International Trade Committee on March 21st, 2022

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes. If there's any comment other than on the road.... I recognize that the road is a provincial jurisdiction, but if there are any ongoing discussions or anything that you wish to enlighten us about the Ring of Fire....

[Daniel Dufour]

We'll be happy to come back with written comments on the Ring of Fire.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Okay. We'll wait for the written comments then. Thank you very much.

How much time do I have? About three seconds? Ringed with fire....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We have Mr. Savard-Tremblay for six minutes, please.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presence. Good afternoon to my colleagues as well.

We know that carbon capture and storage technologies are not infallible, but there are discussions about them and we know that they have some potential to help with the energy transition, particularly in Alberta. However, it is known that these technologies are not cost-effective and may not become so in the short to medium term.

Do you think it is justified to put so much faith in the development and export of this specific technology?

[Amanda Wilson]

I think that as we look toward the energy transition, as you've highlighted, and as we look toward the government's commitment around net-zero emissions by 2050, the government has been fairly clear that we need to look at all the tools in the tool box.

We need to deploy existing technologies to help reduce emissions to the extent possible—things like solar and wind and other clean technologies, like those we are talking about here today. We need to continue to develop emerging technologies and clean technologies so that they will be ready at a a lower price point and at an increased rate of performance when we need them down the road.

We need to make sure that we can help reduce emissions through things like carbon capture utilization and storage, as you mentioned. This includes technologies that can reduce emissions at point source or where they are created at various industrial settings, whether that's in the oil and gas industry or in other heavy industries.

That also includes other what we call “carbon dioxide removal” technologies. These are earlier stage but increasingly proven technologies such as direct air capture, which can remove not just current emissions from the air but have the potential to reduce historic emissions or even get into negative emissions when you look at technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.

I think the approach that has been taken is to ensure that we are using all the tools in the tool box, essentially, and that we are not leaving behind technologies that could provide significant emissions reductions now and into the future.

The government, as Anna mentioned earlier, has committed to introducing an investment tax credit for carbon capture, use and storage. That was committed to in the last budget, and that is currently in the process of development. The government, in the last federal budget, did commit $319 million to the research, development and demonstration of a full range of carbon capture, use and storage technologies.

My office at NRCan is currently working to help provide the funding to develop these technologies, both in our federal lab network and also with some of the very ingenious clean tech innovators that Dan mentioned earlier. These would be organizations like CarbonCure, where carbon [Technical difficulty—Editor] just to name a few.

Canada really does punch above its weight in the carbon capture, use and storage space. We were one of the global early adopters of the technology. We are world leaders in the technology. We believe that Canada really does hold a lot of potential to develop the technologies for our own needs, but then, from an export perspective, to help export these technologies around the world.

Thank you.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

However, its cost-effectiveness has been criticized. I remember that it was the subject of an article by Radio-Canada's economic columnist, Gérald Fillion, last November.

On the other hand, the Trottier Energy Institute at Polytechnique Montréal considers that this technology should be reserved for certain sectors only, such as agriculture, because these are sectors that have more difficulty reducing their emissions at the source, and that in order to achieve carbon neutrality in general, governments should rely more on other solutions.

I would like to hear your impressions, comments and analysis, please.

[Amanda Wilson]

We listen very carefully to all comments and submissions that are made with respect to carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS. We're currently in the process of developing a CCUS strategy for Canada for release, I think, later this year. As part of that, we have conducted a broad-based engagement with a range of stakeholders across the country from all sectors of society and all industries, so we are aware of those views saying that carbon capture should be limited to certain industries or segments of the industrial sector.

At the end of the day, we have to listen and consider these things carefully, but we also have to listen and consider groups such as the International Energy Agency and the IPCC, which are saying increasingly that if the world holds any hope of hitting net-zero emissions targets, carbon capture, use and storage is going to absolutely have to play a significant role in that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson. I'm sorry to interrupt. There's only so much time and so many questions.

Mr. Masse is up next for six minutes, please.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. I came in a little late, so I didn't hear all of your testimony. I will listen to it later.

There are a couple of things I want to hit on. To follow up on one of our studies that we're working on, what is our role with regard to electric vehicles and standards in the United States? Right now, we follow CAFE standards, as well as others, with regard to the exportation of vehicle emissions to the United States. What's your role on that and how well is Canada positioned there? We have seen one announcement and some potential future ones, but we also have an aging auto manufacturing base of other engines.

What's being done to bridge the improvements of those? Is there anything from your department?

[Daniel Dufour]

There's definitely collaboration on a variety of levels, but I don't think the one around electric vehicles standards is in NRCan's area. I think this one would be with our colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada in terms of these negotiations on vehicle standards.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Is there anything with NRCan that's dealing with the auto industry to close the gap of some of the combustible engines that we have and the upcoming CAFE changes in the U.S.? Is there any work being done with the auto companies to improve engines?

NRCan in the past has been involved in some investments. Is there anything being done for that? We have several other plants producing aging combustible engines, and some could meet some of the new standards coming into place, though some of them may not. Are there any projects in that capacity?

[Daniel Dufour]

I'm aware of collaboration on the emissions standards, but I wouldn't be able to say the level of collaboration on codes and standards for ZEV components. Again, that would be a question for my colleagues at ECCC.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We're meeting some clean-tech growth going into the United States and other places, but Canada has quite a reputation of sending plastics and other contaminants overseas. What has been done with regard to that? Is there anything in terms of ingenuity to change that? That's one of the things that, first of all, is questionable.

Second of all, are we increasing the environmental imprint of that as we continue to ship that garbage and other waste outside of our country?

[Daniel Dufour]

Again, I have to say that on plastics, that file is with our colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada. There is a plastic innovation fund that has been announced, so that would probably be an area of interest to look into to get a response to that question.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's fine, but wouldn't it make some sense for NRCan and others to get involved with regard to our exports that are actually contaminants—to get involved in cleaning them up—if we are going to continue to have them as export markets? It just seems one-sided to me. Why wouldn't we be using some of our strength in that component if we're going to continue to export?

We might make some minimum standards in the world. Some of it is actually quite shameful. The Philippines is a good example of that. I'm just a little bit surprised that there isn't some type of joint co-operation going on to actually improve...if we are going to continue to be a nation that exports contaminants.

[Daniel Dufour]

There is certainly a dialogue and some collaboration between NRCan and our colleagues at ECCC on the plastic file and some of the issues that you have raised. The lead on bioplastics and exportation is really with them. There's some level of collaboration, absolutely, but I'm not privy to a lot of the discussion or to some of the decisions that may be going forward around the plastic files, in particular.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Fair enough, and I appreciate that.

You can go ahead, Ms. Wilson.

[Amanda Wilson]

I was just going to add that our colleagues in the Canadian Forest Service do have, through some of their programming.... They've been working on various forestry-based bioplastics. This doesn't go to your point about cleaning up contaminants from plastics, but it does speak to substitutions for them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes—

[Daniel Dufour]

I can close, just on circularity.... The circular economy is a file that, again, is under the lead of ECCC, which is looking into these very issues. We're certainly working with ECCC on that file. It would likely be an area that would be relevant to circular economy and to what's being done by the government on that file, in particular.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thanks. That's very much appreciated. That's what I'm looking at: seeing whether there is collaboration going on, on that end of it. We have some good research on the other end of what we're doing...on that side.

Lastly, with regard to the current trade agreements that we have, has there been any assessment of the new environmental chapters? It's still pretty early for some of those. This is one of the first times we've actually had environmental and labour standards. When you think of USMCA, or CUSMA, or whatever you want to call it—the new NAFTA—it is still relatively new.

Has there been any work done to evaluate the changes that have taken place? Those are actually in our trade agreements, and different from many others we have done in the past. I'm just looking to see if there has been any response to that initiative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Please keep the response very brief, if possible.

[Daniel Dufour]

Sorry, I'm not in a position to answer this one. That would be with Global Affairs.

I do want to come back, rapidly, to correct one thing about the collaboration on ZEV. ECCC works on emissions, but NRCan works on codes and standards per ZEV compliance infrastructure, so there is collaboration with the U.S. on that, in particular.