Environment Committee on Sept. 27th, 2022

[Zsombor Burany]

I'd just like to point out that a policy change to the way the Infrastructure Bank...is all that's really needed. You don't need more money from the taxpayers. The funds are already sitting there to be applied to all of these initiatives, whether they're airplanes that are being built or electric vehicles, all of these. The money's already there. We just can't get it.

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

I would also say that there's a new awareness of negative emission technologies. People are just realizing it—scientists have known this—so it's a new area of research that needs to advance technology rapidly.

In the U.S., when there is a high-risk, high-reward technology that needs to be developed, the first tool they use is government procurement. They buy it first and get it funded, and that moves it further to have, then, investments from venture capitalists going forward. Let's use our procurement tool and get some of these technologies going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about a minute and 10 seconds left.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Wow. Four minutes seem a lot longer today than they normally do.

I'm just going to ask if anybody wants to add anything more to that. To me, this is the real focus: How are we going to actually commercialize these technologies here in Canada so that we have well-paying jobs and solve some of these problems?

Does anyone have anything else to add?

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

Sure, I can add to that.

I've mentioned Ocean Networks Canada. We have the research infrastructure to advance early-stage technologies to a higher technology readiness level. Supporting SMEs in doing that research would advance our technologies. It's low-hanging fruit.

[Zsombor Burany]

We do get a lot of research out. We have great ideas. We have great technology that comes in. The problem is converting it to large-scale commercialization.

The large corporations will reinvest in their own research—that's not a problem. The issue is how you take these small corporations and commercialize them on a large scale. Almost invariably that goes overseas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Taylor Roy for four and a half minutes.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I want to talk about the same issue that Mr. Seeback just raised, which is getting to commercialization and why more Canadian companies aren't able to do that.

In the last panel, one of our witnesses spoke about the need for a kind of push-and-pull. Ms. Moran, I think you also mentioned that the high price on carbon helps to make it feasible to produce and to commercialize some of these technologies because it requires that much. However, there's a lot of controversy around whether it's just about investment in clean technology or whether we actually need to have that push as well with the price on carbon and perhaps with encouraging pension plans to put more money into Canadian corporations. That's more of a push from the government.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. It's for all of you, but perhaps we could start with Mr. Rochette.

[André Rochette]

When I say outcome-based, one of the great examples is New York City. We do a lot of stuff in New York City. They came out with a new regulation that's called the LL97. It's an outcome-based regulation. It's basically saying to the market that it needs to reduce emissions by a certain date; otherwise, it will be penalized.

I think once you do that, you really let the market figure it out. It's outcome-based, but you let the market figure out the solution. It drives everybody in the same direction. Instead of saying that it's maybe that solution or this other solution, it tells the market that this is a problem we're trying to solve and if the market doesn't solve it, it's going to cost them that much. People get creative and they solve it.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

That's similar to what the government is proposing right now with the 30% reduction of carbon emissions from fertilizer. You're just saying it's output-based and to let the technology develop to meet that regulation.

Ms. Moran, Mr. Burany or Ms. Lambert-Chan, do any of you have comments on that?

[Dr. Kathryn Moran]

I agree with what the previous speaker just said.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

[Zsombor Burany]

I think we're missing an opportunity. These technologies are going to be developed, but it's the Wild West right now. Everybody is trying to figure out their own way. The problem is that nobody is taking a leadership role on where we're going to go with this industry.

We've done a lot of work in the past, setting up quotas and being able to establish rules in the way people are trying to extract carbon. The problem is that these pollutants aren't bound by our borders, so whenever one of these large initiatives is kicked off, it's typically international. What happens is that you will have players that come into conflict with each other because they have to. They will be stepping on each other's toes. I think it would be very helpful if Canada was able to take the leadership role in trying to bring together and align the policies that other countries have—because even they are sometimes in conflict with each other—in order to establish the rules and the parameters of how we can do carbon extraction down the road. Once you've established that, then you can set goals and targets for these companies that are trying to do these things. That would then drive the rest of the industry.

There's really a lot of policy work that needs to happen in conjunction with our partners and trading partners to make this work.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Burany, it's very interesting that you say we need to be setting these targets. Are you talking about carbon markets and trying to set the rules around that? What specifically are you referring to?

[Zsombor Burany]

I'm talking about both, actually. There are no clear guidelines and the industry needs them.

You have to take into account political, geographic and economic circumstances. They all need to be crafted. There needs to be a convergence of policies among all nations, including our trading partners in particular.

Once you've established that, you've set the ground rules. Everybody is looking for ground rules. Everybody wants to know how to get into this sector, how to get into that sector, or how to get their airplane in the air. All these are things we don't know. Every country is kind of running off in its own direction right now and they are occasionally aligned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Zsombor Burany]

I think Canada has a great history of being able to do this, so if we took the leadership role in this, we'd be able to establish ourselves—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have four and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's not much time.

I'll speak to you, Mr. Rochette. First, I'd like you to know that finally hearing talk of energy efficiency was music to my ears.

Last week, I went to New York for Climate Week. There, I learned about the Empire Building Challenge, a project involving several large buildings in Manhattan that want to accelerate efforts to achieve energy efficiency. I was also quite proud to discover that your company is a partner in that major project and is also involved as a consultant.

Under the public responsibility of the State of New York, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which has an incredible portal, is a true hub for all programs in almost all applicable sectors to accelerate the energy transition and achieve carbon neutrality.

Now let's come back to Canada. Do you think that the Clean Growth Hub, administered by the federal government, should draw inspiration from that portal and offer something similar to potential partners? Also, is that Canadian hub useful in any way to your business?

[André Rochette]

What always surprises me is that work is done in silos almost everywhere. The problems we're trying to solve in Quebec and Canada, and even those being addressed by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, are similar. A number of think tanks are discussing the problems, each on their own, and a lot of information is coming out of those discussions. However, that information is fragmented. It needs to be consolidated to be more effective.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's not exactly progress.

Despite the fragmentation of all those data, are you able to assess whether these transformations toward energy efficiency could also have economic benefits for future users of these technologies?

[André Rochette]

That's a good question. The financial benefits of better energy efficiency no longer need to be demonstrated. Do we need to aim for efficiency, create technologies or both? I think every solution is needed. The goals are so ambitious that the choice cannot be limited to efficiency or technology.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Accordingly, the company's clients will see economic benefits too.

[André Rochette]

Yes. We wouldn't have any clients if there were no economic benefits for them. Economic benefits often come before gains in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Regulations also have an impact on projects. The more regulations force clients to reduce their emissions, the more our projects will include elements in that respect.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Since you've been in business, have you seen the process grow? Do you see a link between opportunities for financing clean technologies and the evolution of government procurement policies? Are governments able to make that link?