Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: Thank you. I think it is an important area. It’s also an area that I know reasonably well. I used to work for a biomass energy company that actually used wood waste to produce thermal energy, which provides all the energy at the University of British Columbia. No natural gas is used there.

It is the case that Canada, on a dollars-per-cubic-metre basis, does not do very well in terms of the utilization of our fibre resource. There are a number of reasons for that, but we need to do better. Part of that is about better utilizing what we often term as waste. That is a critically important area. It is part of the new strategy that we are looking to put into place at Natural Resources Canada. We’re really focusing on that, which is driving the dollars per cubic metre up, which means investments in technologies and innovation relating to the utilization of waste.

I know this is an area that you have been involved with for some time. We are very interested in it as well.

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: First of all, I haven’t seen any specific proposals to date of people trying to advance something that’s moved through a lot of thinking. I would say that this is exactly why we have an environmental assessment process. To be honest, it’s why we put better rules into place for environmental assessments — so that we can really look in a thoughtful way and engage with Indigenous communities. We would look in a thoughtful way at the risks associated with any of those types of projects.

From my perspective, I think the biggest challenge would be thinking about how you would do that kind of shipping in a manner that is safe in the Arctic. There’s a reason there is a moratorium on Arctic drilling. It’s a very sensitive ecosystem. We don’t have the ability to actually clean things up there. We don’t have much of a Coast Guard presence. We don’t have the ability, as we do in the Port of Vancouver, for example, to very quickly get to a spill and contain it.

So any project that would be proposed would have to address those issues straight on if it were going to move forward. However, as I say, I have not heard any detailed project proposals coming forward with respect to that idea.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Every year, the United Nations Environment Programme, or UNEP, publishes its Production Gap Report, which tracks the discrepancy between planned fossil fuel production and production levels consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celcius. According to UNEP, in order to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celcius, the world’s governments must cut fossil fuel production in half by 2030. However, Canada plans to increase its oil and gas production by almost 18% between 2019 and 2040.

Minister, isn’t Canada’s approach to climate change contradictory? We’re committing to reducing our country’s emissions while increasing our oil and gas exports at the same time.

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: Thank you. That is a very important question.

People often focus on transportation, or oil and gas, or buildings — all of which are important in terms of reducing emissions and building an economy for the future — but they often don’t talk about the grid. The grid underpins the entire thing.

Having a robust grid that has an abundant supply of non‑emitting power is critical to phasing out coal and to eventually phasing out unabated natural gas, but it’s also critical to being able to reduce emissions from transportation. If you’re electrifying all the cars, you need more power. If you’re electrifying home heating, you need more power. It’s critical to the future of our economy.

Many battery manufacturers and, now, car manufacturers are locating in Canada because we have non-emitting power. At the end of the day, they want products that have almost zero embedded carbon. If you’re burning coal and you’re using electricity, you don’t have zero embedded carbon in your car. To grow the industrial base in this country — whether it’s hydrogen, biofuels, critical minerals or car manufacturing — we need a lot more. We will have to double or triple the amount of electricity generation in this country over the course of the coming number of decades.

The federal government needs to be part of that solution. From a financial perspective, I often say this is the railway of our century. It is fundamentally important. It is also important that we are working with provinces and territories, while respecting their jurisdiction, on ideas about how we can do this better and faster. That’s the role of the proposed national grid council — namely, to try to think about outside-the-box ideas on the regulatory regimes to enable us to move in a manner that will meet the needs of the energy transition and to help us look at best practices.

Hon. Clément Gignac, for Senator Mockler, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, presented the following report:

Wednesday, December 14, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the honour to present its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 13, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

PERCY MOCKLER

Chair

Hon. Leo Housakos moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, your committee has completed its study on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. The bill’s stated intent is to modernize the Broadcasting Act by expanding the powers of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to include regulating online streaming platforms and requiring those online undertakings to contribute, including financially, to Canadian creators and cultural systems.

Your committee was initially authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-11 in advance of the bill coming before the Senate on May 31, 2022, and held its first committee meeting on the subject matter on June 8, 2022. The bill was referred to the committee on October 25, 2022, and the study concluded on December 8, 2022.

During its consideration of this bill, the committee held 31 meetings, including a record 9 meetings of clause by clause, for a total of 67 hours and 30 minutes.

We received 67 briefs, heard from 138 witnesses from a variety of backgrounds including the arts and cultural sector, conventional Canadian broadcasters, big tech and streaming platforms, online content creators, unions, visible and linguistic minorities, people with disabilities, LGBTQ2+, academics and researchers.

We also heard from officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Justice Canada, Global Affairs Canada, as well as from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, and also from former chairs and deputy chairs of the CRTC.

It was clear from the beginning that there were two distinct viewpoints on this legislation, even amongst the sector that it purports to assist. However, even the most ardent supporters of the bill appeared before our committee seeking amendments, and some of those amendments are reflected in the bill you have before you today.

There were a total of 73 amendments proposed at committee by Senators Batters, Clement, Cormier, Dasko, Dawson, Downe, Manning, Miville-Dechêne, Plett, Quinn and Wallin. In addition to 13 subamendments, of those proposed, 26 amendments were adopted affecting 11 clauses as well as 2 subamendments.

Perhaps the areas of greatest concern to witnesses are the inclusion — unintended or otherwise — of user-generated content, the definition of Canadian content, independence and transparency of the regulator, privacy concerns for social media users and possible trade ramifications and reciprocity.

I won’t go through each one of the 26 amendments that were adopted, but I wish to highlight a few. Your committee adopted a motion in amendment moved by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne in cooperation with Senator Simons with the goal of ensuring user-generated content is not captured by this legislation. This amendment to clause 4 seeks to require the regulator to consider specific criteria when adjudicating the inclusion of content in its scope.

There was an amendment put forward that some senators felt would further strengthen the requirement by making the criteria cumulative and determinative, but that was not adopted by your committee.

Your committee also adopted an amendment from Senator Manning that states that no one factor in Canadian content be determinative. This is reflective of the minister’s own statement that the definition of CanCon be modernized and takes into account the investment foreign streamers are already making in Canada’s TV and film industry and telling Canadian stories.

Additionally, your committee chose to remove clause 7, which senators felt risked further politicization of the work of the CRTC. Your committee believes the independence of the regulator is vital. There were a number of government amendments adopted, including one addressing some of the concerns outlined by the Privacy Commissioner. Again, colleagues, this is but a snapshot of the 26 amendments that were adopted.

While your committee is confident that these amendments improve this legislation, it should be noted that there remained many concerns as outlined in the observations that have been included in this report from the Independent Senators Group, the Canadian Senators Group and the Conservative caucus in the Senate. We urge the government to properly consider the amendments and also the observations provided in the appendix by the committee.

In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the committee, each and every one of them, particularly the deputy chair, Senator Miville-Dechêne; my steering colleague Senator Dawson, the critic on the bill; and Senator Quinn. It was at times an acrimonious and arduous process, but I think democracy did have its voice in this particular study. You saw the exhausting number of witnesses and time that was put into it. We did our work in a diligent fashion.

I would also like to thank all stakeholders, witnesses and individual Canadians who came before the committee, because without their participation, democracy doesn’t function. I also want to thank all the staff of each and every one of our colleagues because this was a long and cumbersome process, and without their support, none of the senators would be able to do the work that we have managed to do in this report.

I would also like to thank the administrative staff starting with the law clerk, Isabelle Brideau; our analysts Jed Chong and Khamla Heminthavong; our administrative assistant Brigitte Martineau; and, of course, the clerk of the committee, Vincent Labrosse, for their patience, support and the due diligence they provided to this study. Thank you very much, colleagues.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Honourable senators, I rise to speak at second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national reconciliation council.

When I accepted the responsibility of serving as an honorary witness for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, I made a commitment to pursue the search for the truth while engaging in reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

I support the principle of creating a national council for reconciliation. Bill C-29 is a response to several of the TRC’s Calls to Action. Call to Action 53 reads as follows:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation.

That is precisely what Bill C-29 does.

In addition, the TRC’s Call to Action 54 calls upon the Government of Canada to ensure the following:

 . . . multi-year funding . . . including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.

Clause 16.1 of the bill references Call to Action 55, which details what must be in the report that the minister responsible must submit to the national council for reconciliation.

Lastly, subclause 17(3) of the bill references call to action 56. It states that the Prime Minister must, on behalf of the government, respond to the national council for reconciliation’s annual report by publishing a report on the state of Indigenous peoples.

The sixth paragraph of the bill’s preamble states that the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The dictionary defines “reconciliation” as the act of making friendly again after an estrangement, of bringing into agreement or harmony. The term explicitly evokes the idea of coming together after a conflict.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada is a national transitional justice mechanism, even though it was not presented as such. In a document published in March 2021, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie included the TRC in a list of transitional justice processes used in different countries. Most of the time, such mechanisms are in response to particular political and legal contexts: civil or colonial wars, discriminatory policies, legal disputes, and so forth. But in all cases, they involve gross human rights violations and go beyond the limits of the usual judicial proceedings involving remedies, evidence and the like. Calls for justice, recognition and reparations give rise to alternative mechanisms designed to bring to light the truth of the victims, respect for their memory, which can potentially help strengthen democracy and public trust in government.

Honourable senators, I think that the Senate needs to take a close look at the aspects of the bill that I asked questions about, and we need to get answers to those questions from the government before we can pass this bill. Some of the concepts used in the bill are vague, poorly defined and confusing. There are also inconsistencies between the French and English versions. In my opinion, it is vital to clarify legal elements that are critical to the work of this council. I invite the senators who will study Bill C-29 in committee to consider the following questions.

First, why does the first paragraph of the preamble use different terms in the French and English versions? For example, the English version uses the term “their Indigenous lands” while the French version uses “leur territoire” in the singular.

Second, the second paragraph of the preamble states that Indigenous peoples have been oppressed since the arrival of settlers and colonization. However, it was successive governments throughout history, including the current Government of Canada, that colonized Indigenous people by implementing assimilationist laws and policies. The wording should therefore be changed accordingly.

Third, why does the fourth paragraph of the preamble use the phrase “all peoples” when stating who is responsible for reconciliation? Which peoples are being referred to? Where does this concept come from? How is it defined? The wording used here is problematic. It should be revised to make it clear that reconciliation is the responsibility of the government and that it requires collective efforts from all and the commitment of multiple generations.

Fourth, why does clause 2(1) include provincial governments in the definition of “governments”? What authority does the federal Parliament have to include provincial governments in this bill?

Fifth, why does the same clause, clause 2(1), not mention the governments of the three territories, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, in the definition of “governments”?

Sixth, clause 12 deals with the composition of the board of directors, which must reflect a diversity of representation. What does the phrase “other peoples in Canada” signify? Who are these other peoples who must be represented on the board of directors? This concept doesn’t exist. If we’re talking about people who aren’t Indigenous, usually referred to as non‑Indigenous people, the bill needs to be clear about that, especially since the term “non-Indigenous” is also used in clause 16 of Bill C-29. Reconciliation is the government’s responsibility, but the members of this council are obviously people who are going to sit on its board of directors. It is crucial that Indigenous and non-Indigenous people meet on this path to reconciliation, since everyone must be involved in working toward the common goal of reconciliation. This must be explicit, not buried under a concept that has no basis in our political system or legal system.

Seventh, which organizations were consulted when developing Bill C-29? Last week, we heard the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami publicly state that his organization was withdrawing its support for Bill C-29. Other groups, including the Native Alliance of Quebec, deplored the fact that they had no representation on the board of directors. I asked for the list of organizations consulted when developing this bill. It is important that the Senate obtain clear answers from the government to verify that there was real consultation.

Honourable senators, I invite members of the committee that will be studying this bill to ask these questions as well as others.

When I agreed to serve as an honorary witness for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I had the remarkable experience of listening to the traumatic stories of men and women I worked with for years and also of ascertaining how devastated these individuals were, their survival instinct and their resilience. In my view, the commitment of an honorary witness has two main components: first, to listen and to hear, among other things, the truths of residential school survivors who have become elders in their communities or spokespersons for former students who died and the truths of their descendants living with intergenerational trauma; second, to continue searching for and spreading the truth, especially in the media, educational institutions and the Senate of Canada, and actively participating in reconciliation with these survivors and their descendants once the work of the commission is completed.

Honourable senators, I will conclude by stressing the need to unfold the official historical narrative in order to make heard the voices that have been drowned out or silenced, voices that until now have been ignored, so that the respective memories, which are often different if not contradictory, can finally be heard in all of their complexity. This is what is needed first before we can have the rapprochement that forms the basis of reconciliation. As I’ve said before, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples must go beyond individual commitments. Bill C-29 is a vital institutional response to promote reconciliation. At this point, it is up to us ensure that the national council for reconciliation becomes a reality. That is our job.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. David M. Wells moved second reading of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

He said: Honourable colleagues, today I am pleased to rise as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

This bill, known by its short title as the “Pension Protection Act,” has been a long time in the making. This bill has three simple elements: The first is a requirement for the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to provide a report to Parliament every year. The second is that people holding defined benefit pension plans move up the line of priority for payout if a company goes bankrupt. And the last is that companies be permitted to fund deficient pension plans without financial penalty.

Most of you will recall the collapse of Nortel in 2009. On January 14 of that year, Nortel filed for bankruptcy protection, leaving over 10,000 pensioners to face the prospect of suddenly having no pension. When the dust finally settled, Nortel pensioners received about 50 cents on the dollar.

This story played out again in 2017 when Sears Canada filed for bankruptcy protection. Once again, it was pensioners who were left holding the bag. Sears Canada’s defined benefit pension plan was underfunded by a quarter of a billion dollars, and in bankruptcy proceedings, the 16,000 former employees were lined up behind the banks, and other lenders, to collect their money. In the end, they saw their pensions cut by approximately 30%.

Colleagues, it has been estimated that over 100,000 Canadians have had their pensions slashed when firms went bankrupt. If you go back as far as 1982, the Canadian Federation of Pensioners suggests that number could be as high as 250,000. Colleagues, this is unacceptable.

During last Parliament’s committee hearings on Bill C-253, this bill’s predecessor, Ms. Laura Tamblyn Watts of CanAge relayed the story of a couple who had worked their whole lives, and contributed to their defined benefit pension plans. After the Sears bankruptcy, they lost their financial security. They asked, “How could it be possible that we both worked our whole lives, and contributed to our plans, and we now face poverty because we are last in line for our own money?”

The answer to that question, colleagues, is simple: It is possible because the law allows it. If a business goes bankrupt today, the assets currently get divided up in this order: The first are deemed trusts. This includes things like unremitted source deductions in relation to the Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, or the Quebec Pension Plan, or QPP, income taxes payable and Employment Insurance, or EI, contributions — basically, all those amounts that are deemed to be held in trust for the benefit of the Crown. In essence, colleagues, the government gets paid first.

After the government gets paid, there are unpaid suppliers. Suppliers have the right to repossess unpaid goods that were delivered 30 days prior to bankruptcy. Then those who are considered what is known as “super-priority” are paid out. This includes the value of unpaid agriculture and aquaculture products delivered 15 days prior to bankruptcy, the value of unpaid salaries and allowances up to a maximum of $2,000 per employee, the costs incurred by a government to decontaminate land included in the bankrupt assets and the value of deducted salary contributions and employer contributions to a registered pension plan.

Now, colleagues, don’t mistake that last item with pension benefits. It only covers the employee’s contributions to the plan that were deducted from their earnings — not the amount that they are owed from the pension plan itself. It only represents a fraction of their actual pension entitlement — it is essentially what they paid in.

After super-priorities, secured claims are paid out. After that, there are preferred claims. And then finally, pension plan liabilities are addressed, which get pro-rated along with the value of all other unsecured claims. In other words, the protection for an employee’s pension plan, which they may have paid into during their entire working life, falls to the end of the line. This needs to change. And, colleagues, that change is precisely what Bill C-228 will achieve.

Over the last 10 years, numerous attempts have been made to address this problem, beginning in 2010 with Bill C-501. Later, we had Bill C-405 in 2018; Bill C-253 and Bill C-269 in 2020; Bill C-225 in 2022; and finally, Bill C-228 which is before us today. All of these were private members’ bills, and consequently struggled to get through the other place.

Bloc Québécois MP Marilène Gill’s Bill C-253 made it the furthest, going through seven committee meetings before being reported back to the House with one amendment. However, it was unable to move any further before the general election was called in the summer of 2021.

Rather than trying to recreate the wheel, MP Marilyn Gladu, the sponsor of Bill C-228, pulled together portions of the previous bills that had support, and removed those elements which were contentious. In her second-reading speech, MP Gladu specifically mentioned drawing heavily from Bill C-405 and Bill C-253. As you may be aware, the current bill received unanimous support in the other place, but, as I’ve said many times here before, that should not move this chamber from doing its due diligence.

The purpose of the legislation is actually quite straightforward. It will help protect pension plan assets, and ensure the solvency of defined benefit pension plans by addressing three areas.

Number one is Bill C-228 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to ensure that claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of pension plans receive super-priority status in bankruptcy proceedings. Instead of being paid out an amount pro-rated with the other unsecured claims, pension funds will receive the same priority and protection as salaries and pension fund contributions. It moves these unsecured liabilities up the line of priorities.

Number two is clause 6 of the bill amends section 40 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to change the requirements of the annual report. Currently, there is a requirement for an annual report on the solvency of pension funds, but the report goes to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

It is not clear what, if any, actions are taken as a result of the generation or the receipt of this report.

Bill C-228 would require that an annual report on solvency of pension funds be tabled in both houses of Parliament. This would then provide it with the opportunity for greater oversight. This is a public tabling that ensures transparency and awareness.

Thirdly, colleagues, Bill C-228 will provide a mechanism to transfer funds to a pension fund without negative tax implications in order to help restore a pension fund to solvency. Together, these three changes will help ensure Canadians no longer find their pensions and their retirements in jeopardy.

Over the course of committee hearings for Bill C-228 and the earlier version, Bill C-253, three concerns were raised over this legislation, which I would like to address. The first is that if the bill is adopted, it will result in employers moving away from defined benefit pension plans. Colleagues, this is already happening.

Over the last 22 years, the percentage of defined benefit, or DB, plans has dropped from 21.3% in the year 2000 to 9.6% today. As noted by Mr. Brett Book, Policy Officer for CanAge, in his June 8, 2021, testimony at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, defined benefit plans are no longer being created.

He said:

In Ontario, DB plans fell by more than 10% between 2017 and 2019, even after the Ontario government lowered funding requirements for solvency from 100% to 85%.

The lowering of funding requirements did nothing to encourage more corporations to establish defined benefit plans. Instead, as stated by Mr. Book, “The only changes that happened were that there are fewer DB plans, not more, and corporations saved billions.”

The second objection which has been raised is the assertion that corporations with defined benefit plans will end up being subject to higher interest rates on their borrowing, which will make them uncompetitive and lead to more insolvencies. The Pension Investment Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Professionals brought this concern up at committee hearings on this bill. Their contention is that if pensioners are given priority, companies with insolvent funds will have to pay higher interest rates to obtain credit and will be less likely to apply for credit. This could, in turn, accelerate the rate of insolvencies.

Colleagues, this bill gives corporations four years to deal with any unfunded liabilities present in their defined benefit pension plans. As pointed out by the sponsor of this bill, MP Marilyn Gladu:

. . . if a company cannot restore the solvency of its fund after a period of five years, it should indeed pay a higher interest rate to obtain credit, because it really does present a higher risk.

The third argument, colleagues, is that giving super priority to pension plan assets could end up making it harder for insolvent companies to restructure and avoid bankruptcy. Quite frankly, as noted again by Mr. Book in his testimony:

This is simply not the case. Companies have the financial ability to fund pension requirements, but instead choose to use their cash for bonuses to corporate executives, dividends and share buybacks. Corporations do not have the legal requirement to protect pensions, so they don’t.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Mr. Michael Powell, President of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, this same concern was raised in 2005, when the Wage Earner Protection Program Act was passed. This WEPP Act gave super priority to unpaid wages, unpaid expenses and a few other things. Mr. Powell noted at the time that the Insolvency Institute of Canada was raising the very same warning, saying that giving super priority status to wages could create:

. . . a significant negative impact on Canadian productivity and employment since businesses . . . will have a tougher time getting financing, and their costs could rise dramatically.

As Mr. Powell pointed out, it never happened. He noted that:

. . . nobody has provided any data that anything bad happened after WEPP. If it was that draconian, if the financial armageddon was going to occur, we should have data. These are things that people monitor.

Colleagues, the question could be asked: “Why couldn’t this legislation also include protection for severance and termination obligations?” It’s a fair question. In principle, it makes sense. Why would we protect wages and pensions but not severance? In fact, this amendment was proposed in committee, and the bill’s sponsor, MP Marilyn Gladu, fully supported it. However, the amendment was challenged and ruled out of scope by the Speaker of the other place. Colleagues, if we include it here, it will suffer the same fate when returned for review.

I look forward to hearing from stakeholders on all sides of these issues at committee. It is important that we do our due diligence, as I said. As we do, it is essential that we do not lose sight of the goal of the legislation before us, which is to find a way to protect the pensions of workers who, after working and contributing to a pension, are faced with the news that a company holding their pension assets has gone bankrupt, and they’re at the back of the line, behind all other creditors and executives.

As stated at committee by Bill VanGorder, the COO of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons:

Most older Canadians have fixed incomes but face rising costs, growing inflation, an unpredictable economy and retirement savings that suffer as a result. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) believes it is vital that the Federal Government protect pensioners by giving them “priority” status . . . . This proposal would go a long way in making that happen.

Colleagues, I concur with Mr. VanGorder. This legislation makes the necessary changes which will significantly advance protection for the pension plans of hard-working Canadians who have literally paid their dues.

In The Hill Times article last week, Michael Powell of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners summed it up this way:

Under current insolvency law, banks eat first. When the assets of a failed company are divided as secured creditors, banks receive the first payouts.

Actually, colleagues, governments receive the first payouts, but he said, “banks receive the first payouts.” He went on to say:

Pensioners have no rights or status in insolvency. Super priority means that pensioners would move nearer to the front of the line, improving their likelihood of receiving their full pension.

The passage of this landmark bill marks the closest Canadian pensioners have come to meaningful pension protection.

Colleagues, I look forward to examining the bill in greater detail at committee and welcome your support in moving it forward.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator Jaffer, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

Hon. Robert Black, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Wednesday, December 14, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 13, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT BLACK

Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Oh, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)

(At 5:23 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would Senator Wells agree to take another question?

Senator Wells: Yes.

[English]