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. 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.

Senator Duncan: I will ask a question. If Senator Griffin would care to devolve that responsibility, it would be an honour and a privilege.

Senator Griffin: In answer to that question, I accept. That would be wonderful. Thank you so much.

The Hon. the Speaker: Do we have an agreement between the whip and the Government Liaison for a bell?

Senator Moncion: I would just like to say that my point of order was not silly, because things were moving according to the usual order. In my view, you did not make a mistake, but I accept that you went back on your decision. However, I have a problem with my point of order being called silly. I feel that it is inappropriate language that diminishes my role as a senator who pays attention to what happens in this chamber.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m not going to ask anyone to speak on this.

Before telling the Senate that I would normally take this under advisement, I’m going to put the question to the chamber.

Senator Plett is asking again that we revert to Motion No. 50 and we give Senator Wells an opportunity to adjourn it. However, it will take leave. I’m asking the chamber now again, after Senator Plett’s speech, if you will give leave. If you are opposed to leave, please say “no.”

Leave is granted. Senator Wells.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dean, seconded by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain:

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.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Welcome, minister, and thank you for being here.

The problem with being at the end of the list is that two questions I wanted to ask have already been asked. Regardless, let me go to a strange place. This is about provincial jurisdiction, school curriculum and what Canada and the federal government can do to influence curriculum-setting at the school board and provincial levels.

We know there is a lot of good work going on educating around the environment and climate change, particularly in elementary schools. There is less at the secondary level, and we know that children lose their zeal for environmental consciousness and change as they age. I believe we need to get into the secondary schools, but I think it needs to be a pan-Canadian initiative with provincial partnerships.

Could you tell us whether there is anything going on with respect to that? Might it be an idea that a group of us can work with you on?

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a no. I’m sorry, Senator Wells.

[Translation]

Hon. Pat Duncan: Will Senator Griffin take a question?

Senator Griffin: Most certainly.

Senator Duncan: Thank you, Senator Griffin, for your incredible service to Prince Edward Island and to this chamber. We so appreciate your contribution and all that you have done, and we would like to thank you and your family.

Also being from a small part of the country, your arguments today truly resonate with me. The unfairness of the situation strikes me as untenable in our country. It further strengthens Senator Downe’s argument about decentralization so that the individuals who are creating programs have an appreciation of the country, and perhaps one size does not fit all.

Without causing any undue delay, my question, Senator Griffin, is this: How can we help you? To whom are you assigning the task of taking this forward?

Senator Griffin: That is one of the things I have not assigned as yet. Many other things have been hived off. But there will be discussions. Are you volunteering, perhaps?

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Good afternoon, minister. Thank you for being here.

Your mandate letter specifically states that you shall:

Support efforts to advance the Atlantic Loop initiative to connect surplus clean power to regions transitioning away from coal and to help transform how we power our economy and communities.

According to a recent news report, it appears that the federal government is not yet ready to decide how to proceed with investing in this project. The Atlantic Loop, or Maritime Link, is not a new idea and has been around for a while. Your mandate letter indicates that you should be advancing its support.

Minister, if the federal government appears to support the project and the four Atlantic premiers are all for it, why is it not going forward? What’s the holdup?

Hon. David M. Wells (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Minister, there are 8 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. One trillion cubic feet of gas replaces 170 million barrels of oil.

There is a company in Newfoundland and Labrador that is proposing to produce and sell 3 trillion cubic feet of this liquefied natural gas, which is over 500 million barrels of oil to be replaced.

This partnership includes the Miawpukek First Nation on the Conne River, the project requires no drilling and it will use 100% renewable energy to liquify the gas for transport to Europe and markets around the world. In fact, for any Canadian energy product, this location is the shortest route to the key markets of Europe. Phase one of the project is estimated to cost $5.5 billion and take up to seven years.

Minister Guilbeault, are these Canadian investors wasting their time and their money?

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you very much for the question, senator. As you probably know, I was Heritage Minister before becoming Environment Minister and, as such, I was responsible for co-implementing the Indigenous Languages Act with Métis, First Nations and the Inuit people. Our government has increased funding for Indigenous languages 25 times compared to what it was before we came into power in 2015.

I also co-developed with Indigenous leadership the proposal that became the bill that created the first-ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

The same goes for the environment. You talked about the Indigenous Guardians program. I believe it is a great success. Frankly, there’s no doubt in my mind that we cannot move forward in creating new protected areas in Canada without full engagement at the table with Indigenous people. In fact, last week, for the first time in the history of our country, we signed an MOU with the Nunatsiavut Government — involved from the get-go — to look into the creation of a new protected area.

Historically, when we’ve done that, we started working on new protected areas and then, somewhere along the way, we said it would be nice to engage with First Nations or Indigenous people. Last week, for the first time ever, we did it from start. That will be our model going forward.