THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 16, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:03 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, for the purpose of organization.
[Translation]
Chantal Cardinal, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Carignan: I nominate Senator Paul Massicotte as chair.
Ms. Cardinal: Are there any other nominations?
The Honourable Senator Carignan moved:
That the Honourable Senator Massicotte do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Ms. Cardinal: I declare the motion carried. I invite the Honourable Senator Massicotte to take the chair.
The Honourable Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you. That was a fast game of musical chairs.
[English]
I would ask that each of you introduce yourselves as we normally do. There are a lot of new senators. It is probably a good idea.
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin from Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I am Josée Verner from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Galvez: I am Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Carignan: I am Claude Carignan from Quebec as well. It’s looking like a committee of Quebecers. We’ll see if we end up forming the majority.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Anderson: Senator Margaret Dawn Anderson from Northwest Territories.
Senator McCallum: Senator Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I am Clément Gignac from Quebec. Further to Senator Carignan’s question, there are six of us from Quebec, so we make up half the committee.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: I’m here for Senator Seidman, so you have one more from Quebec.
Senator Arnot: I am Senator David Arnot. I am a baby senator and I am from Saskatchewan. I look forward to working with everyone.
Senator Sorensen: I am Senator Karen Sorensen. Senator Arnot, were you appointed in June or July?
Senator Arnot: July.
Senator Sorensen: Same with me. So we are babies together. We are twins. I am Senator Karen Sorensen representing Alberta, but I like to add Alberta Rockies, Banff National Park.
The Chair: I think that is everyone.
I am Paul Massicotte from Quebec. I want to do it in French and English, but apparently you can’t switch too often. So I’ll start in French with a couple of seconds delay and then I will finish in English.
[Translation]
We will now proceed to the election of the deputy chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
[English]
Senator Griffin: I nominate Senator Verner as the deputy chair of this committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, I declare Senator Verner the deputy chair of the committee.
We now have some routine motions to adopt. These are standard motions that are consistent with past practices. First, we have the motion to create the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, known as the steering committee.
Do I have a mover for motion 3?
Senator Arnot: I so move.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Arnot moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and two other members of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultations; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings.
If you are opposed to the motion, please say no.
Senator Galvez: Is it possible to add the wording “in consultation with all committee members?”
What I mean by that is it can be written or it can be the result of an agreement among committee members, but since the steering committee is not representative of the committee’s entire membership, it would be nice if those discussions were shared with the other members of the committee. That way, everyone could contribute to the decisions made in regard to the topics we deal with and the witnesses we hear from.
The Chair: Senator Galvez, that was the case during the last session of the previous Parliament, and the reason why we haven’t done it thus far is that the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament is looking into the matter. I thought we would wait for the committee’s decision before revisiting the issue. I think everyone agrees with the principle. I know I am wholly in favour of broader consultation.
If you don’t mind, we will put the matter on hold until the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has made a decision. That way, all committees will be able to use the same wording.
Is that time frame acceptable to the honourable senators?
Senator Carignan: Yes, that’s fine with me.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Massicotte, I take it, then, that you agree with the principle of following up with the committee when things are a little unclear.
The Chair: I totally agree, as we did in the last Parliament.
The only complication is that, when a session is ending, it tends to create a somewhat artificial sense of urgency. That can be tricky, but I would say we did our best in the last Parliament, and I think everyone was satisfied.
Shall the motion carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. The two other members of the subcommittee are Senator Seidman and Senator Anderson.
Motion 4 pertains to the publication of committee proceedings. Do I have a mover for motion 4?
Senator Carignan: I so move.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Carignan moved:
That the committee publish its proceedings.
If you are opposed to the motion, please say no. I declare the motion carried.
As per rule 12-26(2), each committee must table a report on the expenses incurred during the previous session. A copy of the draft report, prepared by the clerk, was distributed by email.
Motion 5 deals with the financial report. Can I have a mover for motion 5?
Senator Gignac: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Gignac moved:
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 12-26(2).
If you are opposed to the motion, please say no.
I declare the motion carried.
Motion 6 deals with research staff. Can I have a mover for motion 6?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I so move.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne moved:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee’s examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
If you are opposed to the motion, please say no. I declare the motion carried.
I now invite the analysts, Jesse Good and Sam Banks, to turn on their video. They are seasoned analysts with whom the committee has been working for years, and I think we will be well served indeed.
[English]
You can turn on your cameras and introduce yourselves, Jesse Good and Sam Banks.
Sam Banks, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Good morning, senators. It is a pleasure to be with you all again virtually. Looking forward to working with you.
The Chair: Good stuff. We are very lucky to have you, by the way, Sam and Jesse. You have a lot of experience and immense knowledge and we will lean on you quite a bit. Looking forward to a good year.
Jesse Good, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I also look forward to working with you all. I am also an ambassador for the Library of Parliament, which means that I offer briefing sessions about the library’s services to our clients. If any of you have questions about how the Library of Parliament can help you with your research work or committee work, please reach out.
The Chair: Thank you, Jesse.
[Translation]
Motion 7 pertains to the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Do I have a mover for motion 7?
Senator Carignan: I so move.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Carignan moved:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
If you are opposed to the motion, please say no. I declare the motion carried.
Motion 8 deals with travel. Do I have a mover for motion 8?
Senator Carignan: I so move:
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Carignan moved:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
If you are opposed to the motion, please say no. I declare the motion carried.
[English]
Motion 9 deals with the designation of members travelling on committee business. Do I have a mover for motion 9?
The Honourable Senator Carignan moves:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on “official business” for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on “official business” if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
All in favour? If you disagree, please say, “no.”
Carried.
Motion 10 pertains to the travelling and living expenses of witnesses. Do I have a proposer for motion 10?
The Honourable Senator Gignac moved:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses of one witness per organization upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses of a second witness from the same organization should there be exceptional circumstances.
All in favour? If any senator does not wish to give leave, please say, “no.”
Carried.
Do I have a proposer for motion 11, which deals with communications?
The Honourable Senator Griffin moves:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans and products where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of the promotion of their work; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee’s public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its proceedings, at its discretion.
All in favour? If any senator disagrees, please say, “no.”
Adopted.
Moving on to other business. Let me, if I can at this point, make some comments. Thank you very much for your support to the presidency. I particularly thank the parties, members of my own group for their support.
Let me make these additional comments on how I see our next session or next year going ahead. The good news or the bad news is that we have immense responsibilities. A lot of things are happening in the world, in our country. Environment and climate change is a big one. It immediately affects and involves our committee. As you know, these are extremely important and challenging moments and challenging issues we are faced with, and I think this committee is very relevant because it deals with energy, the environment and natural resources. In our lifetimes, these issues will mark us, and hopefully our grandkids can say, “Granddad, you did a heck of a job. Thank you very much.”
That is our challenge, and the good news being when you look at the composition of our committee, we have a strong balance. We have a lot of expertise and more importantly, we also have a lot of experience. We are tooled to face the challenge, but it will require all of us to work with an orientation of what is good for Canada, what is good for the world. It has to be broad in scope.
I ask all of you to make that effort. What is important in our process is not who gets the right answers, who contributes what, but relative to working together as a team, that at the very end we come up with the right answers and recommendations and we did our job. It’s very important. As is tradition, we should be consensus oriented. I will attempt to avoid vote-breaking charades, per se. We should really try to get everybody on side to the logic, to the agreement, to the right decision. It is quite important to minimize diversions, because obviously if the committee can’t agree on consensus, it dilutes the power of our recommendations and decisions. I strongly urge us all to work hard to leave our egos at the door and basically do what is right for the country.
Having said that, it has not always been the case, but tradition is that, on a committee level, the chair rarely votes, and I intend to follow that procedure.
My efforts will be toward achieving consensus, to achieving the right decision, and I will very rarely seek to use my vote to seek solution, which is rarely the case if you impose decisions or votes. I will rarely vote and will simply concentrate on chairing the committee as best as I can, and I look forward to your support and your contribution.
Senator Verner is our deputy chair. Do you want to add some comments?
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I think you pretty well covered what I wanted to say. We should work to achieve consensus as often as possible. As the chair pointed out, we need to check our egos at the door, and that is exactly what the situation calls for.
Climate change, the environment and natural resources are front-and-centre issues. I plan to step up my efforts so we can make the best possible contribution, namely for my grandchildren.
[English]
The Chair: Is there anybody else who would like to speak up and give a sense to our debate?
Senator McCallum: This is something uncomfortable for me. On two occasions now with Energy, even though we signed a conflict of interest while we are in the Senate, it came to my attention that there were two instances of a conflict of interest within the Energy Committee. One was declared at the end of the session, which I thought shouldn’t have happened. The other one I found out and didn’t know what to do with those declarations. I am concerned about it. Is there any way that we can handle that before we start this committee where there is a process in place so we can declare if we have a conflict of interest?
The Chair: I am not the expert but I know there is a procedure because I’ve done it before. You can declare it in the Senate Chamber, or you can declare it somewhere else. Chantal, you can help us?
Ms. Cardinal: Yes, I would just mention that anything to do with a conflict of interest should be directed to the Senate Ethics Officer.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Ms. Cardinal: If you would like more information, you can have your office email me and I can direct you to the right place.
Senator McCallum: I don’t have a conflict of interest. I wanted to make certain that the other senators in the group don’t and that we move on. It is my experience that it happened twice, and I just wanted to bring it to the floor.
The Chair: I think that’s good.
Senator McCallum: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: But please follow up on that issue, Senator McCallum. Please follow up with the Ethics Office to ensure there is follow up.
Any other comments from the floor?
Senator Galvez: Thank you, Senator Massicotte, for assuming the task of becoming the chair, and thank you, Senator Verner, for assuming the deputy chair position. This is a very important committee, and as you were both mentioning, we have very important critical situations. All the provinces are experiencing the trauma, I would say, about who is next in extreme weather events.
I appreciate your comments about trying to get to a consensus. I think you said we are a balanced committee. We could make an effort to talk for the provinces that are not represented and try to find solutions that agree with the specific situations happening in each province and each territory. Each province and each territory, I believe, are very different, have different situations and face different situations. We have to be mindful of that.
I was thinking about British Columbia. I don’t think it is represented here and we need to act.
I think what Senator McCallum is referring to — and I suffered from that when I was chair — is that we should be preventative, precautionary and stay ahead of things. It is very uncomfortable when the news comes out and then you learn on the spot that something is going on. It is very difficult to manage it, and it is not good for the Senate. I know to what she refers, and it is very important that we all take this very seriously. If we feel that we are in a conflict of interest with anything, declare it. For example, just for transparency, I decided to resign from all my boards. Even though it is indirect and upward in conflict of interest, I decided it is better not to sit on some boards because it could place me in a conflict of interest with my committee work or in my Senate work.
The Chair: Let me only comment that the first remedy to any conflict of interest is transparency, so if anyone has any doubts, at least start with full transparency, and usually it resolves any suspicions.
[Translation]
Are there any further comments?
Senator Gignac: As a grandfather, I feel the same as you.
In a former life, I had the privilege of being Quebec’s Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade and Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife. The ability of the committee to find compromises is vital, in my view. The creation of wealth matters a lot, as does resource development, in keeping with environmental protection and social licence.
As a new senator, I feel very proud and privileged to be a member of this committee. Against the backdrop of climate change, the committee is probably set to become one of the most — if not the most — important in the coming years, provided it isn’t already. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any further comments?
[English]
Speak up, because I can’t see all of you on my screen. If you want to add something, just come on in.
Senator Sorensen: I don’t want to belabour this, but perhaps someone from administration could clarify on conflict of interest. The world I lived in, which was municipal politics, was predominantly based on pecuniary interest, and I agree with the chair that disclosure is the first step. I’m sure I could go find this in ethics documents some place, but in this world, is pecuniary the number one reason, or are there lots of varied reasons why you may be considered in conflict?
Senator McCallum: I think you would have to go to the Ethics Officer, but what happened with us was that there was a declaration at the end of the year by a senator, and I think some of you will remember that. The first case was where there was a conflict because there was a business involved with a resource industry, and that senator was involved in a personal benefit because they had a business. Those were the two.
Senator Sorensen: That would probably be pecuniary. Thank you very much. I appreciate the input. We don’t need to belabour this.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: May I jump in briefly?
I’ve reviewed the code inside out, Senator Sorensen, and obviously it covers clear conflicts of interest, but apparent conflicts of interest can also become problematic in certain situations. It isn’t necessary to derive a direct personal benefit; an apparent conflict of interest matters almost as much as a real conflict of interest.
[English]
The Chair: I think the best advice is to speak to the commissioner because this may be complicated. Everybody seeks transparency and the right decisions, so please follow up.
My last note, given there are no other comments, is to say that our regular meeting will be on Thursday mornings at nine o’clock once we come back. Hopefully, we will eventually get two sessions per week, as is traditional, but I think there need to be some delays there.
The first thing we should do, as you know, is that we will always prioritize legislation and that is our principal focus, but at this point there is no incoming legislation. When we have that flexibility, that luxury, we will undertake special studies that could be beneficial to the public, and that’s where we will focus our initial efforts, I believe. What I recommend is if you don’t mind, send our clerk, myself or the deputy chair suggestions for special studies and things we should consider, please submit that and we can consider that and come back to the full committee with the steering committee’s comments on those suggestions. If you can give that some thought and send me a note or to the clerk and we will circulate it and study that and come back with our recommendations.
I think that’s a really important possibility for us. There are so many things to study and so many issues. And frankly, we are in a pretty neutral position, so I think our credibility could be important if we deal with issues in a complete manner, because the government is looking for answers on many issues, and I think we could be helpful. Any other comments?
[Translation]
Josée, did you have anything to add?
[English]
Senator Galvez: You know that when you call for ideas on studies, we will all react and we will all send. That’s what we did last time. Unfortunately, we didn’t do any of those studies.
The Chair: I appreciate that.
Senator Galvez: On one hand, it is important to identify the interests of each one of us, but I think the other very important point is how we are going to decide which subject is the priority. So I would really appreciate if, at some point, you explain how we are going to prioritize the subjects.
The Chair: I’m going to propose that, first of all, we circulate any suggestions to the four members of the steering committee. The steering committee will consider that and come back to the membership at large with their comments and suggestions for the final decision, probably by the full committee. It depends how it goes, but I think we will have a very inclusive process. Obviously, we can’t all get what we want, but that’s normal. Let’s just make sure that the process is open, transparent and logical relative to real purpose, and we will just accept the result. I think we will be okay and we will make it very broad.
Last session, no committee ever got authority to do studies. We were purposefully focused on legislation. My understanding is that the Senate, on this occasion, particularly the leaders, are in agreement that we should do special studies, compared to last time when they constantly refused anything, any study of any sort from any committee. But I think it will be different this time. I think we have at least two years — if not three or four years — of minority government, which will allow us to do studies that are relevant. I think that’s the process we should follow, but I am open to any comments people may have as to that process.
Senator Galvez, are you okay with that?
Senator Galvez: Yes. Also, just don’t forget that there is also this mechanism that, for example, Senator McCallum is using, of a motion to request a study to be done by a committee. So we have the legislation, but we also have the motion, and we have our own ideas of the studies.
It’s true it is going to be a short government — two or three years, maybe less; we don’t know — maybe my preference would be for shorter studies rather than longer studies, because, like that, we cover more than less.
The Chair: It is a good point. Obviously, when you consider doing a study, we have to decide and prioritize which one we do and how do we deal with the other motions. If you can decide on one, you should decide on the whole because you have to make that decision. I expect that will come up when we decide.
Any other comments that people want to make on the process or studies? I see nobody raising their hand. Am I missing somebody? I think not.
[Translation]
All right, then. Thank you for being here.
[English]
Senator Arnot: I have a question, chair.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Arnot: Can we see a resumé of what studies were proposed in the past, even though you didn’t get to them? I would like to know the whole context of where the committee was looking in the past, and that will inform me about what I might propose.
The Chair: Chantal, I presume we have that?
Ms. Cardinal: Yes. I will have to go back and look in the files, but I can compile something and circulate it as well.
The Chair: Is there anybody else? Did I miss somebody? For some reason, I don’t see the hands up here very much on my laptop. If there is nothing else, I thank you very much.
[Translation]
Thank you all.
[English]
I think we are on to an important year and a good start, so I look forward to working with all of you. Thank you very much and Merry Christmas.
(The committee adjourned.)