Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade have the power to meet on Thursday, December 15, 2022, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Senator Dalphond: You mean the amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act will apply to provincial pension funds?

Senator Wells: It would fall under the financial institutions rubric, and therefore it would be nationally covered.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Would Senator Wells take a question?

Senator Wells: I would.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Senator Dalphond: I have two questions. The first question is about the Pension Benefits Standards Act — the question was asked by Senator Marty Deacon. It applies only to federal pension funds. It doesn’t apply to most pension funds that are regulated by the provinces. Am I right or wrong?

Senator Wells: You’re wrong. I don’t want to say this again, but you’re wrong. It would apply to both federal and provincial pensions.

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those against, please say, “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Minister, oil and gas industry proponents have been asking for a 75% investment tax credit from the federal government in order to spur investment in carbon capture and storage technologies, which would reduce upfront capital costs involved in constructing this critical technology. However, your government’s announcement fell short, promising only a 50% tax credit. Many in the industry have stated that the size of the credit means that many of these planned projects will not go forward.

Minister, given the impact this technology could have on emissions reduction, does it concern you that many of these projects may now not go ahead?

Senator Dalphond: To conclude on the last question, I understand that during that period this bill will not prevent an employer from, with the consent of the union, moving from a defined benefit pension to a defined contribution system with no defined benefits.

Senator Wells: This bill is silent on that. That would be up to the company and its pension holders, whether that’s the union, the employee association or just the general employee agreement that might be present.

Hon. Robert Black, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Wednesday, December 14, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 13, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT BLACK

Chair

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: I will take your suggestion away. I don’t disagree with you. I do think it’s important that it’s more visible for Canadians.

In terms of nuclear power, I would say that we’re moving toward a future that must be much lower-carbon, and that, from my perspective, means that all non-emitting forms of energy have to be very much on the table. There are some provinces in this country that are in the very beneficial situation that they have large amounts of hydro. That would include Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia. You have a big storage battery, which enables you to potentially use more intermittent sources of power like wind and solar and to be able to balance that out.

But in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the baseload power is provided primarily by coal and to a certain extent by gas, the choices are more challenging with respect to baseload perspective. I would say that at the present time, it would probably be nuclear energy or natural gas with a good carbon abatement and, potentially, in the future, hydrogen. The choices are not inexhaustible, and the idea that you can build a grid solely using wind and solar with some kind of storage is, certainly technologically, not there. Cost-wise, it is probably not there.

In that context, I think nuclear is a real option from a non‑emitting perspective. It is a technology that I think people would say is very safe. There clearly is an issue with waste. We have to get Canadians comfortable about how we’re going to manage the existence of nuclear waste. I think we have to have an adult conversation with Canadians about how we’re going to do that. Let’s be clear. A significant part of the electricity for the province of Ontario comes from nuclear power.

[Translation]

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: Thank you for the question. To be very clear, I will answer in English.

[English]

I think it’s a very important question. Step back and look at, for example, the International Energy Agency’s 1.5-degree scenario. The world is not there yet; the commitments from all the countries are not there yet. However, assuming you achieve 1.5 degrees, over the course of the next number of decades you will still be using significant amounts of hydrocarbons. Even in 2015, with a 1.5-degree scenario, you will still be using some amount of hydrocarbons, but you won’t be combusting them. You will be using them for solvents, waxes, petrochemicals and hydrogen. In that scenario, you’re still using 25 million barrels of oil, a quarter of what we produce today, and about half the amount of natural gas that we use today.

In that scenario, you have to be able to produce them with virtually zero production emissions. There are combustion emissions and production emissions. Even if you eliminate all the combustion emissions because you’re using them in applications where you’re not combusting, you still have to produce them with zero or close to zero. That is where we are focused, namely, on driving emissions down in every natural gas and oil sector across the country — not only in Alberta and Saskatchewan but also in Newfoundland and Labrador — to the point where Canada is producing with virtually zero carbon emissions.

There is no forecast right now that says oil consumption will decline until somewhere between 2030 and 2035. At that point it will, as we deploy more vehicles. Of course Canada wants to extract value for its resources, but it wants to do it in a manner that is consistent with a net-zero world.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We will have a standing vote. We have an agreement on 15 minutes, with a standing vote at 3:50 p.m.

Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to and report adopted on the following division:

Leave having been given to revert to Presenting or Tabling of Reports from Committees:

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Hello minister, I’m to your right. I don’t know if that’s politically or not, but —

Thank you for being here and answering our questions. I do appreciate the comments you made with regard to just transition, which is awfully important. I have a comment with regard to the program called carbon tax. As I see it, it is a carbon tax and rebate, and people tend to talk about it as the tax only and not the rebate.

My suggestion is that you call it that. You call it “carbon tax and rebate” or “price on pollution and rebate,” but use that word “rebate” more often.

I don’t say this so much as PR for your government but PR for this projet de société, which I think is the largest thing we’re doing in terms of the environment. It perhaps needs to be better explained to Canadians so people have a better sense of it.

Lastly, I wonder if you could just make a comment on the future of nuclear power and the energy mix going forward.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled Canada’s Restrictions on Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan, and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(On motion of Senator Ataullahjan, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

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]