Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you for the question. I don’t think I insinuated in any way that was the case. Companies are free to develop the projects they think will be beneficial for them and their clients.

We have specific processes as to how this gets done in Canada, including new and improved impact assessment and public consultation processes. I imagine that once the project is ready, it will be submitted for environmental impact assessment and public consultation to Environment and Climate Change Canada. To my knowledge, this project hasn’t, but I can check with the department. If it has, I’m not familiar with it.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a no. The amendment is defeated.

(Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Patterson negatived.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cordy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the third reading of Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement).

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, senator. I want to say right off the bat that I completely agree with the answer my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, gave.

I’m sure you’re aware that there is just one liquefied natural gas terminal being built at this time, and it’s on the West Coast. This project will probably take two years to complete. There is no other project at the construction, approval or environmental assessment phases, nor anything else. This does not mean that we can’t help our European colleagues in other ways, and that’s what the Minister of Natural Resources and I are working on right now with the members of our team. We’ve had a number of conversations with our colleagues in Europe.

I remind you that even the President of the European Commission said two days ago that the solution to overcoming their dependence on Russian oil and gas is adopting renewable energy, clean technology and hydrogen. Canada has a significant role to play when it comes to biomass. Even in Europe, they can clearly see that fossil fuels are not the future. The future is clean technology and renewable energy.

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: I rise on a point of order. You said that the motion was adopted, but then you went back on the decision because two senators rose. Since you had already made the decision, may I know why we are reversing course?

[English]

Hon. Frances Lankin: Thank you to Senator Marwah for that report.

One of the things that we know is a real challenge right now, even if we do come back to more regular in-person sittings, is to handle the committee work to allow for a continuation of people participating virtually online.

There are a few different issues. We are short on committee clerks, and we face a shortage of both space and resource allocation, the technical ability and translators back up to full committee sittings twice a week.

I’m very concerned about this. There’s work that we can’t get to in terms of Senate studies because, of course, our first priority is government legislation and then private legislation and then studies.

This is what I was going to call you and talk to you about. I’ll just put it to you now. Could you tell us how the Internal Economy Committee is looking at this issue and what your plans are to progress, by allowing us to return to a full suite of the work opportunities, including some of that being done virtually? Thank you.

Senator Marwah: Thank you, senator, for that question.

The historical choke pattern has been because of lack of translation capacity and translators to do that work. Hence why that’s been really the biggest constraint so far. On the committee clerks, the issue has always been how temporary or permanent is the situation we are in.

If we assume that it’s going to be this way for the next couple of years, perhaps it’s worthwhile investing in additional staff. If we assume we’re going to go back to normal sometime later this year, which seems kind of overkill. That’s a dilemma that we’re always in — how permanent is the situation we’re in? If we find out the situation is going to be hybrid and this way for the balance of this year, then perhaps Internal Economy will have to look at it.

The Hon. the Speaker: I know, Senator Wells. But you’ll have to ask for the indulgence of the chamber to go back because we have already moved on to other items.

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request if you didn’t understand what I was saying. I will ask again.

Senator Wells was unable to clearly understand what I was saying when we went through Motion No. 50. He’s asking for leave to revert to Motion No. 50 so he can adjourn the motion rather than just have it stand.

If you are opposed to leave, please say no.

Senator Plett: I apologize to Senator Moncion for hurting her feelings.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: I understood the comments made by Senator Plett as referring to the general state of affairs and asking that we have a voice call whenever there is any sense of confusion. I didn’t take it as an insult to you, Senator Moncion.

The Senate will suspend for two or three minutes to await the arrival of the minister.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

Senator Massicotte: Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: There will be a one-hour bell. Normally, the vote would be in one hour, but we have a previous order that notwithstanding any of the rules, that the Question Period take place at three o’clock. Therefore, Question Period will take place at three o’clock and then the balance of the one hour for the bell will commence after Question Period. So the vote will actually take place at 4:52 p.m.

Just to be clear, honourable senators, we have an order that the Question Period will take place at three o’clock; and the balance of the bell for this particular vote will carry us to 4:52, so the vote will take place at 4:52. I recommend, honourable senators, for the remaining five minutes that the Senate suspend to await the arrival of the minister.

[Translation]

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Minister, in 2015, in response to a request from the Quebec government, Enbridge’s Line 9B was reversed to provide an increased supply of oil to Montreal’s refineries. The volume went from 12% to almost 50% of required supply. Much of the other 50% comes through the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but now the endangered right whale is migrating to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where large tankers ply the waters.

Given this development and remembering the rail tragedy at Lac-Mégantic, wouldn’t complete delivery of all oil to Montreal refineries by pipeline be in the best interests of both safety and conservation? If you don’t agree, what alternatives do you propose to address these unnecessary vulnerabilities?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Good afternoon, minister, and welcome to the Senate.

[English]

My question relates to Bill S-5, the changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, that was introduced in the Senate this week.

The 2021 Liberal election platform pledged to phase out toxicity testing on animals by 2035. However, Bill S-5 only mentions reducing animal testing in its preamble.

I understand that this is a practice which is used on close to 100,000 animals per year. Is the government open to strengthening the bill on this subject?

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, senator. As I said earlier, Quebec imports less and less of its oil from foreign nations and relies more and more on Canadian oil, but as I explained to some of your colleagues, we are heading into a world where we will gradually reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. That has already started happening in Canada. It is not happening everywhere, but it is happening in many nations around the world.

This is a problem that will solve itself over time by us investing in alternatives and in clean technologies to ensure people have access to safe, reliable sources of energy as we decarbonize our transportation, electricity, and oil and gas sectors.

Senator Gold: I’m going to frame this in the form of a question, though there is a comment buried in it, so I’ll try to use my skills. Senator Plett, we are all entitled to our beliefs as to what might have motivated the Prime Minister and the cabinet to conclude that the emergency was over. Would you not agree that the statements that I’ve made in this chamber and advice is equally, if not more, plausible, might I suggest, that in fact as I advised the chamber, that the government, having monitored on a regular basis the evolution of things, taking advice as it did from security and police experts and consultation with the cabinet, in fact, came to that conclusion that the emergency was no longer needed independent of the debate? And, in fact, I can say that the government remained confident that, in fact, the Senate would have ultimately approved it.

But would you not agree that that is a plausible explanation for why, as I had said, the government took the decision that it did?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Mr. Minister, this is an easy question.

I understand that the government seems to view carbon capture, storage and utilization technologies as an important part of an overall plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, in January, more than 400 climate scientists and other academics asked the government to reconsider that approach and to create tax credits for these facilities.

Minister, do you think a tax credit is an important incentive to efficiently reduce the carbon footprint, or is it another subsidy to oil and gas at a time of soaring revenues?

Hon. René Cormier, pursuant to notice of March 2, 2022, moved:

That, pursuant to rule 12-18(2), for the remainder of this session, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to meet at their approved meeting time on any Monday which immediately precedes a Tuesday when the Senate is scheduled to sit, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding a week.

He said: Honourable senators, I move the motion standing in my name.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Minister, as you know, the war in Ukraine has highlighted the fact that oil will not be disappearing tomorrow and certainly not within the next 10 years.

The need is there, and Canada is missing out on economic opportunities for Alberta, Newfoundland and Quebec. You know very well that the prices that companies are paying for oil will be passed on to consumers. You seem to be forgetting that oil has uses beyond fuel for vehicles. What will you do to address inflation, given that you’re unfortunately strongly against the idea of the oil sector having any kind of autonomy?

Hon. Tony Dean, pursuant to notice of March 1, 2022, moved:

That, pursuant to rule 12-18(2), for the remainder of this session, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to meet at their approved meeting time as determined by the third report of the Committee of Selection, adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, on any Monday which immediately precedes a Tuesday when the Senate is scheduled to sit, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding a week.