Environment Committee on Sept. 27th, 2022

[André Rochette]

We've been in business for 30 years, and there has been a lot of backwards and forwards movement. For the past five years, things have been moving in the same direction a lot more, whether in terms of financing, technology development or regulations promoting energy efficiency.

To answer to your question, then, I would say yes. As for whether it's enough, I'd say no. Based on results to date, we're still very far from the goal.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

What are the hardest obstacles to overcome, in your opinion? Is it still the fact of working in silos and not coordinating efforts?

[André Rochette]

The obstacle is clearly the lack of coordination in calls for tenders for federal government energy efficiency projects. A lot of projects are carried out based on a cost recovery formula, such that costs are maximized. Unfortunately, no exceptional results will be achieved if we constantly focus on project costs rather than results. More and more focus needs to be on results, not inputs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have Ms. Collins for four and a half minutes, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today.

My questions are for Ms. Moran.

You mentioned that soil carbon has the potential to sequester over 20 gigatonnes a year of CO2. That is a massive amount. I was trying to find something comparable. If you took every single vehicle in the world off the road, that would be only between five and six gigatonnes a year. I really want to emphasize how huge 20 gigatonnes a year is.

I was also really interested in what you said about the carbon dioxide removal research areas, those six different solutions. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about those six areas.

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

Sure. First of all, with carbon, this is bringing six different technologies together, including direct air capture. It does rely on the fact that direct air capture technologies are now being invested in tremendously, and their volumetric capacity, and their costs are going to be reduced.

The capacity in ocean basalt globally is 250,000 gigatonnes. That's what we've estimated in ocean basalt. It's been demonstrated in Iceland that CO2 reacts with the rock, forms solid minerals and is durably sequestered, but most of the basalt is in the ocean, particularly young basalt like this. That's our estimate right now, that it has a giant sequestration reservoir capacity, but it does rely on advancing direct air capture, which we're not doing research on but many others are investing in.

In terms of ocean technologies and Canada, we have great infrastructure, so we have great potential to actually grow these six different technologies in various ways. It's iron fertilization in the ocean, enhanced upwelling, electrochemical solutions in terms of both alkalinity and removing CO2 from seawater, and kelp growth. Some of it is nature-based solutions that don't have a huge capacity to sequester carbon, but they do have other benefits.

It's that range of technologies that we can advance. We're already being contacted by U.S. companies and start-ups that want to use our infrastructure to move their technology along. It would be great to see some Canadian tech start-ups actually use our infrastructure to advance that research and get that technology readiness higher. Because we already have infrastructure, we're way ahead of the game internationally.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It sounds like Ocean Networks Canada is doing some really exciting work. In your view, are the projects that you're working on getting the kind of stable, long-term funding they need to be successful?

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

The government has supported us in our operating funds, so I'm happy to say that we have a runway ahead of us. What we're talking about now is really showcasing the fact that we operate this infrastructure, which then can be used in new ways, such as for carbon dioxide removal.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

There are some folks who argue that we can kind of rely on negative emissions technologies to meet our climate targets and that we don't need to act now on efforts that bring our emissions down quickly. In fact, they were arguing in the House today to get rid of the price on carbon.

Can you talk about the role that negative emissions technologies can play in our efforts to keep global temperature increase below 1.5°C, in both the short term and the long term, and the frame around that?

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

Sure. It was started in 2017, when the UN environment program put up that first declaration that no matter how fast or how slow we reduce our emissions, negative emissions technologies will be needed. At that time, they said it was sometime by mid-century. We now know it's sooner, because we haven't been reducing our emissions, which is essential. We have to ensure that our emissions are reduced, whether it's through efficiency, as just discussed, or through direct reduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

There's no question that's needed, but of course now we know from scientific research that the negative emissions technologies are needed. We're seeing it. A paper that came out last week updated the tipping points. Even at just slightly greater than 1°C, we're going to start seeing these major tipping points in the climate system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We'll go to our second round now, with Mr. Carrie for three minutes and 45 seconds.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for this very exciting testimony.

We just heard Ms. Moran talk about these carbon removal technologies and negative emissions technologies. From what I read in your opening statement and your material, Mr. Burany, it sounds like you're actually doing it. You're a Canadian company. It's very disappointing, and you sounded very disappointed, that you had to commercialize and move out of Canada, because I think this is an opportunity to change not only Canada but the world. For me, it's all about jobs. I'd like to keep jobs in Canada.

Could you explain to us what your initiatives are with BioSphere Recovery Technologies, what you're running, and how your company is structured? Could you give us a little insight into the projects you're involved in?

[Zsombor Burany]

ONC, ironically, is working on many of the same initiatives we're doing, but our focus is bringing them to a commercial level. Our research facility has a $250-million budget for ocean research and a $500-million budget for plastics research, the extraction of polymers out of the ocean—which, by the way, are as dangerous to us as carbon, if not more so.

It's a multinational initiative. There's an extraordinary amount of funding coming out of the U.S. and Europe for this. We're expecting to have between 3,000 and 5,000 employees. Many of them will be in Canada. We will be working with universities and other institutions here. I would like to get as much support as possible from the University of Toronto, Simon Fraser and Dalhousie, because they have a lot of background in this type of industry.

The biggest thing I want to point out is that we want to have a lot of scientific rigour around the planning and the work that we do, with continuous feedback and a very open process that would allow us to be able to take the next step in carbon capture and removal. We're looking at all kinds of technologies, but the first one really is carbon and plastics.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

It really does sound like game-changing technology. Again, I noticed in your opening that you sounded like you're very disappointed we couldn't get the job done here in Canada.

[Zsombor Burany]

It's devastating to me.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

It is to me, too. This is a great opportunity to lead the world, and we kind of dropped it.

You mentioned how we could change the Infrastructure Bank, and your recommendation here doesn't sound like it would cost us anything as a government. Could you elaborate on that? It would not only help you, but.... The panel before, in their testimony, were saying over and over that they couldn't get assistance and that the red tape in Canada was stopping them from getting the job done. Could you elaborate on that recommendation, please?

[Zsombor Burany]

The Americans and the Europeans provide 100% project funding at pretty much 0% interest for 20 years. The Infrastructure Bank has the capability to do that. All you have to do is match what they do.

These projects are very important, and most of them make quite a bit of money. We need to loosen up the criteria; that's all. It's just a policy change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Ms. Thompson for three minutes and 45 seconds.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses.

I'd like to begin with Dr. Moran.

I was really interested to read that you have six permanent buoys as part of your research outreach around the island of Newfoundland, which is my home province. Certainly, in light of the adverse weather system we witnessed over the weekend, practical information, to me, is quite important when we really begin to understand how important ocean health is to a climate crisis.

Could you speak about what information or data is being gathered from those buoys, how that knowledge is being used, and then, ultimately, the practical applications going forward?

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

Yes, of course. Those buoys give real-time information in the first go-ahead with marine safety. Ship operators use those data to make decisions, of course.

They are also used to understand the changes in the ocean climate system. What we're doing along the coast of Canada is basically using that data to feed into what we call inundation models. We stitch together the bathymetry and the topography, and then we drive ocean inundation, like what you saw in Atlantic Canada just recently. We drive those waves into the coastline to forecast what could happen in these areas that are going to be impacted by sea level rise. We're working on that now in B.C. and in the Arctic, and our next phase will be in Atlantic Canada. Obviously, it's certainly needed.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Do you share this information at this time, or is it something that you're projecting at a later date, the application of the information?

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

We share all the information about the inundation models. It's openly shared. We work with Canadian companies to help us do that work, so it's a private-public partnership, but all of our information is openly available on our website, and then the results of these inundations are through reports, mainly, that we can provide openly.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

If you could expand at this point how that information is shared, or the application of the information, what would you like to see, in an ideal situation, in terms of forecasting and the realities of the adverse environment systems we are witnessing?

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

I think we need to be doing these forecasts in all of the areas along Canada's coast that are at risk of inundation from these incredibly stronger storms we're seeing, and on top of that the increasing sea level rise. It's really about understanding where the sea level rises, maximizing it and combining it with these storms. We need to be doing this on all our coasts.

Ocean Networks Canada has now done it for much of Vancouver Island and some of the southwest coast of B.C. We're starting to do it in the Arctic. As I said, we need to move faster and do something in Atlantic Canada.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left? I believe I should have a few moments.