Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: Thank you for the question, senator. It’s an important question, but not a very simple one. With green hydrogen, as some people call it, though I don’t necessarily like to describe it using colours because I think we should talk about the intensity of the carbon emissions during electrolysis instead, choices often need to be made during the process. In other words, we have to decide how we want to use the electricity, and that depends on the circumstances.

The Atlantic provinces want to use wind power to produce hydrogen, but Quebec has a different perspective. Quebec wants to use some hydrogen for domestic use, but it has very little interest in exporting it. As I said earlier, there are other solutions. In Alberta, for example, natural gas can be used to produce hydrogen that doesn’t create much CO₂.

Not all provinces and territories have the same perspective. Of course, we have to make some choices. Electricity costs more than natural gas, which is becoming a more economical choice for now. However, if the cost of electrolysis comes down in the future, this will change.

[English]

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: I certainly agree with you that the training you mentioned is extremely important. I am more than happy to come back to you with how Natural Resources Canada is performing relative to other departments, if that would be of interest.

Natural Resources Canada has been a leader with respect to many issues. In fact, the portion of the department that used to be called the Major Projects branch is actually now named Nòkwewashk, which is an Anishinaabe word, and is really more about partnership. We have worked hard to ensure that we are thinking about this in a completely different way.

One area we are looking at is how we can ensure, on a go‑forward basis, that Indigenous communities benefit not just in terms of six jobs and three procurement contracts but in a long‑term, sustained way from projects that take place in their traditional territories. We also want to ensure they have a voice in terms of how these projects are undertaken.

So I am very supportive of the work you mentioned. Typically, though, directives to staff within the departments fall within the purview of the deputy minister, who is responsible for the employees. But each and every day, I am and my deputy minister is encouraging the department to do better on those issues. I would be very surprised if we were not one of the best departments in the system.

[Translation]

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which deals with Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).

(For text of report, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1143.)

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would Senator Wells agree to take another question?

Senator Wells: Yes.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Oh, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)

(At 5:23 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Senator Housakos: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(f), I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

Senator Cotter: By way of background — and I think Senator Wells knows where this is coming from — you observed the part about employees getting a modest degree of super priority for unpaid wages and the Wage Earner Protection Program filling in some of that gap. The evidence from the Wage Earner Protection Program is that there is still a significant shortfall for employees. Indeed, that plan itself acknowledges that its recovery — subrogated, that is, in the place of workers — is a recovery of about 2% or 3%.

I recognize the dilemma you described about the other place, but when one thinks about workers who might lose some portion of the pension they will collect 20 years from now versus the shortfall of last month or the month before and paying the rent with credit cards, the attraction of a super priority seems to me to be compelling for the parts of wages they have not been able to get. I would be interested in whether you think that’s an appropriate issue to be considered in this exercise?

Senator Wells: It’s a really good point, Senator Cotter, and you and I have spoken about this. I read the transcripts from the other place where they addressed it. It was removed not because it was a bad idea. I think it’s a great idea. I agree that severances and unpaid wages may be even more important — they’re certainly equally as important.

I think it’s something we should explore further at committee. If there is an amendment to that, we will address it there. If there are some sharp edges that might suggest that it wouldn’t pass again in the other place, then we would have to deal with that. On principle, I think it’s an excellent idea. If this is the vehicle for it, then terrific. If it’s not the vehicle for it, then maybe that’s something this chamber should seek.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Minister, Nunavut has significant gold resources with four producing mines and more on the horizon. However, it also has significant infrastructure and transportation challenges.

I’m wondering if there is any consideration being given to adding gold to the critical minerals list.

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: There is a definition of how we deem things to be critical, and part of it is the resource availability in this country. Part of it is also related to where we actually see skyrocketing demand on a go-forward basis, and that is largely driven by minerals that are going to be in some way tied to the energy transition — not solely those that are used in batteries but, for example, uranium, which is used in nuclear power.

At this moment, I don’t think gold would fit those criteria. However, what we have said is that the list is going to be reviewed every three years, and folks can make arguments. There are other minerals that are not presently on there that people are making the argument should be on there. That is why it is intended to be an evergreen list on a go-forward basis.

As you would know very well, senator, gold is one area where Canada has actually thrived in terms of being able to advance the industry. It is a pretty healthy sector. As I say, I would never say never. That’s the reason we made it an evergreen list.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Minister, welcome to the Senate.

Exactly one year ago, you received your mandate letter asking that you establish a pan-Canadian grid council to promote infrastructure investments, smart grids, grid integration and electricity sector innovation.

Can you further elaborate on your update on the council, its establishment, structure, membership and the priorities it will have? I ask that question because, as a senator from Quebec, I am proud that 94% of our electricity is generated by hydropower. Canadians can be proud that over 80% of our electricity comes from non-emitting sources. However, according to some reports, despite major investments in recent years, we still need to invest about $200 billion by 2035 to meet current green grid goals and even more to accommodate rapid growth in electricity demand.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-36, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on December 14, 2022.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Minister, Nordgold is a company whose headquarters are in Moscow. It was owned by Russian oligarch Alexei Mordashov until early this year, when he transferred his shares to his wife to avoid sanctions.

Thanks to its subsidiary Northquest, Nordgold has a mining concession for a gold-rich site in Nunavut. Mr. Mordashov has been banned from entering Europe, the United States and Australia, but not Canada. Gold is not on the list of strategic metals announced by Minister Champagne.

What do you plan to do to prevent a friend of Vladimir Putin from continuing to slip through the cracks and operate gold mines in Canada?

Senator Dalphond: I suppose that is an aspect the committee will look at because provincial pension funds are regulated by provincial regulators and not by the superintendent here in Ottawa. It is a constitutional issue, as a matter of fact.

My other question is about the scope of that bill. I certainly understand and share the goal of the bill to protect retirees. They have worked many years, and they come to retirement having managed their retirement based on the retirement benefits they expect to receive. If there is a reorganization of the company for which they were working, they may end up receiving a lesser amount. You referred to Sears and Nortel. Algoma Steel also went through that process, but were able to reorganize the pension funds and re-establish the pension benefits.

You referred to the fact that this will apply — if I understand properly — only to those who are entitled to defined pension benefits, and you said these now represent less than 10% of the retirees in Canada. I also understand this bill will not come into effect right away if it is adopted. It will come into effect in four years — further to an amendment that was adopted in the House of Commons — in order to give a transitional period to the employers who are providing pension benefits. Do you feel that at the end of the day the number of people who will benefit from that bill will be even less than 10% of the retirees?

Senator Wells: It could very well be less than 10%. I think it is important to note that the defined benefit pension plans right now are funded to about 109%. That’s not to say that all the different pension plans are overfunded. They are not. Some are obviously below. Over time, you are right — that will decrease.

The whole idea of the four years is for a getting-up-to-speed for those that have to ensure that their pension funds are funded. That four-year period is to allow that to happen so there is no deleterious effect if a company has to reach in and pull out from some source — from revenues or asset holdings — enough to top up their plans. That four-year period is to allow that, and, of course, an important part of the bill is to allow that to happen without deleterious financial penalty by placing sold or liquidated assets or other revenues into that plan. It would essentially allow them to do it without a tax penalty.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Welcome, minister. I’m a proud Nova Scotian, but I’m concerned that in 2021, our provincial electricity mix included 47% — almost half — from coal. Our province just approved the reopening of the Donkin Coal Mine for seven more years. My colleagues — Senators MacDonald and Gignac — asked you about the Atlantic Loop, which will connect our grid to hydro power from Labrador and Quebec, as you well know. Emera has paused their spending on the Atlantic Loop in response to provincial electricity rate caps, as you know.

Minister Wilkinson, you reiterated the government’s commitment to the Atlantic Loop. Could you elaborate specifically on how you will work with Nova Scotia to move this critical project forward?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which deals with Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

(For text of report, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1152.)

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, specifically on temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents. I am officially the critic of this bill, and the dictionary defines a “critic” as someone who finds fault with the substance, disagrees with it or has an unfavourable opinion of it. If that is the case, colleagues, I stand before you as a complete imposter because, in truth, there is very little in this bill that is not to like. I would like to congratulate MP Kyle Seeback and Senator Victor Oh for bringing this bill to our attention.

This bill is very personal to me, as it is to many immigrants and aspiring immigrants. Five short years after I arrived in Canada, I sponsored my parents to come and join me as we were building a new life. You have heard me say often in this chamber that I am only a senator today because my mother stayed behind to look after the children and the home while I worked long hours, evenings and weekends.

My application to sponsor my parents on a permanent basis was approved in six short months. Now, of course, that is a pipe dream, and we have had to find new pathways, new innovations and alternative routes to hold families together.

While I did not agree with many of the immigration policies of Prime Minister Harper, I must say that the expedited pathway for parents and grandparents through super visas was, frankly, a super innovation. It recognized that many parents and grandparents want a secure yet nimble pathway for extended stays without necessarily wanting to move permanently to Canada. They have lives of their own in their countries, they have homes and I know that many dread our winters. This is not to say that there are not others who want to live permanently in Canada, and I will remark on this cohort a little later in my remarks.

This bill is an expression of our larger ambitions for what I would say is a bigger, bolder Canada. We know that roughly one quarter of Canada’s population is or has been a landed immigrant or permanent resident in the past. Recently, the government announced its ambition to bring in 500,000 immigrants. Further, a recent poll by Environics underlines that 7 in 10 Canadians support these immigration measures. I personally believe that more immigration — done right — is good for Canada, it’s good for immigrants and it’s good for all of us. This bill on parents and grandparents moves us in that direction for a simple reason.

Honourable senators, I believe that Canada has a competitive edge over other countries because of our stance on parents and grandparents. We know that there are backlogs in every business stream in the system. We know that there are challenges in integration, and yet immigrants are not turning their backs on Canada. In fact, the queue to get in is getting longer and longer. You may well ask why. Well, there are a number of really important reasons. First, we are a safe and secure country. Second, we have an excellent public education system and a public health system, which may be under stress at this point. As a final touch, it is our capacity to welcome parents and grandparents. This final bit is our secret sauce. This sets us apart from other countries. It is our jewel in the crown.

Yet, family reunification has had a very bumpy ride in the last 10 years. The demand has grown. The numbers for permanent family reunification of parents and grandparents are limited to 20,000 a year, and are scooped up in a nanosecond. Because this is an online application, I always worry about those who are able to fill out the application in a nanosecond and those who are left outside. The government has resorted to different strategies to try and manage the waiting time, including instituting a lottery system at one point, which in my view is an abrogation of their management responsibility.

Bill C-242 takes an important step to facilitate longer-term visas outside the permanent stream of parents and grandparents. It improves the off-ramp that we have created. It allows the parent or grandparent to apply for a temporary resident visa for a longer period of time — not 2 years out of 10, but 5 years out of 10. That doesn’t mean they’re going to stay here for five years. It means that they can come and go as they wish. It allows them to purchase health insurance from a company that is not located in Canada. Many of these parents and grandparents have insurance companies of their own. Like in Canada, they must buy car insurance, life insurance — all kinds of insurance. They have a relationship with these insurance companies, and it is likely that they will get better rates and better approvals with the companies that they are associated with.

This bill allows for international companies to provide health insurance to applicants of the super visa stream with a proviso. The proviso is that the minister has to approve their name. There has to be a list. This will likely be done by ministerial instructions, and I think this is a question that the committee that this bill is assigned to should reflect on carefully.

On the matter of cost, buying insurance from a Canadian company, depending on your age, can be anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000. Consider the cost of flights, medical checks and insurance — you’re looking at possibly close to $10,000 every two years in the current system. For many middle-class parents and grandparents, this could be a deterrent, and one I believe this bill seeks to remove.

The bill also has an extremely interesting nugget. The summary of the bill reads as follows:

It also requires the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to prepare and table a report in respect of a reduction to the minimum income requirement that the child or grandchild must meet in order for the visiting parent or grandparent to be able to enter and remain in Canada for an extended period.

I support this measure. Studies have shown that the financial requirements for family sponsorship — either permanent or temporary — are onerous. New Canadian families are getting their lives started. We know the hurdles they face in obtaining employment. I believe it is precisely at the time when they are low-income that they most need their families with them so they can be helped — in the same way that my parents helped me.

This bill calls for the minister to table a report within one year of Royal Assent so that we can find a fact-based, reasonable way forward.

Honourable senators, I do have three comments, if I may put it that way: The first is outside the scope of this bill, but is worth your consideration.

There is a permanent stream of parent and grandparent immigration. It, too, is dependent on income level. Since we have this off-ramp that is largely designed for middle-income, middle‑class parents of immigrants outside of Canada, I believe the permanent stream should be privileged and prioritized for low‑income parents.

The second is that no Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, official has ever been able to tell me the breakdown between how many parents versus grandparents enter in the permanent or the temporary stream. That information is important because there are too many myths surrounding this.

The third — and this is important for the committee to consider — is that this bill does not provide for any appeals for rejected temporary visas for parents and grandparents.

Finally, on a happy note, I should say that this bill was roundly supported in the other place. In an era of hyper-partisanship, I’m happy to see that there are moments when all parties agree — and agree on fixes to immigration, which we know can be a divisive issue. It is heartening that there is growing political consensus that immigration — when done right — is not only good for Canada, but integral to our future prosperity. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Paul J. Massicotte: Welcome, minister. Canada’s boreal forests represent a quarter of the world’s forests. For many years, we’ve been a leader in sustainable forest management. These forests store a significant amount of carbon in the soils, and that carbon is released into the atmosphere during logging. It is estimated that 122 megatonnes of CO₂ are released every year through logging. Are these emissions accounted for by the government? If so, how does your government envisage reducing these emissions to meet our net-zero targets?

Hon. Josée Verner: Minister, the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada emphasizes green hydrogen because of Canada’s enviable hydroelectric resources, especially in Quebec. This is indeed very promising, but electrolysis is expensive and uses a lot of electricity, which is in limited supply.

In March 2022, Sophie Brochu, the President and CEO of Hydro-Québec, said that the province’s surplus of clean electricity will run out by 2027. What are your thoughts on this important issue? Does it make you think that it might be a good idea to revise the federal strategy in light of this important issue?