Environment Committee on June 7th, 2022

[Drew Leyburne]

I'm happy to start on the general questions on CCUS and turn it over to my colleagues on the net-zero accelerator.

We are as interested in CCUS as we are because of its broad applicability across the Canadian industrial sector. Then, yes, the hardest to decarbonize sectors, like steel, cement and aviation fuels, will require some form of carbon capture, we think, in order to be compliant with a net-zero future.

That's also true of decarbonizing our economy today. That's why industries like oil and gas are looking to CCUS to tackle the real-world emissions that they would otherwise be making this decade and beyond.

We see this as a technology that is necessary. Yes, the cost of carbon capture needs to come down in a similar way to the cost of solar, wind and other clean technologies over the last few decades. We hope CCUS is on a similar trajectory.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

How much of the $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund will go toward carbon capture technology?

[Kendal Hembroff]

Chair, there is no specific target or allocation in terms of the amount of money under the SIF NZA that will be allocated to CCUS. I can say, though, that just a few months ago, the Government of Canada launched a call to action for large emitters under the NZA, with the deadline for applications being June 30. We expect that we will receive some applications for CCUS projects, but at this point I can't comment on any—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm sorry to interrupt. It's just because I have a very short amount of time.

As of April 2022, the strategic innovation fund has funded two large emitter projects with obligations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by six million tonnes per year by 2030. The cost per tonne of GHG reductions from the federal government is $66 a tonne for Algoma Steel and $133 a tonne for ArcelorMittal Dofasco. How will the government ensure that those investments will actually achieve the planned emissions reductions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we don't have time for an answer at this point.

We'll go to Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming out today.

The government's “adoption stream” of the agriculture clean-technology program was designed to fund “the purchase and installation of commercially available clean technologies” for Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. In March 2022, the government suspended this important stream because of high demand. Why did the government suspend this program, which was obviously working for Canadian agriculture?

[Marco Valicenti]

There was a decision at that time to suspend the program intake, partly because of the budget available for that for the first two years. However, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, in budget 2022 the government decided to triple the amount of funding for the program for an additional five years, and we're very pleased. We're very pleased that it will be part of the money available to address the backlog.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Even if you do triple it, how do you know that's going to fit the demand? I think what I'm worried about here is that you have a bunch of farmers investing in this, and it's obviously working for them and it's reducing emissions, which is everybody's goal, but how do we know that this is not going to happen again? This builds a whole bunch of uncertainty into it. What's the guarantee that this won't happen to another program or to another industry, especially agriculture?

[Marco Valicenti]

Again, I'll say that we are diligently going through the applications that are in the system. Just to be clear, we're prioritizing those with the highest potential for GHG reduction. That's where we want to focus our attention in the context of the cost per tonne and reducing that from the various technologies we're looking at.

Whether we talk about nitrogen reduction, methane reduction, low-carbon energy use or emission qualification technology, we are looking at trying to identify the best potential of those that are in the backlog. That's where I would say we're focusing our attention right now.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Increasing fertilizer production and upgrading waste-water facilities are both very important, especially with water quality. There is an environmental opportunity between the two, by removing phosphorus from waste water and then using that phosphorus on the land for farming. Where I come from, in southwestern Manitoba, we have quite a deficit of phosphorus.

Could the departments get back to this committee in writing and provide information about how much federal funding has been invested in this clean technology since 2015? I'm not sure which department would do that, but if you could identify that and get back to us....

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Maybe the departments could speak amongst themselves and, if a joint answer is required, they can work on it together. If not....

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay. Do I have a commitment for a report back, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

That's good.

In 2018, NRCan and ISED launched the Clean Growth Hub, one of the core functions being to “[s]trengthen federal capacity to track and report on results related to clean technology investment”.

Can NRCan and Industry please get back to this committee in writing with all the results reports related to clean-tech investment?

I see some heads nodding.

[Drew Leyburne]

Yes.

[Kendal Hembroff]

Yes, we can do that, Chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

That's excellent.

The Clean Growth Hub's website lists 37 clean-tech funding opportunities. Out of all the government funding provided for clean tech, what percentage of the projects reach commercialization stage after they receive government funding?

[Kendal Hembroff]

Mr. Chair, I don't have the answer to that question handy. We do an annual survey of clients of the Clean Growth Hub and can take a look to see whether or not we have data that could be helpful for the committee. For example, one of the key data points is the success rate of Clean Growth Hub clients and what success looks like in terms of scaling up, commercialization, sales or export. We'll see what we can find that would be helpful.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes—

[Drew Leyburne]

I'm sorry.

The only other thing that I might ask, through the chair, is whether there's a time horizon you would like to see. For some of these investments—I'm thinking of some of the earlier-stage RD and D efforts, for example—the payback period may not be in two or three years; it may be by the end of this decade, but it is nevertheless essential.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I mean perhaps for anything that got to commercialization from 2019 and forward, that kind of thing. We'll see where the data comes back, but I mean some kind of report. I think it's important to realize our outcomes and see if they are getting to commercialization, since that's probably the most important part of the whole plan. We have to get this technology to market and get it commercialized.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're now out of time, Mr. Mazier.

We'll go to Mr. Weiler for five minutes.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.

My first question is for Mr. Noseworthy, through you, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned that clean tech provided over 200,000 well-paid jobs in 2020.

I'm curious: Are those direct or indirect jobs?

[Andrew Noseworthy]

My understanding is that they are direct jobs. I don't know if Kendal has more specific information on the survey on salaries and employment from StatsCan. If not, sir, we can provide it to you later.

[Kendal Hembroff]

Yes. I think that would be best.