Natural Resources committee  It's because we already have an established supply of canola for this use. We are exporting a lot of it for the production of clean fuels. We want to use that production in Canada. We're also going to use crop waste more efficiently. We're going to use forestry waste more efficie

Natural Resources committee  —and all incentives will be focused on the lowest life cycle as possible.

Natural Resources committee  Yes.

Natural Resources committee  The challenge will be to achieve life-cycle net-zero emissions, and so we—

Natural Resources committee  There are a couple of issues there. One is the measures we have put in place. The other is the overall government rhetoric. I won't get into political rhetoric. I—

Natural Resources committee  I'm going to let Ms. Johnson answer that, but the CCUS incentive is—

Natural Resources committee  The net zero accelerator has a major focus on enabling decarbonization projects by oil and gas producers, and the blended finance measure is intended to be available to oil and gas producers. We are spending a lot of time working with provinces on a bilateral basis, including th

Natural Resources committee  Maybe I can jump in. There is a fairly standard life-cycle analysis tool that's been in use in Canada for quite a few years. Environment and Climate Change Canada is in the process of developing a new tool, and we're working with provinces and the private sector and academia. Ou

Natural Resources committee  I think the simple reason is that we kind of riffed off the notional subject matter, which is focused on clean fuels. The government's approach to climate change absolutely envisages a future for oil and gas and absolutely has a number of measures in place to work with provinces,

Natural Resources committee  Can I provide an answer to Mr. McLean?

Natural Resources committee  Sorry, I don't have the volume, but there is a very significant difference. There is a policy initiative the government has recently introduced that explains why we are confident that we can change this flow of clean fuel. The current regulations in provincial—with the exception

Natural Resources committee  I thought your question was why is this going to change. I'll tell you why it's going to change. It's because the current regulations are volumetric-based. Whereas Canadian clean fuels are typically of lower carbon intensity but more expensive, we're now moving to a carbon-inten

Natural Resources committee  It will be somewhat less productive, yes.

Natural Resources committee  When we measure life-cycle emissions, we account for that difference. If a fuel gets a better life-cycle score, for example, we've accounted for the associated emissions per unit of energy.

Natural Resources committee  Good morning. My apologies for holding things up. Those who know me won't be surprised with respect to the technical challenges. I am happy to be here along with colleagues from Environment and Climate Change Canada and from across the federal government. We are very pleased to