Hon. Lucie Moncion moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I am sure that you read this report religiously. For those who may have missed the opportunity, I would like to highlight some of the main points.

[English]

The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA, has carefully reviewed the Senate Administrative Rules in light of the creation of the new Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, or AOVS, and recommends a few non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules. Simply put, this report is about housekeeping to align the Senate Administrative Rules with the mandate and role of AOVS. It is therefore my pleasure to propose the adoption of the sixth report of CIBA.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, the sun hadn’t yet come up on September 30, 2021, when people started to gather at the Port Lands. If you were watching from a distance away, you would have seen something quietly momentous happening as the sun rose.

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne hosted city council, staff, the Cornwall Police Service and other local officials for a tobacco burn ceremony. We were about 40 people — most of us wearing orange, and all of us muted in the dawn light.

It is difficult for me to express the emotion of that morning. The gathering was one of promise. This historic meeting was a commitment that we were in this together, and that we wouldn’t let each other down as we set precedent as equal partners.

I want to tell you about the future of the Port Lands and its potential, but, first, the background.

[Translation]

The Port of Cornwall opened in 1967 and served as a space to unload raw materials, such as coal and cotton, and materials for the factories of such companies as Courtaulds and Domtar, the backbone of our local economy for many years.

[English]

In 1987, Transport Canada started operating the Cornwall port. By 2016, the divesting process had begun, and Akwesasne and Cornwall had signed an historic agreement to co-own 16 acres of land. This partnership was no accident. The federal government insisted on an equal partnership, committing to this divestment only if it was to both communities. Transport Canada endowed $5 million for the remediation of the property.

In 2020, two councils broke bread together for the first time in 10 years. As mayor, it was my top priority to bring our two communities closer, and I’m grateful for my friendship with Akwesasne Grand Chief Abram Benedict and for his continued leadership on this ambitious project.

By 2021, we had worked in partnership to demolish a derelict building and create a temporary green space that would invite folks from either side of the river to enjoy the Port Lands. We launched a public consultation to see how residents in both communities wanted to see the space grow. Not long after, I was appointed to the Senate and resigned as mayor. However, my interest in the success of the Port Lands has not wavered. There is a call for proposals now to bring engaging community events to the Port Lands this summer, and work is progressing on environmental assessments.

Yet, this past year has been challenging for progress at the Port Lands. We always knew that it would be hard, and that the solutions for forging ahead would require compromise. This will take time, work and money. Building friendships takes work. Educating communities about truth takes time. Developing a framework for this new partnership takes proper financing.

But the challenges inherent in the development of the Port Lands are also incredible opportunities — opportunities to build bonds of friendship among Cornwall and Akwesasne leaders and residents; opportunities to show the rest of Canada how shared economic development can take place; and opportunities to show the federal government how municipalities can be actors for change in truth and reconciliation.

[Translation]

This statement is in response to the inquiry launched by my friend, Senator Simons. Its objective is to draw the Senate’s attention to the challenges and opportunities of Canadian municipalities and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between our municipalities and the federal government.

[English]

I can’t think of a better and more relevant example than the Port Lands because all politics is local. Nothing has a bigger impact on the daily lives of Canadians than their municipality. If we want to move reconciliation forward in meaningful ways, municipalities must have a seat at the table. Municipalities are not the only ones looking for recognition. Indigenous communities need a seat at the table too.

I will tell you a story: Back in 2020, cruise ship passengers were quarantined at a conference centre in Cornwall — that is back when we were saying “coronavirus” and not “COVID-19.” The community felt blindsided. This was long before we understood what COVID-19 was, and residents wanted information and answers. After hosting a press conference, I met with an Indigenous leader and spoke about feeling disrespected by the federal government. And she responded, “Welcome to my world.”

In launching this inquiry, Senator Simons argued that municipalities urgently need fiscal and political resources to lead us to a more just, prosperous and creative future. Her inquiry has prompted statements from my distinguished colleagues.

[Translation]

Senator Éric Forest suggested that the federal-municipal relationship can evolve and that other changes are necessary.

Senator Omidvar showed how cities are ideally positioned to come up with innovative, local solutions to national and world problems.

[English]

Senator Cotter told us that our communities are the starting point for our identity. We take pride in where we come from. The health and prosperity of our towns and cities matter today more than ever.

Senator Sorensen, a former mayor too, spoke to the gap between what municipalities are expected to do and the funding they have access to in order to meet those needs.

[Translation]

Senator Ravalia pointed out the unique status of municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador and talked about the fight to support cities that are being crushed under heavy administrative and financial burdens.

Senator Cormier talked about something that is of interest to all of us, specifically the role that municipalities play in protecting and promoting our official languages.

[English]

I couldn’t agree more with them. Municipalities are often small, under-resourced and occupied by daily tasks, such as removing snow, scheduling ice times, delivering transit services and managing goose poop along the St. Lawrence River — you wouldn’t believe how much time I spent as mayor talking about goose poop and about a million other issues. Yet, all day, every day, municipalities are leaders, and they should be recognized, resourced and supported as such.

What Cornwall and Akwesasne are attempting to do together at the Port Lands is unheard of in Canada. Co-ownership by a First Nation and a municipality of strategic waterfront property is a unique approach that should bring economic and social benefits to both communities. During consultations, the public’s imagination ran wild, and it was clear that they wanted to make the space their own. They wanted an accessible area that included boardwalks and green spaces, as well as an opportunity for artists and vendors to bring the community together. There was a strong interest in connections with the water, fishing, boating, swimming, canoeing, a pier, a dock and another marina. Most agreed that the project was extremely important to both Cornwall and Akwesasne. They said that the Port Lands project could add vibrancy to our area, bring in tourists and offer expanded public access to the waterfront.

There is so much work to do — not only to bring residents’ vision to life, but also to finish developing how this partnership will work on a day-to-day basis. Tasks like putting up a sign, coordinating tax payments and completing an environmental assessment can be challenging. Luckily, Akwesasne and Cornwall are up to the challenge. In divesting the Port Lands to these communities, the federal government entrusted us with a huge responsibility. It was as though they were saying to us, “So, let’s see what you can do.”

I’m proud that Akwesasne and Cornwall were trusted to take a huge step in economic development and, more importantly, in reconciliation. I hope that together they lay the groundwork for more municipalities to be able to take the lead.

[Translation]

If I could redefine the relationship between the municipalities and the federal government, if I could wave my magic wand, I would make two wishes. First, I would wish that Canada would trust its municipalities to take big steps in areas such as climate change, immigration, social issues and especially reconciliation. Second, I would wish that Canada would provide the municipalities with adequate resources and give them opportunities like the ones I described today to meet the objective of establishing relationships and a dialogue with Indigenous communities.

[English]

Second, it’s important that Canada provides support when things get difficult — because they always do. Municipalities want to be treated as equal partners, consulted and considered during strategic planning, implementation and beyond. Municipalities want communication — talk to them. Give them a seat at the table, and you may be surprised by their contributions.

Thank you. Nia:wen.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Senator Simons’s inquiry that calls on our chamber to explore the challenges and opportunities that municipalities face, as well as the importance of understanding and redefining the relationship between Canada’s municipalities and our federal government. I would also like to thank my honourable colleague for introducing this very important inquiry. Municipalities play a critical role in each and every one of our lives. If there is one thing I know, it’s rural. I have spent my life in and around rural communities, advocating for rural residents. With that being said, I hope to highlight the role of rural municipalities, the unique challenges and opportunities they face and the importance of continued federal support for all things rural today.

As many of you know, I’m a lifelong resident of Fergus, Ontario. It’s where my ancestors settled in 1834, and it’s where I continue to reside today. Fergus is a rural community most famous for its scenic river views, waterfalls, limestone gorge and the annual Fergus Scottish Festival.

Now, I’ll share a little history lesson: Fergus has deep Scottish roots dating back to 1833 when settlers called it “Little Falls” because of its scenic waterfalls.

In 1858, with a population of 1,000, the town was incorporated and renamed Fergus in honour of one of its Scottish founders, Adam Fergusson. While you may be wondering why I wanted to share this information with you today, I believe it’s important to show that the history of our rural communities is woven into the history of our country as many of them predated Confederation. Unfortunately, municipalities that encompass rural Canada are sometimes forgotten when governments are developing policies that impact Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As a senator, I have met with countless community leaders across rural Canada to learn more about the concerns and needs of their communities. The rural residents and leaders that I have met are always one thing, regardless of where they live or work: They are consistently clear in what their communities need to prosper and thrive. Typically, they need support from their province and the federal government to help achieve their goals and realize projects related to infrastructure, community development and access to services. Their stories and ideas have both inspired and informed how I approach issues here in the Red Chamber.

Rural communities have their own unique set of challenges and opportunities, and should be treated as such. While in many areas rural population growth has slowed, these communities still play a critical role in our economy providing food, fresh water, recreation and resources for those living within and beyond their boundaries. They all have a story to tell, and I am hopeful that more will be done to bridge the rural-urban divide in the years to come.

While our community histories are important for understanding those who live there, it is also important to take a step back and reflect on the role of the municipalities’ governance that helps build and develop these rural regions. Each municipality — large and small, rural and urban — has a governing body.

Our local governments play an integral role in the everyday lives of their residents. From waste disposal and public transit to fire services, policing, community centres and libraries, municipal governments are responsible for it all.

Fergus is located within Centre Wellington, a township within Wellington County. As such, Fergus is supported by both the Centre Wellington Council and the Wellington County Council. Both councils, along with every municipal government from coast to coast to coast, provide residents with the support they need to live, work and play in their communities.

I am proud to have served as the Ward 5 representative on Wellington County Council before being appointed to the Senate. It gave me the opportunity to really understand how municipalities operate and the important ways in which it affects each and every one of us.

I’d like to take this time to acknowledge the good work of both Centre Wellington and Wellington County Councils, and congratulate those who were elected in last autumn’s municipal elections. I look forward to seeing what can be achieved over the course of this term and I extend my very best wishes to all councillors in supporting their communities.

Today, municipal governments in rural and urban communities play a complex role in the lives of their residents. The environments in which they operate have become much more complex and demanding. With that comes more complex challenges they must face. In the case of rural communities, many face challenges they cannot afford to address alone.

At this time, I’d like to acknowledge the Association of Municipalities Ontario, or AMO, and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, or ROMA, for their efforts to support municipalities across Ontario and, in turn, help to strengthen and enhance their efforts to support their residents.

AMO works to make municipal governments stronger and more effective. Through their organization, Ontario’s 444 municipalities, rural and urban, work together to achieve shared goals and meet common challenges.

I believe that our municipalities benefit immeasurably from the support of these organizations, as well as others in Ontario and across Canada. It is clear that organizations like AMO and ROMA, or the many other wonderful organizations that my colleagues have mentioned in their speeches, provide immeasurable value to communities across this country.

Late last year, we welcomed the Minister of Rural Economic Development in this chamber for Ministerial Question Period. We heard, through a number of questions, about a wide array of challenges that rural Canadians face and opportunities for the federal government to provide support, including through access to reliable broadband, developing and enhancing rural transportation, increasing access to health services, immigration programs, housing and community building, among many others.

In order to better support rural municipalities, I call on this chamber and the federal government to adopt a rural lens when exploring the challenges and opportunities that municipalities face.

Aging infrastructure, competing priorities and access to critical services are just a few challenges that rural municipalities face. However, they simply cannot address these challenges alone. For example, in my community of Centre Wellington, there are 113 bridges, three quarters of which are in need or near need of replacing. I am also hopeful that this inquiry encourages the federal government to re-evaluate and redefine its relationship with municipalities.

It is clear that both rural and urban municipalities require long-term financial and policy-driven support that will encourage long-lasting, positive changes.

The Canada Community-Building Fund, or the former Gas Tax Fund, provides some support to some municipalities. It is clear that more support is needed, though, especially for those underserved communities.

Another support for rural Ontario, the Rural Ontario Institute, or ROI, is a charitable not-for-profit that delivers programs that develops strong leaders who are critical voices around opportunities and key issues facing rural and northern Ontario. This organization is close to my heart, as I was previously the chief executive director and I know just how hard their team works to support rural communities across the province.

I would also like to take a few minutes to highlight an initiative by the University of Guelph: the People’s Archive of Rural Ontario, also known as PARO. PARO has done an amazing job of capturing the resilience and revitalization of rural Ontario through the many stories of communities, individuals and experiences pulled together in one place. If you have never heard of PARO, I invite you to visit their website at www.ruralontario.org to learn more.

I am proud of initiatives like this that are working to help to bridge the gap between rural and urban across Canada, but much more needs to be done.

Honourable colleagues, we cannot ignore that rural municipalities require the same attention as their urban counterparts. It is not enough to treat these communities as an afterthought. These municipalities are just as important as their urban counterparts, and I hope that this inquiry and future federal policies will reflect that.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Coyle, calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and the planet.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I rise again this evening to speak to Senator Coyle’s inquiry calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and our planet.

I am and always will be an “agvocate.” I’ve worked in agriculture for most of my life. It’s what I know best and will remain a primary focus as long as I serve Canadians in the Red Chamber.

Thus, my focus this evening will be agriculture’s role in the fight against climate change and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in support of Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero emissions.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in 2016, agriculture contributed about 17% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and that figure does not include an additional 7% to 14% caused by changes to land use. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 10% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production, excluding emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production.

These are significant numbers that we need to work to bring down. However, the onus cannot be placed solely on the farmers and the agricultural industry. They work hard to provide us with food, and most of them are good stewards of the land. And, as stewards of the land, farmers are and have been heavily invested in the fight against climate change and mitigating its impacts.

In many cases, our farmers face the brunt of climate change as Canadian agriculture suffers greatly from the effects. The frequency of extreme weather events has doubled since the 1990s. There has been an increase in floods, droughts, forest fires and storms that, unsurprisingly, interfere with harvests and disproportionately affect farms of all sizes.

While we must recognize that agriculture is part of the problem when it comes to climate change, the agricultural sector has demonstrated continuous improvement over many years while emissions from other sectors have risen over time. Agriculture truly has an amazing potential to be an important part of the climate change solution.

In fact, many farmers have already taken steps over the years to make their land a zero-till operation. This technique increases the retention of organic matter and nutrient cycling, which in turn increases carbon sequestration. Or they use perennial forage cover crops: There is more carbon in soils under perennial forage than annual crops, due in part to the former’s ability to better transfer carbon to the soil.

In fact, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture shared that farmers have kept their emissions steady for 20 years while almost doubling production, resulting in a decrease of greenhouse gas emission intensity by one half.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada also recognizes that agriculture helps slow climate change by storing carbon on agricultural lands. Storing — or sequestering — carbon in soil as organic matter, perennial vegetation and in trees reduces carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere.

We have also seen more technological advancements and innovation, including precision agriculture, the use of artificial intelligence and drones, that aim to decrease negative environmental impacts while also increasing profitability. We can also explore the possibility of scaling up technologies that we already know yield positive environmental outcomes.

There are many other innovative methods farmers employ in order to protect the environment without sacrificing profitability. An example of this is reintegrating livestock and crops on the farm and managed grazing, which can increase livestock’s nutrient consumption as well as increase soil organic matter. Additionally, vertical farming and urban farming have gained popularity in recent years.

These innovative ways of producing quality foods allow us to grow crops in cities without taking up much space.

We’re also seeing the use of hydroponics, meaning growing crops directly in nutrient-enriched water rather than soil.

The challenge for the agriculture and agri-food sector will be to mitigate their emissions while adapting to the impacts of climate change without jeopardizing food security.

To do so, Canadian agriculture producers and food processors will need the government’s and the public’s support in transitioning their operations to be more sustainable, and they will also require their support while they seek to change decades‑long practices and procedures.

Many organizations, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Pork Council, among others, have highlighted their dedication to supporting Canada’s fight against climate change over the past few years.

There are, of course, specific concerns to each sector regarding such issues as fair carbon pricing and other potential impacts to the overall sustainability of the industries, but overall, Canadian agriculture knows that they have a critical role to play as stewards of the land, which involves preserving ecosystems and resources, such as soil and water, as well as minimizing the environmental impacts of their activities through the implementation of beneficial agricultural practices.

At this time, I would like to pivot to the role of soil health and the environment and how it can and does affect climate change. I have risen on a number of occasions in this chamber and in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to speak about the importance of soil health.

As you may know, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is undertaking a new soil health study. As one of Canada’s most precious natural resources, soil conservation is a top-of-mind matter for the agriculture and agri‑food sector. The future of this country is intrinsically linked to the health of its ecosystem, which in itself hinges on soil health. In relation to this inquiry, soils across Canada play a critical role in carbon storage and can help deliver on Canada’s net-zero targets.

Healthy soil is arguably one of the most critical resources for the health of our natural and agri-ecosystems so that they can sustain food production, as well as the provision of ecosystem services. Knowing how to manage soils and understanding how soils function is key to their productivity and long-term sustainability.

Ensuring the health and conservation of Canadian land is a shared responsibility and will require collective leadership and sustained commitment and action by those directly responsible for managing soil across the country.

However, it is concerning to think that Ontario is losing almost 319 acres of farmland every day. At this time, I would like to acknowledge the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s Home Grown campaign. It is high time that we work together to protect local farms across this province and across Canada from being lost to urban sprawl. When we lose farmland, we lose the food that would have been cultivated there as well and the positive benefits of green space. That loss directly contributes to our ability to maintain a strong, stable food supply chain and contributes to the loss of ecosystems.

In March 2019, a report by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute entitled Clean Growth in Agriculture highlighted that:

Canadian agriculture . . . has steadily reduced its GHG emissions intensity as a result of dramatic disruptive technological changes. The efforts by governments, industry and academia continue to enable the industry to reduce its emissions . . . . becoming a net sink and providing solutions for the rest of the economy.

Soil health and climate change are intrinsically linked. On the one hand, soils are the second-largest carbon sink after our oceans, storing three times more carbon than is found in the atmosphere. On the other hand, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns can lead to soil erosion and fertility loss and a decline in soil’s ability to carry out basic ecosystem services.

We know that soil is not a renewable resource, and we don’t have much time left to save our soil — some experts say less than 50 years. Additionally, the cost of soil degradation in Canada is estimated at over $3 billion annually. That cost will only increase if nothing is done.

Improving soil health is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour across Canada’s varied landscape, but it is clear that healthy soil has an important role to play in our economy, environment and society, including helping our country reach our net-zero targets.

Honourable colleagues, we know that climate change is one of the biggest issues facing our world. It is clear that the agricultural industry understands and supports the call to action to fight climate change. However, we are asking a lot of our farmers. Many agricultural operations rely on decades-old practices that have only recently been deemed as environmentally detrimental. I am taking this opportunity to once again call upon the Canadian government to work collaboratively with our agricultural industry so that it can help make the journey to environmental sustainability a little easier for everyone.

I am confident that the agricultural industry, which has been innovating for as long as it has existed, will continue to rise to the challenge by helping in the fight against climate change. Of course, initiatives must come from all sectors and be a joint effort from all of us. In order to achieve our goals in greenhouse gas reduction, government and industry must work together.

I know that many of us in this chamber have children and grandchildren. Without working together to challenge and change the effects of climate change, I fear they will be living in a world entirely different than the one we know today.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide an agricultural perspective in the Senate. I thank my honourable colleague for bringing this inquiry forward. Thank you, meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

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

Hon. Diane Bellemare: I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-228.

It is about time that we acknowledged the ongoing social injustice that pensioners and future retirees with a defined benefit registered pension plan face when a company goes bankrupt.

Bill C-228 responds to this important concern, which is shared by all parliamentarians in the other chamber.

Nevertheless, our role in the Senate is to provide sober second thought. That is why, as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, I wish to share the witnesses’ thoughts on this bill with all those who did not participate in the committee’s study and to explain the reasons for my vote.

We received many emails about this bill, encouraging us to pass it quickly. You will understand, as I did, that this bill addresses the needs and uncertainty expressed by thousands, if not millions, of pensioners, because it will cover approximately 1.1 million employees in the private sector, in addition to an even larger number of already retired pensioners.

Some of the organizations and individuals who testified or submitted briefs told us not to act hastily. Today I will recap what we heard.

First, this bill will unfortunately not solve all the problems for current and future pensioners in the private sector. In other words, Bill C-228 is not a panacea or a cure-all.

Bill C-228 aims to prevent high-profile cases like the bankruptcy of Sears and other companies that pushed pensioners and older workers into poverty because they were relying on their company pension plans to provide for them in their old age. In some cases, their pensions were reduced by as much as 30%.

The approach chosen by the sponsor of this bill, MP Gladu, is to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in order to ensure that retirement pensions are given priority in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. I believe Senator Moncion explained the legal context of this bill quite well last week.

However, there is no guaranteed protection. Let’s be clear. This is not a retirement insurance plan like those that exist elsewhere in the world. Prioritizing pension funds during bankruptcy proceedings does not guarantee that the proceeds of a company’s liquidation will fully cover the promised pensions.

A company expecting to go bankrupt could act accordingly and make special payments to reduce the amount recoverable by the pension fund. Bill C-228 does not prevent such behaviour. The brief from the Council on Aging of Ottawa, which is made up of a variety of experts, points out the following:

An ethical and financial problem can be created if firms approaching bankruptcy make decisions to run down remaining assets by making special payments to executives, directors and shareholders. Any “special” or “unusual” payments to any of these groups should be recoverable by the pension fund if made within a specified time period before the application to be declared insolvent.

The bill does not provide for that option.

Furthermore, this bill will not produce any real results for four years. Many pension managers are happy about that and would have liked even more time. They talked about as much as 10 years in some briefs. Meanwhile, pensioners and workers will not be given priority in the case of a recession or bankruptcy until four years from now, once the bill is given Royal Assent. We need to plan for a four-year period before this comes into force.

Second, the scope of Bill C-228 would affect very few people in terms of the whole issue of registered pension plans in the private sector. Over 12 million Canadians are employed in the private sector and very few of them have defined benefit pension plans.

According to Statistics Canada data, the percentage of workers who are members of a registered pension plan has been steadily declining, from 46.1% in 1977 to 37.1% in 2019. This percentage has remained stable in the public sector, where 88% of public sector employees have a registered pension plan, but it has been steadily declining in the private sector, where it is now at 22.4%. Two in ten private sector employees have a registered pension plan.

The percentage of workers covered by a defined benefit registered pension plan has also declined significantly from 34.5% in 1999 to 24.7%, to the benefit of defined contribution plans, which have seen participation rates increase from 0.7% to 5.5% in 20 years.

The coverage rate of defined benefit registered pension plans such as our pension plan, such as the pension plan that Bill C-228 is trying to protect, has remained rather stable in the public sector. It has gone from 83% to 80% in 20 years. It has drastically decreased in the private sector, going from 21.3% to 8.8%. Fewer than one in ten private sector workers have a defined benefit registered pension plan. Bill C-228 seeks to protect these workers and pensioners covered by these plans.

Again, I would like to quote the brief submitted by the Council on Aging of Ottawa, which notes the following:

Canada’s retirement income system has been designed on the assumption that workplace pension plans will play an important role in helping people with moderate to high earnings maintain their standard of living in retirement. Success in meeting this objective has been modest and recent trends are worrisome.

Furthermore, as stated in the Canadian Federation of Pensioners’ brief, private sector defined benefit pension plans are practically in their death bed. The brief says the following:

The reality is that no one tracks data on private single employer defined benefit pension plans.

The Canadian Federation of Pensioners brief continues as follows:

What we do know, according to a 2022 survey of Canadian Federation of Pensioners member organizations, is that all our member plans are closed. This means new members are not allowed to be enrolled. In fact, most of these plans have been closed for up to twenty years. Our survey also showed that there are far more retired members than active members of these plans. For every 6 retirees, there is only one active (i.e. working) member.

Other briefs submitted by pension fund managers maintain that Bill C-228 could accelerate the disappearance of private employer-sponsored registered defined benefit pension plans. This already seems to have happened. They also submit that there are other ways to protect these pensions.

In summary, the pension issue is complex and, to add to the complexity, the financial stakes are enormous. I found the numbers quite startling. According to Statistics Canada, in 2019, total employer and employee contributions to a registered pension plan, or RPP, which is not a public plan, reached $71.1 billion. Also in 2019, the market value of all registered pension plan assets exceeded $2.1 trillion. That’s the value of Canada’s GDP. Of course, these issues raise many questions.

Why pass Bill C-228 so quickly when the issues are so complex and other solutions do exist?

Certain submissions from the Council on Aging of Ottawa, whose members are experts and former trade unionists, recommended that we take our time to propose sustainable solutions. They said, and I quote:

 . . . Bill C-228 creates a real dilemma. On the one side, the members of surviving defined benefit plans will have increased protection — but not complete protection — when the employer/sponsor of their defined benefit plan becomes insolvent. On the other hand, as Committee members have been warned, there is also reason to believe that Bill C-228 may contribute to the further decline in coverage of defined benefit pension plans.

Colleagues, you may be wondering whether this threat is a real possibility. The reasoning is simple. Once this bill comes into effect, the fact that pension benefits get priority would increase borrowing costs for businesses, since financial institutions would be at higher risk of not being able to recover their stake in the event of bankruptcy proceedings because they are no longer the priority. In short, if borrowing costs increase, companies will drop defined benefit plans in favour of defined contribution plans, as many are currently doing, because they do not present the same constraints for lenders.

Parliamentarians face a tough policy choice, according to the experts at the Council on Aging of Ottawa. Here is what they said:

This policy choice would be difficult under any circumstance. But the choice is especially difficult given that, as far as we are aware, there are no analytics in the public domain that would help in understanding the consequences of the choice. Important bills, like Bill C-228, should not reach the stage of passage that Bill C-228 has reached, without there being substantial analytical support in the public domain so the Members of Parliament (MPs) and the public at large can understand their consequences.

To make our decisions even more difficult, other witnesses warned that Bill C-228 could harm foreign investment as well as the restructuring of Canadian businesses. Those are some scenarios that were mentioned.

The Canadian Federation of Pensioners, which is in favour of Bill C-228, had this to say in its brief, and I quote:

Canada has 11 different pension jurisdictions, each with different requirements, rules, and enforcement standards. Superpriority under Bill C-228 is the best way to achieve fair and equitable protection for all defined benefit pensioners within Canada’s complex pension regulatory environment.

That is the backdrop against which all this is playing out, and the Association of Canadian Pension Management, which is very critical of this bill, noted that Canada would be the only OECD country, besides South Korea, to respond to the issue of what happens to registered pension plans in the event of bankruptcy proceedings by drafting a law that operates through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. So what should we do? Canada is lagging far behind other countries, which protect their pensioners and future retirees in the private sector. They prefer retirement insurance plans. The United States, England, Germany and Ontario all have such a plan. We need to move toward that solution, but as senators know, that will be difficult to achieve, given the large number of jurisdictions we have in Canada.

To me, I think it is crucial to vote in favour of the bill at this time, because this will force us to reflect on it for the next four years so we can discuss it in further detail. As the Council on Aging of Ottawa said, if we vote in favour of this bill, we should undertake further analytics to advance this issue.

Pensions in Canada are in bad shape. We have public plans that provide the minimum, which is good. However, registered pension plans are woefully inadequate.

I hope the Senate will get things moving. That is its mission and its duty. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hartling, for the second reading of Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.