. Research certainly has to play an important role in informing policy. You need independence to be the gauge of determining whether something is really effective. You need government on board — from what I understand — to fund some of that research as well. What motivates government? Obviously, elements of social licence, communities, people, the potential effects on people’s way of life and living, and the future generations. It’s a necessary consideration, and it is quite fascinating because we are an ocean nation and some people might say we’re an ocean people.
Internationally, what I’m getting about the road map is conflicting. There are different motivators there. It’s hard to get resolution to conflicting international instruments. It can take some time, I would imagine. So, domestically, in order for Canada to become a leader, a number of parts have to come together in a systemic way and in a very principled way. What are the main attributes to this road map, moving forward? What are the three or four necessary things that have to happen yesterday? This is for both of you. Maybe we’ll go with you first, Dr. Waite, and then Dr. Hassoun later.
Ms. Waite: Thank you for the question.
We do need a federally led road map. That’s a clear message here that we have heard from pretty much everyone. We need a good regulatory structure that is both enabling and has enough boundaries to keep everybody happy. You’re very right, senator, that it’s a balancing act. An enabling regulatory framework would be one of the most important things that we can generate here, because we don’t want to get away from the science, the care or any of that, but we want to allow the testing and scale up of these opportunities.
The research that continuously probes the technical aspects has to be going hand in hand with the economic development, and then bringing the community along with us — the social and community aspects. Those are just never going to go away. We might have a community on side, but then the industry will change or there will be another issue. We need to develop a conduit for communication or some kind of a grouping, think tank or workplace where we can all come together to have these sometimes difficult discussions in a moderated and robust fashion without letting the industry take off and do anything extreme. I don’t think anyone wants do that, but we want to make sure that there is no incentive to do that. At the same time, we do not want to have it shut down by spurious concerns that are based on essentially a fear rather than a well-structured concern. As you say, it’s a balancing act, and Canada can get that right.
Mr. Hassoun: Definitely. I totally agree with Anya’s comments.
It’s very important to balance. Canada and the countries who are actually in this sphere have to dare to try and invest in new science, novel solutions, promising solutions, et cetera, but with a precaution. That’s the main thing. That’s why science, governance, trust and collaboration are the four pillars that constitute the attributes so that Canada can lead in this sphere — scientific infrastructure, investing in scientific infrastructure, building a coordinated, sustained, national monitoring reporting verification system to any proposed ocean-based solution to measure ocean carbon fluxes across the three oceans and to dare, really, to invest in science and any proposed solution. That is why the regulatory framework should be leveraged and should be, really, a bit out of the box in order to have these clear but precautionary rules and permitting pathways for innovation that is also safe and transparent.
Of course, mCDR and other solutions, research or implementation should be aligned with the London Protocol and other international agreements, but it should also be aligned with Indigenous rights, with the public trust and all this stuff. Social trust and engagement is a pillar that Canada can lead in co-designing with this industry and the public and Indigenous communities and ensure open communication and embed ethical and social impact assessments.
Of course, the fourth one, the international collaboration, is already there. Canada is very well established in that sphere but should be leveraging more partnerships with Europe, the U.S. and the Pacific nations to harmonize the different standards. As Anya has mentioned, this sphere is changing a lot, and the world is changing in general, so it is important to have best practices and standards that we all agree on and that we all would follow, whatever the methodology is. Having these standards and sharing them under different agreements, et cetera, is really key so any solution or proposed technique can be adopted or implemented based on really clear regulations. That’s my take.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: Today’s testimony has been very beneficial.
In preparation for today’s committee meeting, I was reading through some of the materials. Dr. Waite, you had published a piece — I think it was about two or three years ago — and I was caught by the cautionary tone of it. You talked about the huge potential of fossil fuel capture, but the mechanisms that enable the ocean to capture carbon are ever-changing, and that has really intensified and sped up. Could you elaborate on what some of those mechanisms are and why there is concern around that? Dr. Hassoun can comment as well.
Ms. Waite: Yes. Thank you, senator. That’s a great question.
What we understand the best, I would say, is the chemistry of the ocean, that the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide naturally. It just infuses and diffuses into the ocean, and that’s the biggest single sink that the ocean provides, the diffusion of carbon into the water mass of the ocean. Especially in the North Atlantic, there are these cold masses which then sink down thousands of metres, carrying that carbon dioxide with it down into the deep Atlantic, and then it crawls along the Atlantic Basin south towards the South Atlantic. That’s about a thousand years of storage there.
What we’re seeing is, because of global warming, the Gulf Stream, which is a very warm current, as you know, going northward, and it is actually becoming weaker in some cases, and with the surface warming of the Arctic, you’re getting a lot of melt coming out of the Arctic. You’re almost putting a lid on that downward flux of the movement of carbon. The circulation of the North Atlantic is critically unclear, and there were a few articles in the New York Times, The Guardian and so on, talking about — they called it the AMOC circulation, Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. It’s that formation of cold water that sinks down to the bottom of the Atlantic carrying all that carbon. That circulation is weakening and may fail, and we don’t exactly know on what time scale. If that circulation weakens or fails, the potential for the ocean to be naturally absorbing carbon will change radically. If you don’t have that sinking mechanism in the North Atlantic, you’ll be reducing the amount that naturally occurs.
This doesn’t mean that we can’t perturb the system and get it to absorb more carbon dioxide near the surface. The mCDR can still work in that way, but the natural system, particularly in the North Atlantic, looks as if it’s changing quite quickly.
Mr. Hassoun: I have really nothing to comment here, but I would like to echo these comments from Anya. AMOC, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, is just in the back yard of Canada, and that’s why investing more in ocean observation is really critical. This AMOC connects Canada’s ocean climate, fisheries and carbon cycle. It’s not just climate but also ecosystem services, and it’s very, very important to optimize and leverage the ocean observation infrastructure in that area and, of course, in the three oceans surrounding Canada. I would just like to emphasize that.
The Chair: Thank you to our senators, and thank you to our witnesses.
Dr. Waite, if you’re having trouble explaining AMOC, I’m not going to try it, I’ll tell you. It’s been a very informative morning, and it certainly added much to our work here. We thank both of you for taking the time to join us this morning. I apologize again. We’re talking about start-ups, and we had a rough start-up here this morning, but thanks to our technical people, we were able to get that straightened out, and it was great to have the opportunity to hear from both of you and to engage with our senators. Thank you, and have a great day.
We’re going to take a few moments here now to proceed in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)