Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 54 - Evidence - February 5, 2019
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 5, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met in camera this day at 9:04 a.m. to study Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; and, in public, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: We are about to vote, in public session, on the motion presented by Senator Simons.
Senator Massicotte: First, for the sake of the public, she should state her motion.
The Chair: She will read the motion.
Senator Simons: I would be happy to do that, Madam Chair. I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be instructed to develop a plan for deliberations on Bill C-69, including a plan for travel to hear from witnesses.
Senator Tkachuk: I’d like to move an amendment, Madam Chair:
That the steering committee develop the plan on travel to include Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Western Canada.
Senator Woo: Can we get some advice from the clerk on the proper procedure? Should we not vote on the original motion before we —
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Woo: On the amendment first. Okay.
The Chair: We will have to vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Tkachuk.
Senator McCoy: It is just the committee members who are voting. Who are the members? I’m not a committee member, so I’m not allowed to vote.
The Chair: On the amendment proposed by Senator Tkachuk, I recognize Senator Mockler and Senator McCallum.
Senator Mockler: As we look at the amendment proposed by Senator Tkachuk on the motion brought in by Senator Simons, if there is a need to join them immediately and have only one motion, would that be appropriate for the chair and committee members? If the main motion and the amendment were to be incorporated, would everybody agree?
Senator Woo: If we agree on the amendment, then it has gone through and there will be one motion. It has the same effect.
Senator McCallum: I have a problem with that because we don’t know where we’re travelling. If we’re just going to the main cities, then I don’t want to travel. I want to go to areas where we’re going to get new information and reach people who would not be able to come here, where it is informative for senators to go on site, like Gillam, where the work camp is near the reserve. That problem with the workers is a big issue right now in Manitoba. In Alberta, we would go and see the devastation caused. That would be new information that I would like to look at. But to go to the major cities, I need to know that before I can make an informed choice or decision.
The Chair: Do other senators want to comment on the amendment presented by Senator Tkachuk?
All those in favour of Senator Tkachuk’s amendment?
Those who are against the amendment?
And those who would like to abstain?
Senator McCallum: I would like to say that I’m abstaining because of what I just said.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Mitchell: For the record, could you identify those of us — or we could identify ourselves — who are here but are not members of the committee and, therefore, cannot vote?
The Chair: Yes. From this side, non-members are Senator McCoy, Senator Griffin and Senator Black.
Senator Tkachuk is replacing Senator —
Senator Tkachuk: I’m substituting for Senator Neufeld.
The Chair: And Senator Mitchell and Senator Pratte.
You are ex officio.
Senator Mitchell: I am ex officio, but under the agreement that prevails, I can’t vote.
Senator Cordy: Just a reminder that all decisions of steering have to come back to the whole committee. So, Senator McCallum, if what you’ve spoken of several times today is not included, you can raise it again at the whole committee, and that holds true for everybody else.
The decisions of steering are guiding principles and decisions. They are not the ultimate decisions.
Senator Simons: I would like to speak to Senator McCallum’s point.
I agree with you. I think if we only go to major cities, we’ll hear from the same sorts of people. Hearing from CAPP in Calgary isn’t really different than hearing from CAPP in Ottawa. I think it’s important that we have the motion out there so we signal our wish to travel, and then it will be up to the steering committee to come up with a plan to make that actionable, with our input.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to respond to Senator McCallum and also say I’m delighted that Senator Simons has moved a motion that includes travel.
Like you, senator, I’m on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. Many Aboriginal people live in remote regions, and we’ve often heard them say that it’s challenging for them to have to come to Ottawa. I want to make it clear that people from La Loche, Gillam and Fort McKay can come to the regional centres where I expect we’ll be holding hearings. They don’t have to go all the way to Ottawa. They can drive from the Miramichi. They can be brought in to Calgary or Edmonton, to Winnipeg, to Saskatoon or Regina by the committee. We’ve done that with the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. We held a hearing in Thunder Bay and heard people from all over northern Ontario, and they were happy to travel to their familiar regional centre rather than having to go time zones and days away from their home communities, to Ottawa.
I mention that because I’d like the steering committee to consider it, if they end up having to deal with this issue.
The Chair: Now we are voting on the motion of Senator Simons.
Senator, can you read the motion, as amended?
Senator Simons: Madam Chair, I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, the steering committee, be instructed to develop a plan for deliberations on Bill C-69, including a plan for travel to hear from witnesses, with that travel to include plans for Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Western Canada.
Senator Massicotte: Just so I understand the relevancy of this process, we voted in favour of the amendment to your motion, which is very clear and all-encompassing. It is more specific than the secondary one.
I think it just dies. Why would we vote on this?
Senator Simons: This is the main motion. We haven’t voted on it yet.
Senator McCoy: We would be voting on the motion, as amended.
Senator Massicotte: Okay.
The Chair: Now we are voting on the motion, as amended. Who votes in favour of the motion, as amended?
Senator Mockler, did he vote? He was not there.
Senators who are against the motion, as amended?
Senators who abstain?
The motion carries unanimously. That’s perfect. Thank you very much.
I think that we still have time — it’s only two o’clock — to continue with our discussion to give steering more guidance on where to go, when to go and who to see. Are you with me? One more hour, two hours? Because we’re all tired, let’s start with one hour.
Senator Tkachuk: Are we going to finish on Thursday at the same time, then?
The Chair: We have witnesses tomorrow.
We will suspend briefly to continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)