Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on December 9, 2021, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning court fees.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 22, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Bernard, concerning the Anti-Racism Secretariat.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 31, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning transparency of trials.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 31, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning transparency of trials.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 26, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Housakos, concerning ArriveCAN.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 1, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, concerning the public inquiry into the Portapique shooting.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 7, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Plett, concerning missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on December 9, 2021)

The Parole Board of Canada is aware of the concern with respect to costs in the Federal Court. These costs have not been collected, and the Parole Board of Canada is considering its position.

The litigation in this matter is ongoing in the Federal Court of Appeal and the Parole Board of Canada is not seeking its costs in the related appeals.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Wanda Thomas Bernard on March 22, 2022)

The Black Entrepreneurship Program is a total investment of $265M over four years (starting in 2020-21), of which $130M is an investment from the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) and the remaining $135M is the Government’s contribution.

Of the government’s $135 million contribution, $30 million has been earmarked to initiate the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund (BELF). As of March 25, 2022, $20M (of the $30M earmarked for BELF) has been disbursed to the Federation of African Canadian Economics (FACE), and more than $10 million of that has been loaned to black-owned businesses across Canada. FACE are the administrators of BELF in partnership with BDC. FACE has autonomy over the management of the loan fund and any questions about the BELF’s beneficiaries should be directed to them.

On December 13, 2021, the Government awarded $5M to Carleton University Sprott School of Business and Dream Legacy Foundation to establish the Black Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (BEKH). The governance structure of BEKH includes a Lead Hub and Regional Hubs ensuring coverage across Canada.

The National Ecosystem Fund, delivered by the regional development agencies, have awarded funding to 40 organizations across the country which represents nearly $95M. The List of Ecosystem Fund Recipients identifies recipients by province.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on March 31, 2022)

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada cannot comment further given the Court of Appeal of Quebec’s decision ordering the redaction of any information that may tend to identify a confidential informer. The Court of Appeal is currently being asked to reconsider its decision on that question. As such, it would be inappropriate and premature at this time to provide any further comments about this case.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on March 31, 2022)

The Court of Appeal of Quebec has issued an order preventing the public disclosure of certain information that would tend to identify confidential police sources. In doing so, the Court attempted to balance well-established legal principles concerning open court and those applying to the protection of that kind of confidential information. Several applications have already been filed at the Court of Appeal of Quebec to reconsider its decision concerning what information can be publicly disclosed. We will follow these proceedings. In the meanwhile, we will respect the Court’s current order.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Leo Housakos on April 26, 2022)

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is responsible for ArriveCAN compliance decisions while the CBSA works to implement and operationalize the measures put in place by PHAC.

ArriveCAN collects contact, health and travel information to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to expedite processing at the border. It significantly reduces the time Border Services Officers (BSO) spend questioning travellers about public health obligations and decreases processing time at ports of entry by identifying vaccination status, which would otherwise have to be done manually.

Travellers without smartphones or mobile data can submit their information online through any computing device. Travellers can ask another person for assistance (a friend or relative) to submit their information if they are unable to use ArriveCAN. They do not need to be travelling together. Once they have submitted the travellers’ information, they should print the receipt page or take a screenshot and provide it to the traveller to show the BSO. If necessary and operationally feasible, BSOs facilitate the process of travellers’ digital ArriveCAN submissions by providing the option to complete upon arrival.

Canadian citizens, permanent residents and those registered under the Indian Act cannot be refused entry for failing to complete ArriveCAN.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on June 1, 2022)

Canada does not direct the Mass Casualty Commission (Commission). Decisions related to witness accommodation requests lie solely with the Commission.

On May 24, 2022, the Commission issued decisions related to six requests, from the National Police Federation and Attorney General of Canada, for accommodations for subpoenaed witnesses. Witness accommodation requests are almost always based on physical or psychological health needs. One request was not granted, two witnesses participated on a panel, one witness participated via Zoom, and two witnesses participated via closed Zoom sessions with Participant questions posed by Commission counsel. Therefore, participants, including victims’ families, had the opportunity to have their questions answered. Further questions on accommodations should be directed to the Commission.

The Commission is making mental health services available to individuals who may need access to counselling or other services, including by establishing a mental health unit to ensure support is available. Additionally, Nova Scotia has a Victim Services Unit, for which costs related to the inquiry are shared between the province and Canada. The Commission will continue to proceed with a trauma-informed response.

Questions on the application of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to the inquiry should be directed to the Commission.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Donald Neil Plett on June 7, 2022)

The Government of Canada is committed to working with other jurisdictions to explore collaborative methods for strengthening investigations and sharing best practices. Following the release of the National Inquiry’s Interim Report, the federal government invested $9.6 million over five years to create the National Office of Investigative Standards and Practices (NOISP) within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The NOISP acts as an internal centre of expertise, coordination and national oversight for high profile and major case investigations. A significant proportion of the NOISP’s work focuses on cases involving Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people and other vulnerable populations who are overrepresented as victims of crime in RCMP jurisdictions. In particular, the NOISP has funded two positions dedicated to reviewing historical and new investigations. These members are also building partnerships with Indigenous communities to improve communication in the case of homicide investigations and are informing Major Crime Unit members on positive practices when working in Indigenous communities.

The RCMP has taken measures to improve policies and procedures for missing person and sudden death investigations to improve quality, oversight and communication with families. Further policy changes affecting investigative practices include developing training on trauma-informed approaches and expanding training on human trafficking to include Indigenous awareness.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bovey, for the second reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: I have a question for you.

You support a pilot project like the one proposed by Senator Eggleton, which I voted for at the time. It was very focused.

I would like your thoughts on this. Bill S-233 is about developing a framework to implement basic income for all Canadians 18 and over. Don’t you think that has financial implications? Does this kind of bill not necessarily push us to really study the issue? The indirect financial implications alone may disallow this bill because, in law, you can’t do indirectly what you can’t do directly, and this bill is about developing a framework.

[English]

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Inquiry withdrawn.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the adoption of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada, with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on June 20, 2022.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, I would like to offer a modest intervention on Bill S-233. I support sending Bill S-233 to committee as soon as possible so we can have an informed discussion about the complex issues around basic income. Whether you support a basic income or not, I think it is fair to say that there is growing interest in the idea. Earlier this month, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities voted in favour of a resolution calling on the federal government to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

However, the problem with the public debate — and here I am setting aside the conspiratorial end of basic income critics — is that advocates and opponents are often debating different versions of basic income and hence talking past each other. If a Senate committee can clarify the issues and shed light on the varieties of basic income proposals, that will be a positive contribution on an important public policy issue regardless of whether this bill is adopted. To this extent, my speech is about what I think the most important issues are and what I would suggest are some of the questions that a committee should be asking.

The fundamental question is this: What is a basic income for? Most advocates of basic income, including many senators, argue that it is to eliminate poverty. Poverty is an income-based measure and as such can be solved, in theory, by augmenting the incomes of those who fall below a defined cut-off level. That is why so many anti-poverty activists support basic income. The question is how to identify people whose incomes are below the poverty line and to ensure that the income supplemented to those individuals is provided on a timely basis.

There are basically two approaches. The first is to provide a basic income to everyone and then claw back a percentage when reported incomes exceed the cut-off. The second is to target income supplements to vulnerable groups with varying conditions attached. The former is what might be called a classical approach to basic income, since it is provided to everyone, whereas the latter might be called targeted basic income, or social assistance, and it’s roughly the way the system currently works.

If our goal is poverty alleviation, which approach works better? Well, for any given level of poverty reduction, the answer is the latter — the targeted approach — for the obvious reason that it is directed at only the people who are below the poverty line and not “wasted,” if you will, on those who are not poor. This is not to say that targeted social assistance, which is the status quo, has eliminated poverty; it hasn’t. But if we are to pour substantial new resources into poverty alleviation and have a choice between the two approaches, based on the criteria of efficiency, the targeted social assistance approach wins, hands down. That is the conclusion reached by the expert panel commissioned by the B.C. government in 2018, which released its study in 2020. They rejected basic income in favour of expanding targeted income supplements and social programs.

Basic income advocates will counter that the solution to the wastefulness of a basic income is to claw back any income earned above the cut-off. This is technically known as the benefit reduction rate. The higher the benefit reduction rate, the more efficient the basic income in targeting people under the poverty line. A very high benefit reduction rate, however, runs counter to one of the key principles behind the basic income, which is to not disincentivize people from earning additional income. There is a trade-off between the efficiency of a basic income program and the disincentive effects of clawbacks.

To underscore the point of how inefficient a basic income program would be as a remedy for poverty per se, the B.C. panel authors created an online interactive table where you can choose your preferred basic income amount and your preferred benefit reduction rate to generate a scenario showing the cost of the program and its impact on poverty reduction. Colleagues, if you like spreadsheets, you can have hours of fun on this one. What you will find is that the lower the benefit reduction rate, the more expensive the program and the less efficient it will be in reducing poverty. For example, a basic income of $20,000 for an individual in B.C. with zero benefit reduction would cost $51 billion and would reduce poverty incidence by about 7,000 people per billion dollars. Compare that with the cost of $11 billion for a reduction of 32,000 people in poverty per billion dollars at the benefit reduction rate of 75%.

Opponents of a basic income, the B.C. panel included, argue that a maximalist approach to basic income, one with little or no benefit reduction, is too costly, especially if a province were to attempt basic income on its own. This objection, however, is addressed in a new study from the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, which concludes that a federally funded basic income could be both effective and affordable, which is a finding that was already foreshadowed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in a report a couple of years ago. According to the Calgary authors, a federal program could create more fiscal capacity for the provinces to provide other cash and in-kind social supports, allowing for greater provincial benefit targeting.

I support the principle that proposed solutions to policy problems should be cost-effective. That is different from saying that they should not be costly. Solving poverty could well be a very costly public investment, but if our goal is the eradication of poverty, and it is costly to do so, so be it. But we should make every effort to find the most cost-efficient solution for the problem at hand.

This is why I think the case for basic income cannot be based solely on poverty alleviation. If near-term poverty eradication is the only objective, I agree with the B.C. number crunchers that targeted programs focused, for example, on youth aging out of care, the disabled, or single parents with or without children are likely a better approach. But if the policy objective is broader, and it includes social and economic indicators such as health care, human capital, the criminal justice system, volunteering, creative activities and entrepreneurship, the calculus of a basic income program could be much more favourable.

The B.C. panel ruled out these second-order benefits because they focused their study narrowly on poverty alleviation. They did not give any serious consideration to the broader benefits of basic income and whether these benefits might offset the considerable cost of a basic income program with a low benefit reduction rate.

The B.C. panel also offers a philosophical argument against basic income, which our colleague Senator Bellemare has also advanced. It is premised on the primal importance — even duty — of paid work and on a strict view of reciprocity in social relations. This normative framework is associated with the writings of John Rawls and Elizabeth Anderson on the meaning of a just society. It is a view of the world which values what might be called “participation income” over “basic income,” and it assumes the economy offers dignified participation opportunities along the lines of what politicians like to call “decent, middle-class jobs.”

The reality is that there are a lot of non-decent jobs in our market economy that challenge the assumption of a just society. The idea of participation income also values formal paid jobs over non-formal, unpaid forms of work that may, in fact, offer greater personal reward and social good, which contribute to a more just society.

The blinkers used in the B.C. report effectively turned a study that was supposed to be about the feasibility of a basic income in B.C. into one that was about designing a better income transfer scheme without using basic income.

Insofar as the framework chosen for their study is concerned, the report is correct in its conclusion that an untargeted poverty reduction program, such as basic income, would be less efficient than a targeted program. That is why I fear that any campaign for basic income that is focused solely on poverty alleviation will be ruled out on efficiency grounds and will not make much headway intellectually or politically.

When I last spoke about basic income in this chamber, it was on a motion introduced by former senator Art Eggleton, in which he proposed basic income pilot projects led by the federal government working with the provinces. I argued at the time that the foundational case for basic income is personal autonomy and the expansion of collective freedoms.

I believe that freedom is not so much about the right to do as one chooses, but more about having the capability to do so. Freedom is an end in itself and therefore an important social value, but it is also a means for individuals to work toward other ends, such as a fulfilling career, acquiring goods and services or artistic pursuits.

A guaranteed basic income can be an important plank in advancing an individual’s freedom in both a constitutive as well as an instrumental sense. Providing the means for individuals to address their basic needs is a way of giving them the freedom to develop and expand their capabilities for even greater freedom.

At heart, basic income represents an evolution of the social safety net that values the rights of individuals to exercise their freedoms without stigma. This may sound a bit like a libertarian creed, but the idea is also rooted in egalitarianism and in the belief that there is a collective responsibility for empowering individuals to exercise their freedoms.

One obvious way in which to test basic income is to conduct pilot projects and to measure not just the impact on poverty alleviation, but also on other social indicators such as health care, educational attainment, crime and volunteering. A pilot project could provide answers to these very worldly questions as well as to broader philosophical objections that have led some to rule out basic income.

For example, the hypothesis that society would reject unconditional transfers because they violate the work obligations and social reciprocity necessary for a just society is just that — it’s a hypothesis. The B.C. panel ruled out the need for a pilot project in part because they took the hypothesis as a given. My own preference is to look to the empirics rather than relying on political theory. That is why I support more research on basic income and especially pilot projects along the lines of what has been proposed for Prince Edward Island. In fact, I would support a flowering of pilot projects across the country, including in my home province of British Columbia, that could be used to compare with each other.

Colleagues, there are still many unanswered questions about basic income and its efficacy as a new form of social safety net for Canadians, but I think we would do well to study the issue further and this bill allows us an opportunity to do so. Let’s send it to committee. Thank you.

Senator Woo: I support sending the bill to committee precisely to ask some of those questions in light of the growing interest publicly in the concept and in the hope that it will clarify a pathway for experiments in basic income that might, in fact, be fiscally feasible.

I don’t know that I support the bill as law. In any case, my understanding of the bill is not that it seeks to implement basic income, but to simply develop a national framework for basic income. It’s not clear to me that violates the prohibitions on the Senate proposing certain bills, but that is a question that we will all be faced with, I hope, at the end of a study that examines all of the questions that we should consider in deciding if it should go forward.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Francis, seconded by the Honourable Senator Klyne:

That the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, tabled in the Senate on Wednesday, June 22, 2022, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Crown‑Indigenous Relations being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. First and foremost, colleagues, our thoughts are with the people of Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec who are still struggling with the devastating aftermath of the storm, including, of course, the families who have lost loved ones, homes and businesses.

The government has been clear from the beginning that it is present to provide all the help that is required. The Prime Minister is currently on-site, as we know.

I am advised that, following requests from provincial governments, the Canadian Armed Forces are there and have been deployed in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and P.E.I. to assist. The government, as you know, is matching donations to the Canadian Red Cross and is in regular contact with its counterparts to make sure that all the help that is required will be provided.

Senator Wells: Thank you for that, Senator Gold. I have a follow-up question.

I know you don’t know what next year’s budget will be, but would you please endeavour to request that the departments with typical infrastructure-funding programs — like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has small-craft harbours, and Transport Canada and others have other infrastructure budgets — ensure that the infrastructure is not just rebuilt but rebuilt better for the livelihoods of the people who depend upon it?

Senator Gold: I certainly will. This is going to be a priority for the country as a whole as we face what appears to be, clearly, the consequences of changing weather patterns and climate change. Our infrastructure has to become more resilient.

I will certainly make those inquiries with regard to your specific question.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, over these past few months we have seen many catastrophic, climate-related extreme weather events in Canada and abroad: our recent devastating experience with Hurricane Fiona in my home region of Atlantic Canada; the heat waves across Europe, Asia and Africa; the highly destructive flooding in Pakistan — all while Canadians await the release of our national climate adaptation strategy this fall.

Climate Proof Canada, a coalition led by the Insurance Bureau of Canada and includes members such as the Canadian Red Cross, the Business Council of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, has called upon the government to ensure that the national adaptation strategy provides an immediate, five-year implementation plan for safeguarding homes and other buildings protecting vulnerable communities and strengthening public infrastructure. The coalition is concerned that the government may be getting bogged down in long-term aspirations rather than dealing with the immediate threats of flooding, wildfires, high winds and extreme heat.

Senator Gold, could you tell us if the anticipated national adaptation plan will heed these concerns about Canada’s immediate climate adaptation need?

Hon. Éric Forest: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. First, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Amina Gerba, for her generosity in allowing us to meaningfully commemorate the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Over the weekend, the temporary EI measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic came to an end. For seasonal workers in the lower St. Lawrence and north shore regions, this change means that they will have to work 700 hours instead of 400 hours to qualify for the same 14 weeks of benefits. What this really means is that some families will soon be without income for several weeks, in what’s referred to as the black hole, the period between the time EI benefits run out and the active season starts again in sectors such as tourism and fisheries. We’ve known for decades that the EI system does not reflect the needs of seasonal workers. The government acknowledged this fact when it announced it would reform the system, but it has yet to take action.

Why doesn’t the government extend the temporary EI measures for workers in the lower St. Lawrence and north shore regions until the system is reformed?

Senator Forest: Despite the low unemployment rate and the labour shortage in some sectors, the fact remains that certain regions and industries are known for the seasonal nature of their activities. For example, according to Action-Chômage Côte-Nord, 50% of jobs available on the upper and lower north shores are seasonal because of the nature of local economic activity. Does the government understand that by returning to the old EI rules, some seasonal workers, many of whom are mothers and fathers with children, will have no income for two months? What is it going to do to save these families from the EI black hole?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, and thank you for noting how important this program is for the well-being of workers and their families. The government is aware of the issue. As I just said, it is working on modernizing the EI system to ensure that it is not only available to those who need it, but equitable for all sectors of our economy.

[English]

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, this question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, approaching the September 30 National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Canadians are increasingly aware of the many actions needed to reach a state of reconciliation. Today I ask about the funding and policies to assist in repatriation of Indigenous artifacts and spiritual pieces from Canada and other nations to their home Indigenous communities.

Some museums have done this for several years. Some have transparent policies, and others have removed their policies from their websites. Years ago, the federal government provided funding to Alert Bay’s U’mista Cultural Centre and repatriated many magnificent large coppers that had been taken by the federal government during potlatches. That centre opened in 1980 and is amazing.

What programs does the Department of Canadian Heritage and/or the various Indigenous portfolios currently have to assist in ensuring policies and funding for temperature-controlled and secure facilities for repatriating Indigenous cultural treasures?

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, this past weekend, Atlantic Canadians’ lives were immeasurably impacted by Hurricane Fiona. The massive storm left a path of devastation, washing away homes and livelihoods. At the peak of the storm, nearly 500,000 Atlantic Canadians were left without power. In its wake, over 280,000 are still without power as the Canadian Armed Forces, emergency crews, utility workers, first responders and citizen volunteers work to clear debris and rebuild.

The images from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec’s North Shore and my province of Newfoundland and Labrador are a sombre reminder that things can quickly change and strong storms can have a devastating impact. This drives home the critical importance of the global consensus on the effects of climate change.

Not only have many Atlantic Canadians lost their homes — more than 100 homes were destroyed in southwest Newfoundland — at least three people lost their lives: an individual from Prince Edward Island, a 73-year-old woman from Port aux Basques and an 81-year-old gentleman from Lower Prospect, Nova Scotia. I am certain that all our colleagues and I give our deepest condolences to the families and friends who have tragically lost their loved ones.

I have reached out to Mayor Button of Channel-Port aux Basques, as well as other MHAs and local officials, and I will be in the region later this week. Crews are making progress restoring power and rebuilding. This will be a long, ongoing Canadian effort.

Although Hurricane Fiona is the most recent, Atlantic Canada has had a long history of storms. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel killed 81 Atlantic Canadians. In 1968, Hurricane Ginny had the highest sustained winds on record. In recent years, many of us remember Hurricane Igor, which devastated parts of Newfoundland in 2010. Hurricanes Juan and Dorian also had immense impacts on the rest of Eastern Canada.

Atlantic Canadians have proven resilient time and time again and, colleagues, this time will be no different.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, September 30 is National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, also known as Orange Shirt Day. This is not a time for celebration but rather a solemn occasion to remember, honour and mourn the lives lost and forever changed by residential schools and other forms of state violence that harmed and continue to harm Indigenous people.

The day also serves as an opportunity to meaningfully listen, learn and support survivors, as well as our families and communities.

It is not enough to wear an orange shirt. Canadians must gain a deeper understanding of our shared history and how they can contribute to a better future.

Yesterday, in advance of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, the Committee on Indigenous Peoples heard from five remarkable Indigenous youth: Dr. Meghan Beals, Gabrielle Fayant, Taylor Behn-Tsakoza, Jama Maxie and Tyrone Sock. If you were unable to participate in this meeting, I strongly encourage you to watch the recording later this week.

The testimony we heard was profoundly moving and inspiring. If we want to make progress towards truth and reconciliation, Indigenous youth must remain at the forefront. As the fastest growing population in Canada, it is our responsibility and obligation to help them not just survive, but be healthy, safe and thriving. We have a lot of work to make this vision a reality and no more time to waste.

Honourable colleagues, before I conclude I want to take a moment to ask that you keep Epekwitnewaq, Islanders as well as the rest of Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec in your thoughts and prayers. The devastation in the region due to Hurricane Fiona is simply indescribable. It will take weeks, if not months, to get back to a sense of normalcy. Wela’lin, thank you.

Hon. Robert Black, pursuant to notice of September 22, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, no later than November 10, 2022, an interim report relating to its study on issues relating to agriculture and forestry generally, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.