Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group concerning the Western Governors’ Association Annual Meeting, held by video conference, from June 30 to July 1, 2021.

Hon. Paul J. Massicotte: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate:

(a) The current state and future direction of production, distribution, consumption, trade, security and sustainability of Canada’s energy resources;

(b) Environmental challenges facing Canadians including responses and adaptation to global climate change, pollution, biodiversity, and ecological integrity, and the cumulative environmental effects of energy and natural resource development;

(c) Sustainable development and management of renewable and non-renewable natural resources including but not limited to water, minerals, soils, flora and fauna;

(d) Pathways to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and ways to address the human and environmental impacts of climate change and manage the transition to a low carbon economy;

(e) Opportunities and challenges for women, Indigenous Peoples, Black and racialized Canadians, newcomers, persons with disabilities, and LGBTQ2 Canadians, in the energy and natural resource sectors; and

(f) Canada’s international treaty obligations affecting energy, the environment and natural resources and their influence on Canada’s economic and social development; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2025 and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that response, Senator Gold. I’m relieved to hear that the money is starting to flow into the departments and that problems are starting to be solved.

Despite encouraging unemployment numbers in recent months, I know that many employers are still having difficulty hiring people. It’s a huge problem. Word on the street is that businesses are not being consulted and asked what type of skilled workers they need.

I know the minister will unveil a new immigration plan this month. Can you assure us that the government will consult widely with the business community and experts, and that it will consider realigning its immigration priorities and policies to ensure that we attract the talent our economy actually needs?

Senator Gold: Thank you, colleague, for the question. I have made inquiries with the government, but I have not yet received an answer. When I hear back from the government, I will report in a timely fashion.

Senator Griffin: I think I received the answer I need, namely, that it will be timely; and if it’s not timely, I’ll be back. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Dupuis, do you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, on December 14, 2021, after the first recorded vote this session, Senator Martin asked for clarification about the practice of senators explaining their reasons for abstaining only after they have voted. I had previously addressed this issue on March 17, 2021, when I noted “that the time for explaining why you abstain is during debate on the matter.”

The practice of providing an explanation of abstentions reflects requirements dating back to a period when senators needed permission to abstain, after providing an acceptable explanation. Since 1982, senators have been able to abstain without permission. While our Rules therefore no longer mention explanations of abstentions, they have sometimes occurred, representing something of a residual element of our practice.

Honourable senators, in practice, of course, one would expect that the number of abstentions on any particular vote should be quite limited in most cases, and this indeed reflects historical patterns. One of the most important roles of a senator is to vote, thereby fulfilling our fundamental responsibility to make sometimes difficult decisions that will affect all Canadians.

As all senators know, abstaining is not a vote. However, in recent years the number of senators abstaining has grown considerably. This is a development on which all colleagues should reflect carefully. We have also seen increasing numbers of attempts to explain abstentions after the vote. In some cases, these have actually seemed to be speeches that would be more appropriately given before the vote. Let me remind you that, even when our Rules required explanations for abstentions, they were brief.

The Senate has generally been accommodating to colleagues on this point. Now that the issue has been raised a second time, however, it would be appropriate to note that such explanations should be limited to the rarest of circumstances. They might, for example, be appropriate if, after the bells are ringing for a vote, a senator realizes that he or she may have a possible conflict of interest, or if a colleague had not been able to follow the debate, and wanted to clarify that the abstention reflected a wish to avoid voting on an issue with insufficient information. If allowed, such explanations must be extremely brief. They are not a substitute for participating in debate, and they must never be viewed as a substitute for a vote.

I would like to thank Senator Martin for raising this important issue again.

(1500)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Senator Gold: I will ask the government what is available and appropriate to share, but that is all I can say right now without asking the government.

Senator Gold: Thank you. I will certainly pass that on to the government.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators will recall that, when we left off yesterday at 4 p.m., Senator Gold was using his time to answer questions, and I believe there was at least one other senator who wished to ask a question.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Yes, I have a question for the Government Representative in the Senate, if he’ll take one.

Senator Gold: Yes.

Senator Dupuis: Would you agree to table in the Senate any legal analysis that may have been done by the Department of Justice regarding this constitutional resolution?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you for clarifying, Government Representative. It’s reassuring to see that we’ll have the time to do our duty as representatives of our region as well as fulfill our primary role, which is to carefully examine the bills put before us. I believe that is all the more important when we’re talking about a constitutional amendment.

I am pleased to see that, if the members of a provincial legislative assembly make a unanimous request, Ottawa will act on it quickly, no questions asked. However, as a senator, I would like time to read the documents and ask questions about Saskatchewan’s proposal. Quebec and other provinces will be making proposals too, and I would like them all to receive equal treatment from the perspective of defending regional interests, but only once they’ve been subjected to careful review.

Senator Cotter: Yes. I will do my best.

Senator Cotter: I will ask and let someone say “no.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: There is already a “no.”

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Senator Cormier, I have a question related to the one posed by Senator Mockler.

Do you think that the study of this type of bill could be shared by more than one Senate committee, for example, the Committee on Official Languages and perhaps the Legal Affairs Committee? Do you think it would it be possible to split the study of this bill, as we have done on other occasions?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Galvez, I must interrupt you. You will have 12 minutes remaining in the next sitting.

Some Hon. Senators: No.