Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, I am speaking to you from Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dene and Dakota, the birthplace of the Métis Nation and the heart of the Métis Nation homeland.

Senator Coyle, I accept your invitation. I rise to add a visual and museological perspective to your inquiry, which calls our attention to the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and the planet.

I fully support this objective, and I believe that we can find these solutions. We know that collaboration between multiple sectors, both in Canada and in the world, will be necessary, with a constructive vision and a commitment from individuals, communities, industry, scientists, environmentalists and not‑for‑profit organizations — in short, from everyone.

Colleagues, I applaud the many ways that the Senate’s standing committees and working groups are rising to these challenges. The intersections of these approaches are encouraging and important.

[English]

Museums are responding to this crisis in their collections, exhibitions, shipping, mechanical systems and even their restaurant menus. Museums’ and galleries’ roles are to communicate realities, including eco-awareness to educate audiences through exhibitions and their programs. More than 550 organizations have formed the international Gallery Climate Coalition to “facilitate the decarbonisation of the visual arts sector and promote zero waste practices.” They have a decarbonization plan.

But museums must also consider their carbon footprint. An article in Canadian Art, entitled “The Green Cube,” states:

Museums are regularly forums for such big ideas. But seldom do we consider: are they also places that practice them?

Noting art and exhibitions do have environmental costs, what are their impacts? How are museums mitigating those impacts? A 2021 Statistics Canada survey showed that nearly two thirds of Canada’s arts, entertainment and recreational organizations and businesses have some type of environmental practice or policy, but that:

“Requirements for climate action are still quite rare in national cultural policy”, as are connections between government departments that are responsible for culture and the environment.

And that:

The cultural community needs “the policy frameworks and authority, funding and accountability to be fully mainstreamed into national environmental planning”.

I know improvements will come. This sector is aware of the goals and is transitioning, adding to the dialogue and drawing from that dialogue.

Individual artists have been giving visual voice to environmental and climate change concerns for years. I thank Senator Coyle and Senator Kutcher for their idea to include art in the possible commission of a piece heralding the Senate working group’s goals. Rather than commissioning, which is complex, costly, time-consuming and with clearly articulated processes, we have been exploring borrowing art.

[Translation]

We have chosen instead to borrow two works by two established and internationally renowned Canadian artists, Roberta Bondar and Ed Burtynsky. The theme is “Visual Voices: Climate Change & Environment.”

[English]

Artists have for decades portrayed the realities of environmental preservation, and more recently the understanding of the effects of climate change. One — astronaut, neurologist and artist Roberta Bondar, working with NASA — depicts endangered species. Another — recipient of the Governor General’s Awards in the Visual and Media Arts, Ed Burtynsky, with support from industry and business — documents human impacts on various locales in his art. In their photographs, both these artists honestly present what they see and call us to preserve our planet and to sustain life — human, flora and fauna — and to work together as individuals, communities and industry.

Artists’ visual voices are drawing global citizens into the reality of our planet’s crisis.

Let’s go back to 1939. As I said earlier today, I believe Emily Carr was the first Canadian artist to address environmental issues in art. From 1939 to the early 1940s, she did a number of paintings depicting the concerns of clear-cutting, such as Logged‑over Hillside. Each summer, a friend towed her trailer, called “The Elephant,” to the site she wanted to paint. I would be delighted to take you to some of her favourite sites.

In her journals Hundreds and Thousands, Carr revealed her observations and hopes for renewal:

Yesterday I went into a great forest, I mean a portion of growth undisturbed for years and years. Way back, some great, grand trees had been felled, leaving their stumps with the ragged row of “screamers” in the centre, the last chords to break, chords in the tree’s very heart. Growth had repaired all the damage and hidden the scars. There were second-growth trees . . . that stood at the foot of those mighty arrow-straight monarchs long since chewed by steel teeth in the mighty mills, chewed into utility, nailed into houses, churches, telephone poles, all the “woodsyness” extracted, nothing remaining but wood.

Many artists, working in all media, have since portrayed the realities of place and change, beauty and devastation. Not wanting to be negative but wanting to show where we are “at,” they call us to action to turn the tide of potential environmental devastation.

We must preserve the miracle that former grand chief, artist and poet Ovide Mercredi reveals in his poem The Earth:

The Earth is a great miracle

The author of its unique destiny

A traveler in unending space

The designer of all its beauty

The orchestra of all natural events

Benign or catastrophic.

Governor General’s Visual Arts Award recipient Carole Sabiston, long interested in space, worries about the debris we leave up there. Her textile assemblages, like Take Off: Point Of Departure And Mode Of Travel, 1987-1989, bring that issue to light.

Multi-award recipient artist Aganetha Dyck worked for decades with global scientists researching the international concern of decreasing bee populations. Bees were her art collaborators.

In his compelling elevator sculptures, Don Proch, who grew up on a Prairie farm, has drawn attention since the 1970s to farmers’ acid rain concerns. His 2019 From Asessippi to Altona portrays Prairie fields, skies, the grain elevator with its characteristic drive-through and the wind farm near Altona, Manitoba.

Artist David McMillan photographed the immediate devastation of Chernobyl after the nuclear disaster. He returned to the same sites annually, for years — almost two decades — documenting the changes, the deterioration of the man-made structures and the slow appearance of bits of vegetation.

Inuit artists across the North have also created compelling work over decades, depicting their changing lives and concerns about climate change.

[Translation]

Let us now turn to Roberta Bondar and Edward Burtynsky. I have organized exhibits of these two esteemed artists. Both of them truly love our planet. Neither one hesitates to show it and to call on society to make changes.

[English]

Much-honoured astronaut, neurologist and artist Roberta Bondar draws from her experiences and accomplishments in each of her professions, tying them together in her art. Seeing our planet from space made an indelible impact on her, which she shares with us through her art.

She hangs from planes, climbs trees and balances on limbs to get the images she wants. She has no fear in creating her images but fears for the world’s endangered species. Her well-known Discovering Canada’s National Parks series documents the richness of our country’s land, taking us to parts of this nation we may not have seen in person. She is working with NASA again, this time as an artist, to create her project on endangered birds.

Bondar wrote to me about her image Endangered Shadows:

. . . the abstract three-dimensional background of a remnant pond in the Prairie Pothole Region of Saskatchewan looks like a wave that threatens to engulf [the Whooping Cranes], portending dangers that they will face during this twice yearly flight. The long, fall shadows of the cranes underscore their evanescence.

Years ago, Alberta’s energy sector sponsored the exhibition of Ed Burtynsky’s Oil Sands series, clearly indicating their active part in finding solutions. I applaud their development of clean energy and the increasing number of wind and solar installations across Canada.

Burtynsky’s 2018 London Photo Festival submissions, as international celebrated guest artist, were captivating. I was pleased to see his work in that context and to hear his lecture. His two- and three-dimensional works showed landfills with mountains of discarded tires and computer elements. I am sure he is aware of the new museum in Nigeria showing issues of waste.

Burtynsky’s National Gallery of Canada and Art Gallery of Ontario exhibitions, and 2018 book Anthropocene explored these issues with artistic honesty and integrity, and he presented next steps. He does not harp on particular industries. Rather, he calls for collaboration of thought, action and vision.

We need fuel to heat our homes, for travel and in making the materials we use daily. He states:

When I first started photographing industry it was out of a sense of awe at what we as a species were up to. Our achievements became a source of infinite possibilities. But time goes on, and that flush of wonder began to turn. The car that I drove cross-country began to represent not only freedom, but also something much more conflicted. I began to think about oil itself: as both the source of energy that makes everything possible, and as a source of dread, for its ongoing endangerment of our habitat.

Colleagues, Hill Strategies Research underlines the inextricable link between the arts and the environment in their January 12 blog. The international Climate Heritage Network identifies some of these relationships:

Culture anchors people to places and to each other. It can create cohesion in ways that enable community-building and collective action. Artists and cultural voices drive public awareness and actions; their work can be a powerful tool for climate mobilization. Through public accessibility and trust, cultural institutions like museums and libraries provide platforms for listening to communities and hubs of multicultural and inter-generational exchange, capacity building and knowledge-sharing.

[Translation]

Colleagues, I was delighted to learn that, in December, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, brought together academics and musicians for an environmental solutions initiative entitled “Artists and Scientists Together on Climate Solutions.” This proves that the solution to climate change will not emerge from a single area, but from all cultures.

Dava Newman, a professor at the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, noted that while scientists collect vast amounts of data that demonstrate the changes happening on our planet, communication is the biggest challenge faced by the scientific community. According to Dava Newman, human behaviour will require working together across the boundaries of different disciplines and areas of expertise, which could be crucial to winning the battle against climate warming.

[English]

Colleagues, we have the opportunity to garner support and awareness from all regions and all sectors in our country, as we are from all regions and all sectors. Let us follow the vision of scientists and artists; let us be proactive in our collaborations and open to hearing the hard facts and learning from the inspirations of many.

Let us do our part: listen, examine, study and change the ways that need to be changed.

Thank you, Senator Coyle. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I rise to ask for your indulgence, and I apologize for doing so this late in the evening.

A few minutes ago, we dealt with Motion No. 50 on the Order Paper, a motion by Senator Dean that Senator Wells inadvertently did not adjourn and it moved on. He asked to go back so he could adjourn this. You graciously asked the chamber whether they would allow that. A few members of the chamber did not and, of course, you need leave for something like this to happen.

I want to draw the attention of the Speaker and the chamber to a few instances this evening that occurred either as a result of wearing masks, not hearing properly or the changing of procedures. We had two instances earlier this evening, Your Honour. One was on Senator Patterson’s amendment to Bill C-12. When the question was called on whether people were in agreement with the motion there were a few “nays.” You declared that the amendment did not pass. You never asked for any “yeas” to the motion.

If I recall, Your Honour, we would have voice votes first, and you would declare whether the yeas or the nays had it. Senators would then be able to rise. Two senators rising would then trigger a standing vote. You didn’t do that with Senator Patterson’s motion.

Subsequently, they were caught somewhat off guard and failed to stand when they very much wanted a standing vote. I believe the scroll notes indicated that there would be a standing vote with a 15-minute bell. These are items that are discussed at scroll ahead of time, decisions made, negotiations had, and we try to have collaboration and cooperation in the Senate in that regard.

The same thing happened, Your Honour, on Senator Gold’s motion with regard to the special committee. Senator Gold was trying to do the job based on conversations and agreements we had. He was not trying to sneak anything by us. He had wanted to be able to speak later in the day but, because of the Order Paper, was impelled to speak to it at the time.

The same thing happened when you asked whether the motion should pass. I got up — a little late — because I realized you were declaring the motion passed, and said I would like to adjourn the debate. You graciously agreed and allowed me to do that. There was a senator who challenged whether you should have allowed me to do that because the vote had taken place.

Your Honour, the fact of the matter is, had you not done that, we would have gotten into an acrimonious debate over a motion that we now passed with virtually no debate, and by agreement from everybody, because you allowed us to go back the way you did. The other Senate leaders were able to come, and we collaborated very quickly.

After Question Period, I withdrew my request to adjourn. Senator Gold then presented an amendment and we could pass a motion that the government clearly wanted passed tonight, and that was only as a result of collaboration.

When Senator Dean moved Motion No. 50, I was watching it on television. It was somewhat muffled. I credited that possibly to being the television. Then I heard Senator Wells indicate that he had had the same difficulty in hearing and that he actually had wanted to adjourn, which again is clearly indicated in block letters, “Senator Wells to adjourn.” I’m not sure, Your Honour, whether you have access to that or whether it’s there. I believe the table has it. It was evident that Senator Wells wanted to adjourn this.

In fairness, Your Honour, on two occasions you asked whether senators would give leave for Senator Wells to do that. Ironically, they were the same senators who initially, when I wanted to adjourn Senator Gold’s motion, challenged you about allowing me to do that.

We have meetings going on. We spend a lot of time at scroll discussing these things, sometimes with good collaboration and sometimes with acrimony. But if we want to develop a culture of getting along in this chamber, then I think we have to allow for some mistakes, certainly during this time when we’re still wearing masks like you, Your Honour, when you speak.

We have people on Zoom to whom we are constantly giving the benefit of the doubt when their internet goes down. You allow them to start over again with their speeches because we have not been able to hear them, and rightfully so.

During this type of debate we are having, if we aren’t going to forgive each other’s mistakes and allow us to go back a minute later — not an hour, not half an hour, not 15 minutes later — at the next motion; that’s when Senator Wells got up and asked the Senate’s indulgence to go back and adjourn a motion that is clearly on the scroll. Every leadership person, every person on scroll here has that.

I find it a little perplexing that possibly the leadership teams of the groups that denied leave wouldn’t have said to their senators, “Listen, it’s right here. Senator Wells was going to adjourn it.” No one jumped to the defence.

Your Honour, I am asking that we go back and do the right thing and allow Senator Wells to adjourn a motion that everyone at scroll knew. The Deputy Leader of the Government knew, I’m sure. The scroll people in other groups knew. If we don’t allow Senator Wells to adjourn this, we are making a mistake here.

Mistakes have been made. I’m not pointing fingers at anybody. These are mistakes that have been made. But these are mistakes that are serious to people. Senator Patterson was serious about wanting to at least have a standing vote on his amendment that he felt was important.

Your Honour, I’m asking for the indulgence of this chamber to go back and allow Senator Wells to adjourn this. If this is the type of thing that we want to have happen, we will have to constantly default to adjourning and then going back.

I think that when we make deals before we come into this chamber, those deals should be honoured. Your Honour, I accept the fact that you’re not party to those deals. You’re not there. Again, I don’t know what you see there, but I’m sure the people assisting you see this. Somebody should have pointed out to you that Senator Wells wanted to adjourn this. Yes, you did hesitate. No question.

I am often accused of having a loud voice. I don’t often hear, “Well, I couldn’t understand you, Don.” Not everyone in this chamber is the same, Your Honour. You have a softer voice; it’s a little more difficult to understand. It is possible that we don’t have our hearing aids on.

I’m going to stop here, other than asking again for the indulgence of the Senate to go back and allow Senator Wells to adjourn Motion No. 50.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the amendment. I strongly disagree with the need for this amendment and cannot support it. We are all tired of this pandemic and all frustrated by how this government seems to move slowly and, at times, so ineptly to deal with the pressing issues of the day. We are also rightly concerned with the need to ensure that our parliamentary role in giving thoughtful consideration to government-sponsored legislation not be sidelined.

We are also aware that during this pandemic crisis, actions were taken that in hindsight could have been better planned, better executed and much better communicated.

On Bill C-12, let’s be clear. We have been told that if it does not receive Royal Assent before March 4 — that is tomorrow — those seniors who are living in the most precarious situations will not receive funds that can mean the difference between heating their home and putting food on their table. This is because that is the drop-dead date that has to be met to allow the wheels of bureaucracy to grind forward. To miss this date is to throw a spanner intentionally into the works.

Mr. Groen, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, in testimony at the Social Affairs Committee, stated:

. . . there’s no error in Bill C-12. There’s no issue whatsoever with Bill C-12. March 4 is important. Because of the pause that happens every year with the shift over from one tax year to the next, currently we are not processing anyone’s GIS applications, and we cannot do that until the feed is turned back on, and we are unable to turn that feed back on until we know where the legislation is going. Literally, tens of thousands of seniors every week would be negatively impacted if this legislation is not passed by March 4.

During our Social Affairs Committee study of Bill C-12, we heard about the terrible hardships this would cause. Every single witness from every single organization that spoke to us — CanAge, Income Security Advocacy Centre, Campaign 2000, Réseau FADOQ and CARP — told us clearly that if we did not pass Bill C-12 in time for it to receive Royal Assent by March 4, about 80,000 seniors — and I’m going to change the word “seniors” to “elders” because our Indigenous colleagues use the word “elders,” and it better captures the esteem we should be holding these people in. So I’m not going to use “seniors” anymore. I’m going to use the word “elders.” These elders from across all of Canada would be sorely and negatively affected.

Honestly, there is not enough time for us to amend this bill and have it receive Royal Assent by March 4 — tomorrow.

Let’s put the plight of these elders into stark reality. Let’s look at the numbers. An elder who is eligible for GIS payments must make less than $19,500 per year. Colleagues, that is what most of us in this chamber make in six weeks. GIS payments are at most around $950 a month. If you make between $19,440 and $19,463.99 annually, your monthly GIS payment is 68 cents — not enough for a coffee at Tim’s. If you make less than $24 — that’s $24 — you get the full payment: $959 a month.

As we know, prices for life’s necessities have been rapidly rising, and yesterday the Bank of Canada raised the interest rate. What was already a financially precarious position for so many will become increasingly so. In case we are not aware, the average price for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver is about $2,000 per month — that’s $24,000 per year. Toronto is not far behind that. Indeed, in my home city of Halifax it is about $1,500 a month. That’s $18,000 per year. We can all do the math.

Who are these most vulnerable elders who have used their hands to build the Canada that we are privileged to live in today?

Most are women. Many are people of colour. Many are living with disabilities. Many would have been on the front lines providing their services to us in this chamber during this pandemic. Do we honestly want to deny them the amount of money that can mean the difference between meeting rent payments or homelessness? The amount of money that can mean the difference between buying fruits and vegetables or going without? The amount of money that may be the difference between taking a bus to do your shopping or schlepping for many kilometres to do so?

The drafting error this proposed amendment is trying to address is known and has been well acknowledged by the minister and senior bureaucrats. We have been assured that it will be addressed, and we need to follow up to make sure this occurs. There are remedies that can be put into place that do not put the passage of Bill C-12 in jeopardy. Bill C-12 is not the place to fix this problem for which an administrative workaround currently exists. If we support this amendment, we could inadvertently enact unjust harms on our most vulnerable elders. I do not believe that any of us want that. We must lead with compassion.

I will be voting against this amendment of Bill C-12 and in support of the bill in its original state that passed the other place unanimously.

I hope that honourable senators will do the same.

Thank you. Wela’lioq and d’akuju.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion as modified agreed to, on division.)

[Translation]

An Hon. Senator: No.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved:

That:

(a)pursuant to subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency that was in effect from Monday, February 14, 2022, to Wednesday, February 23, 2022, including the provisions as specified in subsections 62(5) and (6) of the act;

(b)the committee be composed of four members of the Senate, including one senator from the Opposition, one senator from the Independent Senators Group, one senator from the Progressive Senate Group, and one senator from the Canadian Senators Group, and seven members of the House of Commons, including three members of the House of Commons from the governing party, two members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, one member from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party, with three chairs, of which the Senate chair shall be a senator from the Independent Senators Group and the two House chairs shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party;

(c)in addition to the chairs, the committee shall elect two vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the governing party and the second vice-chair shall be from the official opposition party;

(d)the four senators to be members of the committee be named by means of a notice signed by their respective leader or facilitator (or their respective designates), and filed with the Clerk of the Senate no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day after this motion is adopted, failing which, the leader or facilitator of any party or group identified in paragraph (b) who has not filed the name of a senator with the Clerk of the Senate, shall be deemed to be the senator named to the committee, with the names of the senators named as members being recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

(e)the quorum of the committee be seven members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present, and the chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the publishing thereof, whenever five members are present, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee on the part of the Senate be made in accordance with rule 12-5 of the Rules of the Senate, provided that any new members or participating senators take the oath of secrecy pursuant to paragraph (g) of this order before participating in proceedings;

(g)pursuant to subsection 62(3) of the act, every member and person employed in the work of the committee, which includes personnel who, in supporting the committee’s work or a committee member’s work, have access to the committee’s proceedings or documents, take the oath of secrecy as set out in the schedule of the act;

(h)every meeting of the committee held to consider an order or regulation referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act be held in camera, pursuant to subsection 62(4) of the same act, and the evidence and documents received by the committee related to these meetings not be made public;

(i)for greater certainty, the chairs may move motions and vote on all items before the committee, and any vote resulting in a tie vote shall mean that the item is negatived;

(j)all documents tabled in the Senate pursuant to the act since February 21, 2022, be referred to the committee;

(k)until the committee ceases to exist or on Thursday, June 23, 2022, whichever is earlier,

(i)where applicable, the provisions contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the order adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2022, respecting senators on standing joint committees, shall apply to senators on this committee, and the committee shall hold meetings in person where necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act; and

(ii)senators, members and departmental and parliamentary officials appearing as witnesses before the committee may do so in person, as may any witness appearing with respect to any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act;

(l)the committee have the power to:

(i)meet during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;

(ii)report from time to time, including pursuant to the provisions included in subsection 62(6) of the act, to send for persons, papers and records, and to publish such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons; and

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its public proceedings and to make them available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites; and

(m)a report of the committee may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate at any time the Senate stands adjourned, and that any report so deposited may be deposited electronically, with the report being deemed to have been presented or tabled in the Senate; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, thank you for that, but the reason there was confusion is sometimes you say “all those in favour” and you hear a no, and then you say all those opposed. You didn’t do that. Again, I appreciate you gave us the opportunity — but in order to not have something silly like we just had here on something where we’re trying to collaborate, and we have a point of order on something like this, in the future, Your Honour, maybe we could have you do both — all those in favour and all those opposed — so we are not in confusion as to whether or not we should stand.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Minister, your climate plan heralds the expertise Canada has long had in nuclear energy and small, modular reactors, or SMRs, in particular. It also talks about working with the European Union and the U.K. to explore the advancement of the safe and secure zero-emission technology. Now, more than ever, that would seem to be an urgent matter.

Minister, have you explored with the European countries that depend upon Russia for energy the export of Canadian small, modular reactor expertise and technology to reduce and even eliminate that dependency? If not, then why not?

Hon. David M. Wells (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Welcome, minister. Minister, the Bay du Nord offshore petroleum development project is vital to the economy and future of Newfoundland and Labrador. This project will produce 200,000 barrels of oil per day and has an initial lifespan of 30 years with the first production targeted in 2028. The construction phase will employ thousands of specialized workers and this will put billions of dollars into the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.

Minister, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada was created and touted by your government as a way forward for future environmental impact assessments and to make decisions based on science. This was the essence of Bill C-69 passed in 2019 in a previous session of Parliament. The Bay du Nord project has been assessed for almost four years. The agency has recommended the project for approval and they stated that it “. . . is not likely to cause significant adverse . . . effects . . . .”

The project proponent has committed to being a world-leading, ESG-focused producer for this project and will have some of the lowest emissions of any energy project in the world. My question is simple: Will the government commit to following science and not politics and approve the Bay du Nord project as recommended by the Impact Assessment Agency, as the deadline, which is this Sunday, approaches?

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, senator. As you pointed out, the Impact Assessment Agency has submitted to me, the minister, its recommendations. I would like to correct one thing you said. As you probably know, this project was evaluated under the Harper government impact assessment, also referred to as CEAA 2012, and not under the new and improved regime that we’ve put in place with Bill C-69. That being said, it is being reviewed by me and the cabinet.

I would like to say that our government has been unwavering in our commitment to support energy workers in Canada and to work with Newfoundland and Labrador specifically. For example, we could talk about the Lower Churchill Project, which will provide Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with clean energy for decades to come. To our investment in offshore emission reduction fund, to help offshore workers and businesses lower their emissions from their operation —

Senator Wells: My question is simple. Will this be approved as per science, not as per politics? I was hoping to get an answer to that question, whether it was “yes” or “no.”

I have a supplementary question for this, minister: While Canada and much of the world is correctly closing its ports and markets to Russian oil and gas, do you agree that this is an ideal opportunity to promote responsibly produced Canadian oil and gas, including the Bay du Nord project to world markets?

There is clearly a crisis in Ukraine, which doesn’t mean that other crises are necessarily erased by it, such as the climate crisis. The world is moving toward a more decarbonized world and Canada is aligned with the world on that. We will continue to move toward decarbonization, but we will also help our European and Ukrainian friends.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Welcome to the Senate, Minister Guilbeault.

Minister, the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act was passed by both houses last June. It called for the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan and the establishment of the Canadian Net-Zero Advisory Body. Could you tell us if we can expect the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan this month? Would you be able to mention any highlights? Also, could you tell us how you see the Net-Zero Advisory Body working with the planned just transition advisory body?

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you for your question, senator. I would beg to differ with the characterization of how we are moving forward on carbon pricing in this country. We have, in fact, given a lot of latitude to provinces and territories. Of revenues raised through the application of the carbon-pricing system, 100% is being recycled in the province or territory where those revenues are generated. In fact, we’re sending back, including to the people of your province, more money than households are having to pay through the carbon-pricing system.

Provinces can have their own system as long as they are equivalent. That is a very important element. If they’re not equivalent, if they’re not stringent enough, then the federal system applies. Were the Province of Saskatchewan willing to put something on the table that would be as stringent, they could have their own system. Certainly, New Brunswick and Ontario will have to do better, because in 2023 we are putting more stringent regulations in place to ensure that the system is more robust.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Minister, most of the emphasis in your mandate letter is on what you will get rid of to combat climate change. Yet, there is precious little on what you will replace it with.

One of the best ways to get the electricity grid to net zero by 2035 is through nuclear power, an abundant and carbon-free energy source. Yet, in your climate plan I see no indication of what your government is investing in this energy source. While your plan clearly identifies close to $1 billion and more for wind and solar, all that nuclear gets is a mention of an action plan for small modular reactors.

Minister, why is nuclear power — a stable and safe source of carbon-free energy — such a low priority for the Trudeau government?

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Thank you for joining us today, minister. Subclause 2(1) of Bill S-5, which you just introduced in the Senate, proposes adding the following to the preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I quote:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under this Act;

Towards Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy, released in 2021, states that the UN’s 17 sustainable development goals for the year 2030 should be implemented, and I quote, “. . . in an integrated manner that recognizes how the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development are mutually reinforcing . . . .”

These 17 principles recognize, for the first time, that human rights are intrinsically linked to sustainable development to ensure a healthy environment. Minister, why didn’t you add a reference to the 17 principles of sustainable development for the year 2030 —

[English]

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, senator. As a matter of fact, what we are proposing to do by incorporating the principle of the right to a healthy environment into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act lines up perfectly with the United Nations development goals for 2030. Once the bill is passed, we will set out how this principle of the right to a healthy environment will be incorporated into all of our acts and regulations and how we will be able to deploy this over the next few years. That is exactly what we are working on doing, and even though we may not be referring directly to the 17 goals, this responds to the intent of your question. That is what we are working on.

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: I thank the honourable senator for his question. I would like to refer you to the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, released at the end of 2021. It presents scenarios — you are very familiar with such things, Senator Gignac — that tell us that essentially, according to forecasts, global oil production will peak in 2028 and then drop 4% a year until 2050.

We currently live in a world where we produce about 90 million barrels of oil per day. In 2050, we will be producing only 25 million per day, so there will be a substantial decrease in both production and consumption. Why? We are electrifying our transportation and electricity generation sectors. We are working with businesses in the oil and gas, cement, aluminum and steel sectors to help them decarbonize and reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. This is happening in Canada and also in other parts of the world, like Europe, the U.S., South Korea, China and India. This idea that we will need more oil in the future goes against the scenario envisioned by global experts.

[English]

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, senator. I think I answered that question earlier when I said that my government is supporting research and development in various non-emitting sectors, including nuclear. As I said, governments do not decide which technologies are going to make it or not make it on the market. Markets decide which technologies are going to make it.

We are supporting a whole range of new technologies in terms of research and development, but we are not subsidizing the production of said energy. This is done by provinces and territories in terms of development. But we are putting in place a framework to ensure that non-emitting technologies play a more important role in our energy portfolio, and that’s what we’re doing.

[Translation]