Senator Lankin: Thank you again for that answer.

As I move forward at what things might look like — and that’s what you are hedging bets on because we don’t know — there’s been a lot of talk among senators in various settings including potentially in the Rules Committee. We look at committee structures and mandates and things like that, that there may be a virtual opportunity that is with us forever or maybe only for committee hearings. There’s a lot of talk. It would seem to me to be a desire. Maybe we need the conversation to look at what our work will look like even if we are able to come back to full sittings. I would ask you to turn your mind to that.

With respect to the shortage of translators, this is a very significant and somewhat out-of-our-control problem. However, it’s not my original idea. Another senator in discussion has raised the possibility of looking at the potential of funding an interpreters program to train and graduate interpreters to come up into the Senate? This is a budget we’re talking about and not actuals. There may be some savings through the pandemic time that could be put into that for a period of time to try to increase the supply that is available to us here in the Senate.

(1720)

Is that something you would take under advisement and perhaps look at?

Senator Marwah: Thank you, senator. I would point out that we have invested in additional capacity, both in terms of translation and in the booths that you see — and with additional capacity with the House. We share this with the House of Commons. But in terms of having permanent funding and a solution, I’m not sure how much that would cost. I’ll certainly have someone take a look at it.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

Hon. David M. Wells: Could we could go back to Motion No. 50? I misunderstood the question, and I didn’t hear it very clearly. Perhaps it was because of your mask. I would like to adjourn that.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Wells is seeking leave to revert to Motion No. 50. If you are opposed to leave, please say no.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a no.

Senator Wells: Speaker, it’s because I didn’t hear you. I’m not asking to revert. It was mumbled and muffled in the speech because of the mask.

Senator Batters: What sort of total FTEs for Senate Administration then would there be?

Senator Marwah: I don’t have the total. I’ll gladly get that for you.

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you for the question. I don’t think I insinuated in any way that was the case. Companies are free to develop the projects they think will be beneficial for them and their clients.

We have specific processes as to how this gets done in Canada, including new and improved impact assessment and public consultation processes. I imagine that once the project is ready, it will be submitted for environmental impact assessment and public consultation to Environment and Climate Change Canada. To my knowledge, this project hasn’t, but I can check with the department. If it has, I’m not familiar with it.

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, senator. I want to say right off the bat that I completely agree with the answer my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, gave.

I’m sure you’re aware that there is just one liquefied natural gas terminal being built at this time, and it’s on the West Coast. This project will probably take two years to complete. There is no other project at the construction, approval or environmental assessment phases, nor anything else. This does not mean that we can’t help our European colleagues in other ways, and that’s what the Minister of Natural Resources and I are working on right now with the members of our team. We’ve had a number of conversations with our colleagues in Europe.

I remind you that even the President of the European Commission said two days ago that the solution to overcoming their dependence on Russian oil and gas is adopting renewable energy, clean technology and hydrogen. Canada has a significant role to play when it comes to biomass. Even in Europe, they can clearly see that fossil fuels are not the future. The future is clean technology and renewable energy.

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: I rise on a point of order. You said that the motion was adopted, but then you went back on the decision because two senators rose. Since you had already made the decision, may I know why we are reversing course?

[English]

Hon. Frances Lankin: Thank you to Senator Marwah for that report.

One of the things that we know is a real challenge right now, even if we do come back to more regular in-person sittings, is to handle the committee work to allow for a continuation of people participating virtually online.

There are a few different issues. We are short on committee clerks, and we face a shortage of both space and resource allocation, the technical ability and translators back up to full committee sittings twice a week.

I’m very concerned about this. There’s work that we can’t get to in terms of Senate studies because, of course, our first priority is government legislation and then private legislation and then studies.

This is what I was going to call you and talk to you about. I’ll just put it to you now. Could you tell us how the Internal Economy Committee is looking at this issue and what your plans are to progress, by allowing us to return to a full suite of the work opportunities, including some of that being done virtually? Thank you.

Senator Marwah: Thank you, senator, for that question.

The historical choke pattern has been because of lack of translation capacity and translators to do that work. Hence why that’s been really the biggest constraint so far. On the committee clerks, the issue has always been how temporary or permanent is the situation we are in.

If we assume that it’s going to be this way for the next couple of years, perhaps it’s worthwhile investing in additional staff. If we assume we’re going to go back to normal sometime later this year, which seems kind of overkill. That’s a dilemma that we’re always in — how permanent is the situation we’re in? If we find out the situation is going to be hybrid and this way for the balance of this year, then perhaps Internal Economy will have to look at it.

The Hon. the Speaker: I know, Senator Wells. But you’ll have to ask for the indulgence of the chamber to go back because we have already moved on to other items.

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request if you didn’t understand what I was saying. I will ask again.

Senator Wells was unable to clearly understand what I was saying when we went through Motion No. 50. He’s asking for leave to revert to Motion No. 50 so he can adjourn the motion rather than just have it stand.

If you are opposed to leave, please say no.

Senator Plett: I apologize to Senator Moncion for hurting her feelings.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of March 1, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023; and

That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: I understood the comments made by Senator Plett as referring to the general state of affairs and asking that we have a voice call whenever there is any sense of confusion. I didn’t take it as an insult to you, Senator Moncion.

The Senate will suspend for two or three minutes to await the arrival of the minister.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

Senator Massicotte: Thank you.

[English]

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?