THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 18, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:31 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on ocean carbon sequestration and its use in Canada.
[English]
Melissa Doyle, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and deputy chair and to preside over the election of an acting chair.
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
Senator Cuzner: I would like to nominate my friend and colleague, Senator C. Deacon.
Ms. Doyle: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cuzner that the Honourable Senator C. Deacon takes the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Doyle: I declare the motion carried.
Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia) will please take the chair.
Senator Colin Deacon, (Acting Chair), in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for bearing with our administrative work. I will do a bit more of that.
My name is Colin Deacon. I am a senator from Nova Scotia. I will take a second to have our colleagues around the table introduce themselves.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Good evening and welcome. Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Greenwood: Welcome, everybody. Margo Greenwood, and I am sitting in for Senator Busson from British Columbia. We are both from British Columbia.
Senator Pate: Good evening and welcome. Kim Pate sitting in for Senator Dhillon, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal the chair — myself — or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. We will suspend momentarily until that is addressed.
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 the following individuals: Cynthia Handler, Director General, Office of Energy Research and Development, and Jason Gadoury, Senior Director, Policy and Planning, Office of Energy Research and Development, Natural Resources Canada; James Manicom, Acting Senior Director, Major Projects and Clean Growth, Aquatic Ecosystems, Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Daniel Wolfish, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, and David Taillefer, National Manager, Marine Programs, Environment and Climate Change Canada; and Nick Xenos, Executive Director, Centre for Greening Government, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
Thank you all for being with us today. We really appreciate it, and on behalf of the committee members, we are glad to have you speak with us today.
I will start, if I could, with Ms. Handler. You have the floor for opening comments.
Cynthia Handler, Director General, Office of Energy Research and Development, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before we begin, let me acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, who have lived here since time immemorial and whose culture continues to nurture this place.
Mr. Chair and senators, good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your study on ocean carbon sequestration. I am the Director General of the Office of Energy Research and Development at Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, where I’m responsible for energy innovation policy and programming. I also coordinate the carbon management policy, and my team led the development of Canada’s Carbon Management Strategy.
My colleague, Amanda Wilson, appeared before you in November of last year to outline the Carbon Management Strategy and its relevance to this area. I’m pleased to contribute to these discussions today and provide an overview of how NRCan is continuing to advance work in the carbon management space, including on carbon dioxide removal. I’m joined by my colleague, Jason Gadoury, who is Senior Director of Policy and Planning for the Office of Energy Research and Development.
Carbon management is an important part of Canada’s plan to reduce emissions, foster innovation, attract capital and support clean economic growth. It includes technologies that reduce emissions at source, such as industrial facilities and those that remove carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere.
Canada has a strong foundation to build from that includes technical expertise and industry know-how, significant geological storage potential and world-class research capacity on a range of carbon management approaches. The Carbon Management Strategy, released in September 2023, outlines Canada’s vision for growing a competitive multi-billion-dollar Canadian sector in this space. This includes supporting the development and scale-up of carbon removal solutions by Canadian innovators.
Carbon removal is the “net” in net zero, and all credible scenarios suggest that we will need several gigatonnes per year of engineered carbon dioxide removal to achieve net-zero emissions.
Just last week, the International Energy Agency, or IEA, released its flagship World Energy Outlook 2025 report, which projects that global warming will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next decade. The report indicates that carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, will be needed to return below 1.5 degrees Celsius and projects the need for annual removals of 2.1 gigatonnes by 2050 and up to 8 gigatonnes by 2100.
Domestically, in 2023, the Canada Energy Regulator projected that Canada would need between 100 and 115 megatonnes per year of CDR to achieve net zero by 2050.
[Translation]
In recent years, we’ve seen the emergence of a carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, sector in several countries.
The same is true for Canada, where a growing number of companies are working on a wide range of CDR approaches. Current CDR technologies are at various levels of technical, commercial and regulatory readiness.
The most advanced is direct air capture, or DAC, which extracts CO2 directly from the atmosphere to be stored in geological formations or long-lived products.
The Carbon Management Strategy also focuses on other techniques with short-term potential, such as the bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, and enhanced CO2 mineralization. The strategy also recognizes the early potential of ocean–based CDR techniques, such as ocean capture and ocean alkalinity enhancement.
Ocean–based CDR includes a range of different techniques, each with its own characteristics in terms of potential efficacy, costs and risks.
Broadly speaking, we view these methods as being at an earlier stage of technological readiness, with respect to the understanding of the impacts on related ecosystems, regulatory consideration, and the state of technology as compared to land-based carbon removal techniques like direct air capture, for example.
Canada’s Carbon Management Strategy recognizes that further research is needed to assess ocean-based CDR techniques, including their benefits and risks.
Natural Resources Canada recognizes that these techniques may offer environmental benefits and economic opportunities, but also the need to carefully evaluate them to ensure any deployments are safe, effective and sustainable.
[English]
My team in the Office of Energy Research and Development is monitoring emerging marine carbon dioxide removal, or mCDR, techniques and advancing efforts to identify scientific and knowledge gaps that must be addressed to improve our understanding of the environmental implications and economic potential of mCDR.
We engage closely with Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, and other federal colleagues on issues related to ocean-based removals as part of our engagement on carbon management. Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, does not currently have policy or program measures focused on ocean-based CDR.
The Office of Energy Research and Development is investing in carbon-management innovation broadly, including a $319-million research, development and demonstration program launched under Budget 2021. These investments are advancing carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS, and carbon removal technologies. However, our programming has not focused on mCDR to date.
There are many opportunities for innovation in the carbon management space, and our approach to program investments is informed by an assessment of not just the technology but also the market, policy and regulatory readiness of the technology.
On mCDR, our focus at the moment is to build the scientific and knowledge foundations needed to evaluate these technologies and how they could support Canada’s environmental and economic objectives.
I’m glad to be joined here today by colleagues from ECCC, DFO, and the Treasury Board Secretariat, and I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.
[Translation]
Thank you again for your attention.
Nick Xenos, Executive Director, Centre for Greening Government, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Good evening. I am Nick Xenos, and I am the Executive Director of the Centre for Greening Government at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. I would like to recognize that we are here today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin nation.
[English]
The Treasury Board’s Centre for Greening Government leads the Greening Government Strategy, which outlines how the Government of Canada commits to being net zero in its operations for its own federal buildings, fleet and procurement.
All departments are responsible for implementing the strategy. The Centre for Greening Government supports departments by providing guidance, training, tools and tracking our emissions from the Government of Canada’s own footprint to get to net zero.
The strategy overall commits the government to get to net zero in its own operations by reducing emissions from operations to as close to zero as possible, then balancing out any remaining emissions with an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide removal. We recognize that we’ll need some carbon dioxide removal to get to zero in our own operations, and hence, I’m here.
The first priority under the Greening Government Strategy, of course, is emissions reduction. As of the fiscal year 2023-24, the Government of Canada reduced its emissions from its real property and conventional fleet operations by 42%, but the role of carbon removal is to address residual emissions from hard-to-decarbonize areas in government operations, such as our national safety and security fleet, the air force and navy, for example.
The Centre for Greening Government works directly with departments to support emission reductions, including through the purchase of clean electricity, low-carbon fuels, and carbon removal services. Given the Treasury Board supports carbon removal procurement, I’m here with you today and I can provide a quick update on the procurement process and the work to date.
In October 2024, the government announced a commitment to purchase carbon dioxide removal services as part of the Greening Government Strategy, noting the government would purchase at least $10 million in carbon removal between now and 2030.
In February 2025, the government launched a request for information, or RFI, to engage the carbon removal industry and consult on its interest, capacity and ability to provide carbon removal services that meet the government’s greening requirements. The RFI sought expert input on a draft design for piloting carbon removal procurement and assessed the capacity of the sector to supply high-quality, durable carbon removal services across a wide range of technology approaches. The RFI also indicated our intention to include a set aside for Indigenous businesses as part of this procurement.
To ensure high-quality projects and minimize any risks to the environment, all projects would have to demonstrate compliance with applicable policies, regulations and permitting requirements. Furthermore, the RFI proposed that all projects would have to be independently verified and validated against rigorous science-based measurement and monitoring protocols that follow international best practices.
The overall response to the RFI was very positive. We received many submissions from industry, academia and NGOs. Given Canada does not have a dedicated framework for regulating carbon removal technologies in aquatic environments, we are continuing to consult, including working with our colleague departments on the best approach going forward.
We are currently working to finalize the first pilot procurement approach and scope for a first procurement that we hope to deliver by the end of this fiscal year. Thank you.
[Translation]
James Manicom, Acting Senior Director, Major Projects and Clean Growth, Aquatic Ecosystems, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Hello. I am James Manicom, Senior Director of Major Projects at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[English]
As my colleagues, I live and work on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, and I am eternally grateful for their stewardship of that land since time immemorial.
As Canadians, it is our collective responsibility to steward our marine environment with care and in ways that are practical, reasonable and sustainable. Fish have long had economic, environmental, cultural and spiritual value to Canadians. Further, Indigenous Peoples have been fishing for generations in the oceans, lakes, coasts and rivers that make up Canada. Commercial and recreational fisheries generate billions of dollars every year for the Canadian economy. Importantly, the productivity of a fishery is linked to the health of the habitat in which fish reside.
Oceans and Fisheries Canada, or DFO, is mandated to manage Canada’s fisheries and safeguard its waters by sustainably managing fisheries and aquaculture, working with fishers and coastal and Indigenous communities to enable their continued prosperity from fish and seafood and ensuring that Canada’s oceans and other aquatic ecosystems are protected from negative impacts.
The Fisheries Act, one of Canada’s foundational environmental laws, alongside provisions of the Species at Risk Act, the Oceans Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, provide the legal framework for protecting fish and fish habitat across the country. The conservation and protection of these resources are essential to maintaining biodiversity, food security and economic prosperity.
The Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program, which is where I work, regulates development activities that may affect fish and fish habitat in both freshwater and marine environments, including carbon dioxide removal technologies. The program is responsible for administering the fish and fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, which involves reviewing proposed works, undertakings and activities to determine whether they may result in adverse impacts to fish or fish habitat. The habitat program ensures that proponents of development projects, whether it’s infrastructure, aquaculture operations or emerging marine technologies, comply with the necessary regulatory requirements and apply avoidance, mitigation and offsetting measures as necessary.
In the context of carbon dioxide removal, the habitat program would be involved in working with proponents to assess the potential impacts of their projects on fish and fish habitat. While Canada does not yet have a dedicated framework for regulating carbon dioxide removal technologies in aquatic environments, any such activity that interacts with fish habitat, like direct physical impacts, changes in food, light, dissolved oxygen and nutrients, would fall under the purview of the habitat program at DFO. The program would assess such activities for potential ecological impacts, including risks to fish, benthic organisms, spawning grounds and migratory pathways and other things that affect fish and fish habitat.
The habitat program uses a risk-based approach to review projects, guided by the best available scientific, technical and Indigenous knowledge. Given the novelty of this technology, combined with the diversity of techniques — ocean alkalinity enhancement, sinking biomass, ocean fertilization and others — and the limited peer-reviewed research on their ecological effects, a careful, adaptive regulatory approach is required.
To assess potential impacts for any project, proponents provide information about the existing environment in which the program takes place and a prediction of potential effects that are supported by current scientific information. Because carbon dioxide removal techniques are still new, the impacts on fish and fish habitat are largely unknown. The department’s work on science, which you’ve heard about before, is working to advance its scientific knowledge while still allowing some small-scale pilot projects to proceed.
Assessment of these projects is proceeding on a case-by-case and site-specific basis. Approvals may be contingent on factors varying from location to location, such as specific chemistry, weather or species distribution. This underscores the importance of small-scale, well-monitored pilot projects and interdepartmental collaboration, obviously, to build the scientific foundation and oversight needed for future regulatory decisions.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to advancing efforts that enable the safe and environmentally sound advancement of innovative technologies in the marine environment. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Now if we could go to Mr. Wolfish.
Daniel Wolfish, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you, chair and members of the committee.
I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, whom we acknowledge as custodians of the lands and waters of this region since time immemorial. It is a privilege to work and live on this land.
I am the Director General of the Environmental Protection Operations Directorate at Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC.
[Translation]
Marine carbon dioxide removal is a nascent industry globally. Ocean carbon sequestration technologies are potentially important tools to mitigate climate change, but are still in the early stages of development, with significant knowledge gaps and uncertainties requiring further research. We need to advance scientific research on these techniques in a safe and responsible manner. Canada and its international partners in the London Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change note that there remain many questions about its efficacy, safety and readiness for large scale deployment in the marine environment.
Environment and Climate Change Canada’ mandate is to take action on climate change, conserve nature and protect the environment. With this in mind, we consider ocean carbon sequestration from three lenses: the opportunity for clean growth and climate change mitigation; preventing and managing pollution in the marine environment; and continuing to work with our international partners.
[English]
Regarding the first point, clean growth, the Government of Canada remains committed to the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 °C and to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 — a target enshrined in law under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Canada’s climate change objectives require continued action and are essential to position Canada as a player in the emerging low-carbon economy.
The government recently announced the Climate Competitiveness Strategy, which highlights that reducing emissions is an environmental and economic imperative. We recognize that carbon management strategies — as noted by NRCAN — are important tools in the broader climate toolbox. In this context ocean carbon sequestration could be a tool to help achieve these goals, though not an alternative to decarbonization.
Recognizing the value of these carbon management tools, ECCC administers the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which establishes the framework for industrial carbon pricing in Canada and creates important incentives for clean technologies like carbon dioxide removal through Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit System Regulations. The Federal Offset System is a regulated, high-integrity offset system that enables project developers to generate federal offset credits for projects that achieve verified greenhouse gas reductions or that remove carbon from the atmosphere, provided there is a published federal offset protocol covering that activity.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is developing a federal offset protocol for direct air carbon dioxide capture and geological storage. However, it should be noted that ECCC is not considering the development of a protocol for marine carbon dioxide removal at this time.
With regard to preventing pollution in the marine environment, ECCC has a number of regulatory authorities — in particular, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act — which seek to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention.
The disposal at sea provisions, which domestically implement the London Protocol by prohibiting the disposal or dumping of a substance at sea unless the disposal is done with a valid permit. It covers all coastal, estuarine and marine waters in Canada.
The pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish or to any place under any conditions where it may enter water frequented by fish including fresh, coastal and marine water bodies.
Regarding marine carbon dioxide removal more specifically, ECCC does not currently have the authorities to permit these activities under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act’s disposal at sea regulations because most techniques use materials that are not listed on the schedule of eligible substances. Canada’s list of eligible substances is consistent with the international framework outlined in the London Protocol.
Additionally, CEPA disposal at sea regulation does not apply to land-based activities. Proponents undertaking marine carbon dioxide removal activities need to ensure that their projects comply with all relevant laws and regulations, including CEPA and the Fisheries Act.
Environment and Climate Change Canada does recognize the need for a coherent approach to manage emerging technologies including ocean carbon sequestration. To this end, we have taken a series of steps has over the last 12 months. Environment and Climate Change Canada is staying abreast of evolving science. Environment and Climate Change Canada collaborates with other science-based federal departments, like Fisheries and Oceans Canada and NRCAN, to contribute to science, develop expertise and track international developments.
We are also working with federal partners to explore options for a regulatory mechanism that would be consistent with the London Protocol to allow for research on marine carbon dioxide removal while taking a precautionary approach.
Environment and Climate Change Canada continues to work across various international instruments, such as the London Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to ensure consistency and a precautionary approach to managing these emerging technologies.
With regard to international partners, in October 2025, parties to the London Convention and London Protocol reiterated that no marine carbon dioxide removal technologies are yet ready for large-scale deployment. Scientific gaps and uncertainties remain and need to be addressed before deployment can take place.
Similar sentiments were also expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, in Fall 2025 as well as in early reports in 2022. The IPCC plans to assess newly available literature in its seventh report, which is expected in 2028.
Canada continues to support the London Protocol framework. The protocol prohibits the disposal at sea of wastes, and other matters except under a permit issued by a contracting party. The London Protocol was amended in 2013 to further regulate ocean fertilization for scientific research. When the amendment enters into force, it will create a legally binding framework for the future regulation of these activities, prohibiting them unless they are authorized under a permit for scientific research.
To ratify the 2013 amendment, Canada will need to take legislative and regulatory changes under CEPA. This would enable ECCC to permit legitimate scientific research, creating a mechanism to protect the marine environment while providing proponents with the regulatory clarity to carry out research in the field on ocean carbon sequestration technologies.
In conclusion, ECCC recognizes the importance of scientific research and the need for field trials to evaluate the potential contribution of ocean carbon sequestration to our net-zero targets while maintaining our environmental objectives and minimizing environmental risks. There are currently active discussions at the international level on the framework that would support carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, innovation and research in the marine environment, and Canada will continue to participate in those discussions and implement international decisions and guidance as they are made available. ECCC will continue to work alongside our federal colleagues, other levels of government, stakeholders, and Indigenous partners to advance our scientific understanding and capacity to effectively monitor and manage this dynamic and evolving space.
Thank you for the opportunity to present today.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to all of you for being here and for the work that you are doing in this very important area.
We’ve heard evidence of the value of alkalinization of rivers in contained environments such as Halifax Harbour with respect to carbon sequestration.
Mr. Wolfish, you have referenced the London Protocol. Is there any plan on a go-forward basis to actually look at projects such as alkalinization of the oceans or other measures such as protection of plankton, coral reefs and countering pollution to look at carbon sequestration in a much larger sphere in oceans than in the current harbours and rivers?
Mr. Wolfish: Thank you for the question, senator.
We track the science internationally through our international networks and collaborations, including through the London Protocol and through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Additionally, our scientists in the department work hand-in-glove with scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NRCan and elsewhere to continue to track, monitor and learn about the activities taking place globally, looking both at the benefits and the risks. We have a number of relationships with universities where we continue to receive information and stay abreast of the broader literature, and we also have relationships with some of the private-sector actors, who are conducting the science. They often come to our department to present their science, and we participate in the interdepartmental dialogues on the science activities.
Senator Ravalia: In terms of the evidence that you have to date, on a go-forward basis, where do you think our best investments would be in terms of the ocean for recovery and carbon sequestration?
Mr. Wolfish: There are a number of techniques that are currently being researched and being tested globally. Internationally, it is of the view that more research is needed across the various techniques before they can be ready for large-scale deployment.
We feel that it’s important to continue to participate in the international panel and the work and the research that they’re doing and with the working groups under the London Protocol and the scientific work that is under way there.
Ocean alkalinity and ocean fertilization do offer areas for early advancement and activity, and there is an area of opportunity for us to continue our research and monitoring there, recognizing that research ought to be done across a variety of actors in the innovation system.
Senator Ravalia: Do any of the other witnesses have a contribution to this particular question?
Thank you very much, Mr. Wolfish.
The Acting Chair: I have just a quick question, if I could.
I’ve heard the term a lot, so I wouldn’t mind getting some definition around it. What is “large scale,” and what is “small scale”? Each one of you, I think, has used those terms, and I would love to get, just for our own benefit, some definition around them.
Mr. Wolfish: I will note that in our activities through the London Protocol, activities for research and the purpose of research often take place in localized areas or are done through pilot projects with the motivation of understanding the various implications and opportunities.
When we talk about deployment, we talk about it from the perspective of deploying these techniques on a broad scale for objectives beyond the intended research. If it’s a commercial enterprise for purposes of commercial interests as well as for the broader interests around the carbon sequestration, we look at the difference between the intended purpose and the locality versus the large-scale deployment ready for global activities.
The Acting Chair: Maybe I’m just not hearing you properly. It’s not really about scale; it’s about intention?
Mr. Wolfish: I would say that we still lack clarity of definitions. In Canada, because the activity — from the perspective of CEPA — cannot take place in the marine environment itself, so often the activities today are done from the shore into the marine environment. We would note that it is important that they are compliant with the regulations and the laws in Canada.
Then we would note that the scale of activity globally is not ready for a large-scale deployment. That would be from the perspective of our work in Environment and Climate Change Canada, but that may be different in other departments.
The Acting Chair: I don’t know if any other witnesses want to add to that.
Mr. Manicom: I can say from a DFO perspective, we’ve approached the issue of scale — the projects that we’ve looked at have all been time bound, so they’re not ongoing things. It’s a one-year effort, or there are limits on how long the activity is going to take place for, which is almost, by definition — and none of them are permanent. They’re all, sort of, one- or two-year pieces of advice that we’ve given these proponents, and they have to stop after that and tell us how they’re doing and what the impacts are.
From our point of view, by definition, it has been small scale, because it’s been temporary. None of it is permanent.
The Acting Chair: You define “small scale” as being temporary activities?
Mr. Manicom: In this case, but, again, I think it is important to articulate the difference between my regulatory perspective and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s regulatory perspective. We’re approaching this from a fish and fish habitat health perspective, primarily. When we’re evaluating the project, our precautions are about the impact of the project over time on fish and fish habitat.
Because that’s unknown, which you heard from my colleague when she was here, and all of the advice that we’re giving is that these projects be time bound and that there be monitoring attached to them and all the rest of it, and they report to us with the impacts on fisheries habitat.
I just want to make sure that I articulate the difference between my perspective and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s.
The Acting Chair: Any other perspectives on large scale and small scale and how you’re using it and what you mean?
Ms. Handler: The only thing I’ll add to that conversation is around the term “pilot scale.” At NRCan we tend to look at these things in the context of technology readiness. And so, when I think about what Mr. Manicom has said in the context of time bound, often that means a pilot-scale activity around a TRL 5.
The furthest along we see any of these technologies is maybe toward what we would call technology readiness level 6, and so when you’re talking about small scale, we’re talking about things that are time bound, that are fairly contained, are often not in the final context that they’re intended to be used at and are not at the — you would do a small amount of something and see what happens.
If I were to translate this into a different context, if you ultimately intended to have a wind turbine that is 5 megawatts, your first version might be 5 kilowatts, your second version might be 50 kilowatts, and you’re slowly scaling up.
When we’re talking about small scale, we’re still in the early technology readiness levels doing things at a smaller quantum and in a time-bound way to really understand the impacts and the performance as opposed to large-scale deployments, which is when you’ve reached technology readiness level 9, and you are able to do this in the context in which it’s ultimately intended at the scale that it’s ultimately intended over long periods of time.
It’s really that very deliberate maturation of a technology through multiple levels of technology readiness.
Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thanks very much. I heard three or four different definitions of what “small scale” means, so I think there is a need for clarity. I’ll stop there, because I have intervened.
I apologize Senator Cuzner. I just thought that that might help us, but I don’t know that it did.
Senator Cuzner: You couldn’t help yourself.
The Acting Chair: I know. That’s the issue.
Senator Cuzner: Let me ask this question. Mike Kelland from Planetary talked about voluntary protocols. Are voluntary protocols fairly regular or not so much? In any type of environmental regulation are voluntary protocols present?
Mr. Wolfish: That’s a good question. You will recall in my remarks that I made the comment about the carbon credits and how that system works from the federally regulated perspective. A company can take advantage of two types of markets. The market that we have regulated in Canada for high-integrity offset system, and that in Canada is set through the Canada greenhouse gas offset credit system regulations, and they’ve developed certain protocols under that system, including one for direct air carbon dioxide capture and geological storage.
However, we do not have a protocol for marine carbon dioxide removal at this time. That type of market, the high-integrity regulated market, in Canada is not available.
The voluntary market is the second type of market. There are various organizations that have created protocols, create systems for tracking and then do verification, which companies can then participate in and buy and sell credits. That’s the voluntary market. They are unregulated. They often offer some measure of transparency, some measure of setting baselines and being able to validate or verify a removal, and then companies can buy and sell credits on that system. They offer a measure of incentive, but they’re unregulated, so they have a lower level of integrity, transparency and certainty than the regulatory market. That’s where Planetary has been participating through the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, metric inventory.
Senator Cuzner: They’re taking part in the voluntary regulatory regime now?
Mr. Wolfish: That is my understanding, but I would not want to speak on their behalf, and to clarify that this should be a question for them.
Senator Cuzner: That’s overseen by ECCC, though?
Mr. Wolfish: It is not, because it is a voluntary market. It is unregulated and overseen by the ISO metrics, which is an inventory. They have created a protocol on carbon removal in the marine environment. It has not been validated or verified by the Canadian government or Canadian scientists, but this voluntary process does allow for tracking verification, a measure of transparency and they are participating in that voluntary market. It is unregulated. It is not regulated by the Canadian government.
Senator Cuzner: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Xenos, I appreciate your comments on the government still committing to greening government services and the money that has been allocated to buy decarbonization services.
You mentioned that there hasn’t been a lot done in the aquatic environment. Could you expand on that? Has there been any initiative to buy some of those services in any kind of marine initiatives? Could you expand on that a little bit?
Mr. Xenos: Do you mean buying carbon removal in the marine side?
Senator Cuzner: Yes.
Mr. Xenos: We’re just starting. We had a commitment to buy carbon removal for the hard-to-decarbonize areas. The first step was doing a request for information to get information from the industry on a lot of different variables if we went ahead and purchased carbon removal. We received a lot of input from industry, academia, NGOs, et cetera, but we hope to go out with our first pilot procurement in the next six months or so. We haven’t bought any carbon removal yet.
Senator Cuzner: Are there marine initiatives within that as well?
Mr. Xenos: We haven’t decided yet. We will probably buy carbon removal from a lot of different technologies, but as my colleague said, it is fairly early days on the marine side. We’re still consulting and discussing what the first procurement would look like for that. I fully expect the government to do a lot of procurement of carbon removal over the next many years to get us to net zero in our own operations. The first procurement won’t be the last.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: I would like to ask a quick question. Have any of you had a chance to go and visit, for example, Deep Sky’s direct air capture, or DAC, site in Alberta, Quebec or any of these sites that you’re regulating? I’m just wondering if you’ve had the opportunity to really get to know what they’re doing on a first-hand basis. Have you spoken to the companies?
Mr. Wolfish: I don’t have responsibilities for those activities or the regulation of the terrestrial systems. So I have not visited them. What I can say is that I have had conversations with some of the proponents of the marine-based activities, particularly the activities taking place in Nova Scotia, and I’ve had many conversations with the proponents.
Mr. Manicom: The technology deployed in Nova Scotia, we have regional staff there that have had many conversations.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Xenos: We’ve had an industry day and a lot of consultation with industry in the various technologies of carbon removal including the marine side.
Ms. Handler: For Natural Resources Canada, I can say that our engineers absolutely do technical site visits with projects that we have funded, and we have funded some projects in direct air capture. I personally have not visited them.
The Acting Chair: I just wanted to understand how close our regulators get to know our innovators. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolfish: Enforcement officers from Environment and Climate Change Canada have gone on site to some of the activities in Nova Scotia to monitor, collect samples and see the operation. From that perspective, they have. We have a regional director in Dartmouth who has had relationships, and members of their team have gone out to see some of the sites.
The Acting Chair: That’s great. It’s good to hear when regulators are meeting with innovators.
Mr. Wolfish: I can add that part of the regulatory role is to meet not just with those being regulated but with First Nations, provinces and territories and others.
The Acting Chair: Absolutely.
Mr. Wolfish: We have an active conversation going with Nova Scotia and dialogue with First Nations. I want to be careful to say that while we have met with the regulatees or the proponents, we have also met with a variety of other implicated parties and rights holders.
The Acting Chair: We would concur with that absolutely, and the joint witnesses have been very helpful in that regard in this committee.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My question is for Mr. Xenos. In your opening remarks, you mentioned the federal government’s $10 million commitment as part of the Greening Government Strategy. Given that the federal budget includes several adjustments for environmental programs, can you confirm these funds will remain earmarked for this goal, and not be reassigned to other priorities?
Mr. Xenos: Thank you for the question. The budget details are forthcoming, but we plan to spend $10 million to eliminate CO2.
As per the budget, Treasury Board will work directly with the departments involved. As a result, each department is responsible for achieving net-zero emissions, as well as taking on both the costs and benefits.
In this case, we are looking at carbon removal, specifically greenhouse gases, which are very difficult to remove. At National Defence, work is ongoing to support defence operations, but with a combination of low-carbon fuels. Furthermore, with the procurement of carbon dioxide removal services, we can help them reduce their greenhouse gases.
I foresee spending the amounts required to achieve net-zero emissions.
Senator Gerba: So, you think it will be spent, regardless?
Mr. Xenos: I am a public servant, which means I serve the government until 2030. I can offer no guarantees. However, I think it is obvious that we need to invest significantly in reducing our greenhouse gases. This is a very good tool for doing so.
Senator Gerba: My question is for Mr. Manicom.
In your opening remarks, when it comes to regulations, you said a regulatory framework was necessary to further research in that area. Could you tell us more about that? In other words, what could be achieved within this framework?
Mr. Manicom: Within a regulatory framework, for example?
Senator Gerba: Yes, within a regulatory framework. You said it was necessary.
Mr. Manicom: Yes. Indeed, for us, for a regulatory department, the challenge is to determine when a given technology will have a negative impact on the environment. We use a framework called pathways of effects to determine whether the technology has a negative impact on the environment. We work with our scientific colleagues in order to determine what the framework will be. Each technology requires a different framework.
[English]
If you think about ocean alkalinity, you’re going to deposit a substance that’s going to increase that, we would want to understand at what point and if at all that increase has a negative impact on the aquatic life, species or the environment. That’s the kind of conversation we’re having with science to understand the effect of that deposit or that substance in the water has on fish and fish habitat, then if it violates the prohibitions of the Fisheries Act. If it does, that’s an okay world to be in because we authorize projects that have impacts. But if you do violate the prohibition, you need to come to us, and we talk it through and issue a permit. There are steps and offsetting measures that have to apply for that to go ahead. It’s still a place we can get to as a regulator, but right now, the gap is understanding the linkages between the technology and the potential negative impact.
As you heard my colleague say, the big research gap is in understanding the link between the various technologies and their impact on, in our case, the aquatic environment and fish.
Senator Surette: One thing that is quite clear for me is that we’re at the pilot and small-scale, temporary stage, not at the large scale. This may be a question for DFO and Mr. Manicom. I come from a fishing area, southwestern Nova Scotia. I’m assuming we’re far from being at the stage where we would have to involve commercial fishermen and communities in these types of projects because we’re not even at that scale yet. I’m correct on that.
Whether we’re talking wind turbines or aquaculture and whatnot, there is always an issue with the commercial fishermen there. We’re not even close to that stage at this time.
Mr. Manicom: From our point of view, the best thing we can do for fishers and fish harvesters is to maintain a healthy aquatic environment. That’s our first point of entry, and the engagement goes from there.
Senator Surette: If I understood correctly from Mr. Wolfish, any of the products — I don’t know how you presented it, approved or not approved — that the companies are using at the present time are not approved to be dumped in the ocean. Did I get that correct? What we’ve heard of was Lyme, for example, is one of the products. That product is not even approved at this stage to be dumped in the ocean, right?
Mr. Wolfish: If the operator is operating in the marine environment and disposing it into the ocean from a boat, the disposal-a-sea provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, at this stage, say that that activity cannot take place unless they have a permit. However, if they’re operating from land and discharging it into the marine environment, CEPA does not apply and neither does the London Protocol for that matter. In our conversations with proponents who may be undertaking that type of activity, we make them aware that they need to comply with the Fisheries Act. From our perspective, that means the pollution-prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, section 36.3, and there would also be a DFO component around fish and fish habitat. We would also note that there are other acts they should be aware of, whether it be the Species at Risk Act or the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and it is their obligation to be compliant or, where appropriate, seek permits.
Senator Surette: This one is for Mr. Xenos. Getting back to the approval of the budget of $10 million for carbon removal, you mentioned October 2024, so you’re talking last year’s budget, not this year’s budget. Is there anything in this year’s budget to start with?
Mr. Xenos: In this year’s budget, it says that Treasury Board will work with departments to recalibrate our involvement in the Low-carbon Fuel Procurement Program, shifting toward direct collaboration with organizations, like departments, that are directly reducing emissions. What that means is, ultimately, departments need to get to zero carbon, and they’re going to do a mix of things to get there, which is either reduce emissions as much as possible, then change energy sources. For air and marine, buy low-carbon fuels, like a biofuel, and then do carbon removal. How much of each they do will depend on the department and what the cheapest and most effective way to do it is.
In some cases, we know it’s easier to just have an energy-efficient building or switch to electrified heating, for example, or buy an electric vehicle. In other cases, it’s going to be very hard, and it’s sustainable aviation fuel or carbon removal.
We’re working directly with departments, and how much they will spend on each of those will depend over time. There are commitments is in the Greening Government Strategy to reduce emissions for 2030, 2040 and 2050.
Senator Surette: But nothing whatsoever for ocean alkalinity?
Mr. Xenos: No, not from a procurement perspective.
Senator Surette: You mentioned you had a number of projects presented to you, however, and you were at the pilot stage of one project, right?
Mr. Xenos: No. We’ve done a request for information and an industry consultation, and then, later in this fiscal year, we want to go forward for the first procurement of carbon-removal services. We haven’t procured anything yet. We’ve just consulted with industry and sought input on the procurement approach.
There are a lot of questions in terms of how we procure, what we ask for, how we score it, as well as what verification, validation, what volume we’re going to buy and all those kinds of things. We just consulted on those before we go out with the full procurement.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. I will ask a follow-up question to your questions, if that’s okay. Just on that note, you had six categories that your colleagues announced a year ago that you were considering. The sixth was sort of greyed out, and that related to green carbon dioxide removal. I think ocean alkalinity enhancement was noted as being something under consideration. Where does that stand today, just to give us a bit of an update with where you are in looking at that?
Mr. Xenos: Yes. I would say it’s still under consideration. We mentioned four areas in the Request for Information that are further ahead, if you will. Then we said exactly that there is one under consideration, select abiotic aquatic technologies. We’re still consulting and getting input and discussing it with our colleagues here. You are hearing the live discussion on this area. No decision has been made yet.
The Acting Chair: Specifically what we’ve been looking at so far is land-based ocean alkalinity enhancement. So nothing has been decided?
Mr. Xenos: No.
The Acting Chair: The phrase we heard last year was “active neutrality.” We heard that a lot from the regulators who testified last year. It sounds like you’re getting more active and less neutral. But there is not yet a decision in that regard?
Mr. Xenos: No, no. TBS is not the regulator.
The Acting Chair: No, you are a procurer.
Mr. Xenos: We are in procurement. We are looking to procure government removal to help to reduce our emissions, first and foremost, and then work to help the industry, but we will take advice from the regulators, of course.
The Acting Chair: Your marker is to where the regulation is at, and the only question really is, is it still under consideration? Are you able to tell us what will move you along in that regard, to a decision one way or the other, positive or negative?
Mr. Xenos: I would say two things. One, this first pilot procurement — I would call it a pilot procurement, and it won’t be the last. This is not a sort of “one and done.” It will be the first of probably many. Second, I think the things under consideration are everything that you’ve just heard today from everyone at this table. These are the difficult questions on which we are trying to get advice and consult, so we’re happy to receive more advice.
The Acting Chair: Senator Surette, do you want to follow up? I just wanted to drill down more.
Senator Surette: I’m trying to get my head around this. I am fairly new to this discussion.
At the present time, we’re working on technology. That’s nothing do with you. We are looking now at universities and the private sector and tax credits and the voluntary program protocol. That’s how they are being financed at the present time, most of these companies? There are partnerships between universities and the private sector for innovation, with some of the projects that we mentioned, Halifax Harbour and so on and so forth?
Mr. Wolfish: I wouldn’t want to speak on behalf of the various companies and their business strategies, but we are aware that the companies are in partnerships with many of the universities to do joint-funded research. We are aware that a couple of the companies are participating in the voluntary carbon markets and selling credits in advance of doing the work. How the companies are profitable may depend on a number of factors. Some are operating internationally and, therefore, working in various jurisdictions.
I would be hesitant to say what their business model is, but from a research perspective, a variety of networks are in place within the federal government. Environment and Climate Change Canada works with DFO and NRCan and others to share information and keep on top of the literature, to continue and support and understand the state of the science. We also work globally through the IPCC and the London Protocol and its subcommittees on the science to stay abreast of the science work and to build a global knowledge base upon which decisions can then be made.
Senator Surette: From a government perspective, you’re not even counting this in any of your strategies for carbon removal at this stage? We are just at the minute state at this present time?
Mr. Wolfish: I would turn to my colleagues about how we account for removal. As the regulator, I would say large-scale commercial deployment of marine geoengineering is not yet available in Canada.
The Acting Chair: [Technical difficulties] — large-scale. We are focusing on land-based OAE. We keep veering off into other areas, but we are not focused on all the other work that you’re doing.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you to all of you for being here this evening and for the work that you’re doing. I’m brand new to this committee, so my questions may be off, and I am basing them on what I’ve heard.
I was thinking about regulation and research. All of you talked about regulation and research a lot, and there is a lot of time needed. It takes time to do the research. It takes time to develop regulations. They are all in very discrete areas because you’re bringing certain things to the overall work. I am assuming there is an overall coordination or an overall giant strategy that brings you all together in a common goal. I’m assuming that.
This may be very naive, so forgive me if I’m being naive, but what are we doing right now to address carbon removal on land?
I am assuming it is not happening in oceans because you’ve talked about scales of projects, and you’re still doing the research and the pilots to do that. But while we’re waiting for this, what are we doing right now as a country to address this? We have a 2030 deadline. It is the end of 2025 now. I know that there is $10 million set aside to purchase some carbon renewal, but we don’t have the regulations to govern that yet, or do we? Can we govern some of these projects to make sure they’re not being harmful to the environment? That is if I understood you correctly collectively. That’s my first question, to whomever would like to talk about that.
Ms. Handler: Maybe I can take the first part of that question in terms of what we are doing generally. Certainly, for land-based carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, that’s been our primary focus, advancing land-based CDR. Under the Carbon Management Strategy, there is extensive work. In my opening remarks, I addressed the $319 million CCUS research, development, and demonstration, or RD&D, program. That is research, development, and demonstration program. We are funding and have been funding active work on CCUS RD&D and on direct air capture. There are also significant other investments, for example, the CCUS investment tax credits that are in place.
Extensive work is being done on land-based methods of both capturing carbon from industrial sites as well as Direct Air Capture and other land-based CDR methods.
While our focus remains on advancing land-based CDR, we are engaging with mCDR stakeholders. That includes the provinces and territories, industry and academia. We are working to identify the knowledge gaps and improve the scientific understanding to help inform the regulatory and policy work of our colleagues.
We are funding a study to address knowledge gaps and inform further research that’s looking at approaches such as ocean alkalinity enhancement, seaweed cultivation, ocean fertilization, electrochemical processes and understanding how existing frameworks like CEPA and the Fisheries Act might apply.
From that perspective, we are trying to do that work collectively between us. We have regular interdepartmental discussions on mCDR to support alignment, coordination and knowledge-sharing.
Senator Greenwood: So if we had to report out to Canadians, you could say, “We’ve dropped the carbon by this much”?
Ms. Handler: I would defer to my colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada on that point.
Mr. Wolfish: I do not have that answer right now, and I would have to get back to you with a written response. I would need to get back to you on how that works.
Senator Greenwood: It might be that I don’t understand the process well.
Mr. Wolfish: We do carbon counting in the department. We have an inventory that allows for us to understand what the emissions are and how those emissions are doing. It is not my area of responsibility.
Senator Greenwood: That’s what I am asking. If someone asks us that question, how are we reducing them today?
Mr. Xenos: For the Government of Canada’s own operations, which consist of 30,000 buildings and 40,000 vehicles, we can tell you that we have reduced our emissions by 42% in our buildings and our conventional fleets, and we post it on the web every year what our emissions are. The aim is to reduce the emissions directly first. Carbon removal will be a small part, for the hard to decarbonate, but we definitely can report every year how we are doing on our own footprint.
The Acting Chair: That’s a very important question: how we are tracking carbon removal in addition to carbon reduction. I don’t think there is any tracking because it doesn’t qualify under section 6 of the Paris Agreement as being part of the compliance, right? Carbon removal doesn’t follow under that. I don’t think there is any tracking of carbon removal activities at this point in time in Canada.
Mr. Wolfish: I will try to validate that. That it is not an area where I have direct responsibilities, but I will be happy to come back to you with a response.
The Acting Chair: It is a very important question, Senator Greenwood. We are doing a lot of activity. Where are we getting?
Senator Greenwood: Yes, and I am cognizant of a 2030 deadline. That’s scary and looming, right?
I have another question. Mr. Manicom, I think you mentioned this and Mr. Wolfish. You talked about Indigenous knowledge and conversations with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples in Canada. You talked about Indigenous knowledge along with science. You may not be on the ground, but do you have any stories or evidence, if you will, that you can talk about how you’ve used Indigenous knowledge in this whole process of reducing carbon? We often hear those words, and the knowledge comes in stories. The knowledge comes in experience of being on the land.
Have you heard any of those stories, or can you share any of that where you’ve taken that Indigenous knowledge as science and used it in a particular area or region?
Mr. Manicom: The first part of your question mentioned this area, and I can’t speak to it in this area because it is early days. The Fisheries Act requires us to consider indigenous knowledge, which is provided to the regulator, and they do. I am not on the ground in the regions, so I personally don’t have any stories. I have stories from other parts of my professional life in the government. It’s pretty powerful. If you would like, I can circle back and provide some anecdotes, if that’s what you are interested in.
Senator Greenwood: Yes. I think the anecdotes would be really important, because sometimes in those anecdotes are strategies or solutions to some of the things that we are using other tools to try to achieve.
Mr. Manicom: Yes.
Senator Greenwood: Sometimes we don’t see the other tools that are in front of us. If people are doing research in the field, are they researching in the communities on these kinds of things as well? They could be there, and we don’t know. That would be great if you did that. Thank you so much.
The Acting Chair: We have heard from other witnesses how important those relationships and stories are, and how they relate to our witnesses.
Senator Pate: Thank you again to our witnesses. Thank you for your work. Senator Greenwood, I was just thinking of some of those examples that I heard last week from northern communities in particular around how they are dealing with some of these issues.
I think my question is for Mr. Xenos, as the Treasury Board representative. I am not usually on this committee. You heard that at the beginning. I am curious about the approaches internationally where Canada is leading or could be leading. What do you define as success? It sounds like there is an issue of the definitions in terms of scale and that sort of thing. How do you, as Treasury Board, manage to ensure that departments are doing the absolute best they can in the areas for which they are responsible?
Mr. Xenos: I will narrow that to greening government, as opposed to all things that are Treasury Board’s mandate. In greening government, for example, we have a strategy that departments have to implement with targets every five years, for example. We monitor their progress to those targets, put it on the web. We also then work with them to try and find solutions. So, for example, in this area of hard-to-decarbonize areas, we look at things like low-carbon fuels. We have done several tenders on low-carbon fuels, for example. In carbon removal, we are just starting on that process, but it is the same idea. What are the solutions we can get to that are cost-effective to get to net-zero government operations?
We help set the targets, work with them, guidance, tools, solutions, and then the departments implement them, and we monitor their progress.
Senator Pate: In other areas where I am more familiar than these, it strikes me that there is not a lot of incentivizing to go beyond the targets. Like Senator Greenwood, I am coming into this and hearing this, and I am extremely concerned about how we can achieve this by 2030 when it sounds like we are doing small-scale activities. Of course, the ocean is not just Canada’s impact. How do we incentivize that? How do we incentivize researchers and departments to up their game?
Mr. Xenos: Yes, some departments have passed their targets by a lot. Others have more challenging footprints, I would say. I would say they all want to get there, but the footprints of different departments are different. It is harder to decarbonize certain things than others. For example, science labs are harder to decarbonize than an office building, for example. Airplanes are harder to decarbonize than a sedan or a regular vehicle.
How do we help? We are doing what we can with the departments to try and help them get there. I don’t know if I’m answering your question on that one. On the research side, I think that’s a good point. In areas where we don’t have clear answers, we have commissioned studies. For example, what is the cost to decarbonize using lower carbon construction materials? We have commissioned studies that help show the cost-benefit analysis of using a better design, for example. We partner with NGOs, academia and industry in areas where we want to help further the industry as well. For example, we have looked at lower-carbon concrete and worked with the industry and in other cities where they looked at adopting the same kinds of procurement standards that we have for lower-carbon concrete, for example.
Senator Pate: How does your department, for example, intersect with the Treasury Board, around taxation and things like private planes? It is not de-greening the government, but that has a direct impact on this whole issue, when we see the taxation system not reflecting incentives to green the country.
Mr. Xenos: We will work with other departments. We will work with Finance on taxation or work with ECCC on regulatory matters. But you are right. With low-carbon fuel, there are a lot of things that come into play: the tax regime, the research and development regime, the different subsidies that different nations give to low-carbon fuels. We work with all of the mandated departments that lead in those areas and say, “What do we need to do to get to lower carbon operations?”
I don’t know if my colleagues have more.
The Acting Chair: On carbon removal, though. That’s the purpose of our study, and I was hoping you would get to that. I did not hear you speak about carbon removal at all, just reduction.
Mr. Xenos: On carbon removal, we are working with our colleague departments here. We are trying to get the best advice in terms of where the research is, shore-based approaches to carbon on the marine side.
We’re in discussions with our colleagues here on what the best advice is. We are looking at how to design the procurement, but definitely looking to the best advice on how to design that procurement.
The Acting Chair: How you define success is getting the best advice from your colleagues?
Mr. Xenos: For greening government it would be reducing emissions, but we would get the best advice when we do the procurement to reduce those emissions.
The Acting Chair: Carbon removal.
Mr. Xenos: Yes, for carbon removal. When we go and procure carbon removal, we want to count how many emissions we have reduced.
The Acting Chair: The two-year timeline that you’re on to get it done from when Minister Anand announced it, is that what you would expect as normal for something like this? It will be two years by the time you are done, given what you have told us.
Mr. Xenos: You mean by the time we go to procurement?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr. Xenos: The commitment was $10 million by 2030. We went out with an RFI to understand how much industry can produce last year versus this year versus next year. We need to decide how much we are going to buy in each year.
The Acting Chair: But the timeline reflects what you expected?
Mr. Xenos: Yes.
Senator Gerba: There are some questions regarding the carbon removal, but I just want to know if the government has a plan to measure the effectiveness of funded projects for CO 2 removal.
Mr. Xenos: From a procurement perspective?
[Translation]
When we go to market, we determine the quantity we can buy to reduce greenhouse gases. That means we measure success according to how much greenhouse gases are reduced and what we will eliminate from the atmosphere. We can definitely measure success.
Senator Gerba: What follow-up mechanisms are included to determine whether funds earmarked for carbon removal are used to meet those commitments?
Mr. Xenos: For procurement with a request for proposals, required compliance audits and the protocols to follow are specified. It is all specified in the request for proposals.
That is one of the reasons why we take the time to thoroughly understand what must be specified, which protocols must be followed and which verification methodologies must be used. We follow internationally approved methodologies that are as rigorous as possible on a scientific level.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cuzner: My question is probably for Ms. Handler and less so for Mr. Wolfish.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this, but I think it would be helpful if we looked realistically. We have a great deal of excitement around this technology. They want to get moving on it. But if we look at the parallel story with carbon capture and land-based sequestration, like Senator Surette and Senator Deacon from Nova Scotia, back in 2000, probably 100% of our electricity was generated from coal-fired plants. I started paying attention to capture and sequestration 25 years ago. Natural Resources Canada was very helpful. They had the lab on Bells Corners, with SaskPower and Nova Scotia Power. They were partners in the development of that technology and had great success in the lab, and then took it to the field and got things sorted out, I guess.
I know that the government went with a set of tax incentives. Trying to find commercial viability has been the last challenge.
I think two years ago they started with tax incentives. Have they had good success with that? Bring back the regulatory regime. Through this genesis, is there a clear regulatory regime now for carbon capture and sequestration? Was that developed over a period of time? Where are we with carbon capture and sequestration? Are we seeing some success with investment and with it in the practical world?
It has been long talked about by people who continue to beat the drum for fossil fuels. They say that carbon capture is just around the corner. Are we having success?
Ms. Handler: I will start by saying that Canada is recognized as a global leader on carbon management and has one of the most supportive policy environments in the world. You are correct that CanmetENERGY laboratory has played a critical role in developing carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies and continues to do so.
Very much like the discussion today around mCDR, in that early stage, it was very important to lay that scientific foundation to make sure we understood all of the elements and, from that perspective, the federal science in that space was —
Senator Cuzner: That would be over what period of time?
Ms. Handler: This is a ballpark, but I think we’ve been at this now for around two decades, a decade and a half. Somewhere between 15 and 20 years, if I had to guess. At least that.
As to where we are now, you noted the CCUS investment tax credits are in place. Those credits require the project to be sequestering in an eligible regulatory regime. Those regulatory regimes are assessed by Environment and Climate Change Canada. There are approved regulatory regimes for CCUS in Canada. There are significant projects that have taken place and that are planned. We have a significant number of projects that have gone to final investment decision or are working on final-investment decisions.
From that perspective, I would say that carbon capture, utilization and storage have moved into the space where I have a high degree of confidence in the ability of Canada to execute meaningful projects in that space.
If you are drawing a parallel between that and mCDR, which I think is what I heard in your question, we are still, from that perspective, very much in an earlier stage with marine CDR. There is a suite of different approaches. Most are in early research or small pilots, so between technology readiness levels 2 and 5. We see ocean alkalinity enhancement and coastal rock weathering as the most advanced marine and sea methods, and they are now entering the early demonstration phases.
From that perspective, other methods like microalgae sinking is between TRL 2 and TRL 4, artificial upwelling between 4 and 6. So they’re still at proof of concept or early research and pilot stage. So from our perspective as compared to CCUS and land-based direct air capture, these are much earlier-stage technologies.
Mr. Wolfish: I’ll add to that and this also goes back to Senator Greenwood’s question earlier. Canada does report its official greenhouse gas estimates through its National Inventory Report, which includes anthropogenic sources and sinks or GHG that occur within geographical boundaries of Canada. This report does include carbon dioxide capture through industrial processes as well as carbon sinks that occur on managed lands resulting from natural resource management.
Complementary to the National Inventory Report, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program does collect and publishes facility-reported data on an annual basis, including facilities engaged in carbon capture, transport and storage. In addition, Canada is engaged in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process to develop a methodology report on carbon dioxide removal technologies, carbon capture utilization and storage. Once it’s final, this report will provide quantification guidance to support the development of national inventories.
Just to go back to that question and to support the regulatory regime and the work that NRCan is doing, we are working internationally to develop the methodology to be able to account for the carbon that is being removed.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Just one clarification off of Senator Cuzner’s question before we wrap up. The 15- to 20-year timeline sounds like that’s what you would expect would be a normal timeline for the area we’ve been studying in terms of ocean carbon removal and ocean alkalinity enhancement. You thought that was a reasonable time frame?
Ms. Handler: That is the time frame that I estimated roughly for CCUS. I don’t think I want to put a timeline on this one. Different technologies take different amounts of time. Some move quickly, some are more complex and take a much longer time. So I’m not going to set a time frame for you. Just simply that these technologies are at a much earlier stage than land-based CCUS or direct air capture.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. I wanted to take the time to thank all of you for coming and testifying before us to hear your thoughts on where things were at in ocean alkalinity enhancement and carbon removal, and I appreciate the time you’ve taken.
Thank you, colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)