Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative.

Senator Gold, in 2010 there were 700 orphan wells in my province of Alberta. By 2020, there were 8,600 orphan wells. Late last month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled a report that examined the probable cost of cleaning up those wells and whether the federal government had allotted enough to their fund for well cleanup.

The PBO found that $556 million in federal funds had been allocated thus far to Alberta and that those funds had gone primarily to 10 large oil and gas companies, all of which were quite solvent and able to fund their own cleanups. In fact, almost one fifth of the total monies — more than $102 million — went to just one oil giant, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, or CNRL, a company that posted third-quarter net profits in November of $2.2 billion.

I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer whether the subsidy had led to the accelerated cleanup of any inactive wells. He said they were unable to determine if CNRL or any of the other companies had actually cleaned up any more inactive wells than they might have done anyway.

So then I asked whether any of that $556 million had gone to cleaning up actually orphaned wells. I was informed by the Parliamentary Budget Office that not one single orphan well in Alberta — not one — had been cleaned up with this grant money of more than half a billion dollars.

So now I would like to ask, what exactly did we get for the $102.5 million we gave to CNRL, or the $18 million we gave to Cenovus, or the $16 million we gave to Husky or the $12 million we gave to Imperial Oil under the federal cleanup plan?

Two, what are we actually going to do to clean up the wells that are actually orphaned?

Senator Simons: I’m just curious, if the fund was never designed to clean up orphan wells, why was it presented to Canadians as though that were its raison d’être?

Hon. Clément Gignac: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

When the Minister of Finance issued the economic measures order, she created a significant and potentially dangerous precedent for allowing political authorities and law enforcement to order financial institutions to freeze bank accounts and suspend or cancel insurance policies, without first requiring a court order.

According to my sources, the so-called black list sent to financial institutions went from 15 or so names on Friday to more than 60, including some business owners.

There appears to be considerable uncertainty about the parameters used by authorities to come up with this list and, most importantly, there are no guidelines for financial institutions regarding the conditions to “unfreeze” these bank accounts.

Leader, in a democratic society like ours, where we do not want our actions to be arbitrary, can you assure this chamber that the offending truckers and protesters who have already left Ottawa and returned to their jobs will soon have access to their bank accounts, until their case is heard in court or they are convicted?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): As Government Representative in the Senate, I thank you for the question, senator.

I would point out that RCMP Deputy Commissioner Michael Duheme has emphasized the importance of the powers granted by the Emergencies Act, as well as the close cooperation that has been established with financial institutions to freeze the protesters’ funding sources.

The RCMP provided financial institutions with the names of the leaders and organizers, as well as people whose trucks were part of the blockades and illegal protests. At no time did they provide the financial institutions with a list of donors. I have been assured, senator, that the measures are targeted, that they are aimed solely at disrupting illegal activity in Canada, and that they are neither retroactive nor permanent.

These are exceptional circumstances, and these measures are appropriate within the framework of the orders issued by the government under the Emergencies Act.

As a final point, I have also been informed that, according to the statement issued by the RCMP today, officials are currently working with financial institutions to establish guidelines related to the freezing of bank accounts.

[English]

Hon. Diane F. Griffin: Honourable senators, this is a question for the Government Representative in the Senate. It’s going to sound familiar to him because I have asked it before, I believe in the last Parliament, and since I haven’t gotten an answer and since it’s important, I’m back.

My question is related to this: In 2003, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce recommended that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be amended to exempt funds in a Registered Education Savings Plan from seizure in bankruptcy, provided that two conditions are met: that the plan is locked in and the contributions to the plan in the one year prior to the bankruptcy are paid by the trustee for distribution to creditors.

Registered Retirement Savings Plans, or RRSPs, were exempted from seizure in bankruptcy in 2009. Both the RRSPs and the RESPs are government-backed vehicles for financial planning, but only one is secure in the event of bankruptcy. I’m wondering why that is and does the government intend to change its policy related to Registered Education Savings Plans and bankruptcy? Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. It does sound familiar, and I will endeavour to provide the best answer that I can, colleague.

The government does understand, and understands well, the important role that Registered Education Savings Plans play in allowing Canadians to save for future educational needs. My granddaughters have them. Many in this chamber are familiar with them.

As the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is fundamental marketplace framework legislation, it’s important to strike the proper balance between the competing interests of different stakeholders and the integrity of the insolvency regime when considering exemptions such as you have raised. Currently, RESP funds are not protected in the event of bankruptcy because the two conditions recommended by previous reviews of Canada’s insolvency legislation — namely, the locking in and the one-year cut-off — could not be met without undermining the policy objectives of RESPs. I’m advised that conditions such as those are critical to preserving the integrity of the insolvency regime and providing appropriate protections for all players party to this critical regime.

As you would know, RESP subscribers can access the capital contributed to the plan at any time, can open multiple RESP accounts for many individuals and, indeed, can use RESP funds for non-educational purposes. These features are important to encourage savings for educational purposes and to provide the necessary flexibility to return funds if a beneficiary cannot or does not want to pursue further studies. I have been advised that exempting RESPs from bankruptcy would create significant potential for abuse given these features.

All of that said, the government is committed to continuing to monitor Canada’s insolvency laws to ensure they remain responsive to marketplace changes and, of course, the needs of Canadians.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, multiple provinces have shared their concerns regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe tweeted that he hopes the Emergencies Act “. . . would only be invoked in provinces that request it . . . .” The Manitoba premier called the invocation not necessary, and the Quebec premier has expressed that the police in his province have been able to contain the protest thus far.

Senator Gold, why didn’t your government choose to collaborate and coordinate with specific provinces instead of opting for the widespread application of the Emergencies Act?

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

(On motion of Senator Griffin, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)