Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country, and the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination faced by Canadians of Asian descent.

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

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That, given reports of human rights abuses and attacks on civilians in Ukraine and other parts of the world by the Russian-supported Wagner Group, the Senate call upon the government to immediately designate the Wagner Group as a terrorist entity.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 6:10 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Appendix—Senators List

Hon. René Cormier: Would Senator Richards take a question?

[English]

Senator Richards: Sure.

Senator Cormier: We’re from the same province, right? I will speak in French. I don’t know if this is a sign of the differences between us.

[Translation]

I’d like to better understand your last argument. You’re familiar, as I am, with the New Brunswick artists who have big international careers, like Lisa LeBlanc, Les Hay Babies and David Myles. All these artists received public money, which helped them develop their art and ensure that, today, they can showcase their art anywhere in the world. What I understand from your last argument regarding this issue is that this aspect isn’t necessary for art to develop in Canada.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Housakos, do you have further questions?

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne, are you asking for five more minutes?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, as you know, on Saturday, January 7, 2023, we lost a long-time member of the Senate family. Al Fleming had worked with the Senate since 2009 and was a well-known and well-liked member of our team, known particularly for his work supporting the Indigenous Peoples Committee. I know that you will join me in expressing our heartfelt condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues upon their loss. Al will be greatly missed, and our thoughts are with them all.

I would invite honourable senators to join me in a minute of silence in honour of Al.

(Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I would like to read a statement that was made by the Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday:

The Chair wishes to inform the House of an administrative error that occurred with regard to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Members may recall that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage made a series of amendments to the bill, which were presented to the House in the committee’s fourth report on December 9, 2022. The committee also ordered that the bill, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

The House concurred in the bill, as amended, at report stage on December 13, 2022, and adopted the bill at third reading the following day.

Following passage at third reading, as per the usual practice, House officials prepared a parchment version of the bill, which was transmitted to the Senate. Due to an administrative error in the committee’s report, which was also reflected in the version of the bill that was reprinted for the use of the House at report stage, the report and the bill both included a subamendment, adding a new clause 27(1.1) to the bill, which had been negatived by the committee and should not have appeared in the bill.

Given the tight timelines between the presentation of the report and consideration of the bill at third reading, the error went unnoticed before the bill was passed. Nonetheless, the decision taken by the committee was clear, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The Chair has no reason to believe that members were misinformed when they adopted the bill.

This error was nothing more than administrative in nature. The proceedings which took place in this House and the decisions made by the House with respect to Bill C-18 remain entirely valid. The records of the House relating to this bill are complete and accurate. However, the documents relating to Bill C-18 that were sent to the Senate included an error and were not an accurate reflection of the House’s intentions.

Similar situations have been addressed by my predecessors, such as in a ruling on April 12, 2017, found at page 10486 of Debates. Guided by this precedent and others, similar steps have been taken to address the current case.

Once the error was detected, House officials immediately communicated with their counterparts in the Senate to inform them of the situation. The Chair then instructed House officials to take all the necessary steps to correct the error in both the committee’s report and the bill itself, and to ensure that the other place has a corrected copy of Bill C-18. A revised version of the bill will be transmitted to the Senate as per the usual administrative process.

Furthermore, the Chair has asked that a rectified “as passed by the House of Commons” version of the bill be printed and that the fourth report of the committee be corrected accordingly.

In light of this situation, the Senate will be in a position to make its own determination as to how it will proceed with Bill C-18.

I thank all members for their attention.

Honourable senators, as the Speaker of the other place noted in his statement, we have had to deal with such errors before.

The defective version of Bill C-18 was given first reading in December. Debate at second reading has not yet started. We cannot now bring the corrected version of the bill before the Senate until proceedings on the previous version have been declared null and void. That would essentially clear the way for the corrected bill.

As explained at page 131 of Senate Procedure in Practice, in cases where a bill has not yet received second reading, a motion to declare proceedings null and void requires either one day’s notice, or it can be moved immediately if there is leave.

Since the Senate has only just been advised of this situation, I would invite honourable senators to reflect on the best approach in dealing with this unfortunate matter.

(1440)

[English]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, senator. The question is on the activities.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Please, if he will accept one.

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Richards’ time has expired. Do you want to ask a question, Senator Omidvar?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Dawson’s time has expired. Senator Dawson, are you asking for five more minutes?

Senator Dawson: It has already been 45 minutes, but I will ask for another 5, yes.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-13(2), I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.