Senator Martin: Yes.

Senator Martin: Thank you for the question. I don’t have the cost of what it would be to remove the cap, but that $4,000 is very limiting in that for some it would only be covering the cost for two months.

In terms of other provinces, I don’t have that information either, but the union that represents all of these half a million workers has done their research, and given this is such an important industry and we want to encourage more young people to go into the trades, this is one measure. It would only be fair because business people already have this opportunity, whereas they do not.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on behalf of the opposition and the Senate Conservative caucus, I am pleased to welcome our new colleague the Honourable Beverly Jane MacAdam to the Senate of Canada and to our Senate family.

Today, as you take your seat in the upper chamber, I am sure that you are filled with excitement and anticipation — like many of us were on our first day in the Senate. It is also a day where we feel the weight of the responsibility that has been entrusted to each of us. Our duty, as senators, is to ensure that what we do is in the best interests of Canadians — and, in your case, the best interests of the people of Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada. I trust that you will do your utmost best to ensure that the voices of the great people of P.E.I. are well represented in Parliament, especially in this chamber.

Senator MacAdam, I am pleased to see that your sponsor today is Senator Elizabeth Marshall, as you both appear to have similar backgrounds and experiences. Your experience as Prince Edward Island’s Auditor General from 2013 to 2020, as well as your 40 years of experience working in legislative accounting, will certainly benefit both your committee work and the work of the Senate. Financial auditing is important, and your eyes and perspective on the many decisions we are called upon to make in this chamber will be welcome.

That is true even more so now, as we are dealing with a government that refuses to tell Canadians how much they will be on the hook for interest payments on the rising debt for the fiscal year. Your input on financial prudence is needed, and it will hopefully carry a lot of weight, as do many of Senator Marshall’s interventions.

Senator MacAdam, our Conservative caucus looks forward to working and collaborating with you in this chamber and at committee. Welcome once again to the Senate of Canada, and best wishes to you as you begin this new chapter of your life.

[Translation]

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak today as the critic of Bill S-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

I would like to acknowledge Senator Wallin, the sponsor of this bill, for her hard work and advocacy on the issue of advance requests.

As I’ve stated before, medical assistance in dying has been — and remains — one of the most complex and deeply personal issues for individuals and families across the country. There is a wide range of valid opinions in this chamber on what the appropriate parameters and safeguards should be as we continue to grapple with these questions in the development of our MAID regime.

As the critic of Bill S-248, a bill that will permit advance requests for MAID if an individual loses the capacity to consent, I would like to outline a few concerns regarding this bill and talk about important safeguards that need to be put in place. We have heard in detail from colleagues on what this bill does and doesn’t do. We have heard colleagues raise important points on the need for clearly defined safeguards, such as the length for which an advance request is valid, the role of independent witnesses and what constitutes voluntary and informed consent.

Bill S-248 amends the Criminal Code to:

(a) permit an individual whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to enter into a written arrangement to receive medical assistance in dying on a specified day if they lose the capacity to consent to receiving medical assistance in dying prior to that day; and

(b) permit an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability to make a written declaration to waive the requirement for final consent when receiving medical assistance in dying if they lose the capacity to consent to receive medical assistance in dying, are suffering from symptoms outlined in the written declaration and have met all other relevant safeguards outlined in the Criminal Code.

The content of Bill S-248 was originally proposed as an amendment to Bill C-7, which passed in the Senate but was rejected by the government. If passed, this bill will give Canadians who have been diagnosed with a grievous and irremediable medical condition the ability, before they lose the capacity to give consent, to make an advance request for MAID.

As co-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, I worked with committee members as we reviewed medical assistance in dying with respect to palliative care, mature minors, protection for persons with disabilities, mental illnesses and advance requests. As a committee, we heard from various witnesses who supported and advocated for advance requests.

Dr. Helen Long, Chief Executive Officer of Dying With Dignity Canada, said:

Canadians tell us that they are concerned about their capacity to provide informed consent to MAID due to a family history of neurocognitive conditions, such as dementia or Parkinson’s, or that an accident or other medical problem could result in diminished mental capacity. Advance requests for MAID would allow those who so choose to avoid a life of grievous and irremediable pain and suffering if loss of capacity occurs.

Dr. Serge Gauthier, emeritus professor and neurologist, described how many of his patients want the choice to make advance requests, with some of his patients advising that they would contemplate suicide without having advance requests as an option.

Sandra Demontigny, who is 43 years old and has early-onset Alzheimer’s, shared what an advance request would mean for her:

However, I don’t want to experience the final phase of the disease, completely dependent and unable to express myself very much, if at all. I’ve seen it and I don’t want to live through it. That’s what I would specify in an advance request. It would definitely give me more time.

Without wishing to put pressure on you, if advance requests were not approved by Parliament, then unfortunately, I would have to decide to leave before entering that phase, in order to avoid becoming trapped.

We also heard from witnesses who cautioned that important safeguards must be put in place to be sure when dealing with advance requests.

Mr. Pierre Deschamps, lawyer and ethicist, said:

. . . the challenge for legislators is to design robust safeguards that will protect persons who have made advance requests for medical assistance in dying — such requests are generally made many years before the condition that may potentially give rise to their activation appears — from abuses such as medical assistance in dying that is provided too early or in haste under pressure from family members or medical staff who sympathize with the state of mental deterioration of the person, who will thus be put in a highly vulnerable position.

Dr. Alice Maria Chung, as quoted earlier by our leader, said:

The issues with advance directives for MAID are several-fold. First, we are not able to predict with accuracy what our own quality of life will be in the future, let alone if we are also living with a chronic medical illness. . . .

Second, with end-stage dementia, there would be absolutely no chance to withdraw consent, which is also essential to informed consent. Someone else, a health care worker who may not know the patient, or a caregiver, would have to decide when it’s time for MAID to proceed. . . .

Finally, there is the risk that allowing advance directives for patients with dementia could lead to abuse. . . . I do not believe safeguards could be crafted to adequately protect them from undue influence to accept or request MAID.

In the 2018 report from the Council of Canadian Academies, entitled The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying, the expert panel cited a number of knowledge gaps regarding advance requests.

McGill University physician Catherine Ferrier appeared before the Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and raised this concern, stating that the utility of advance directives in general is being seriously questioned by many experts. She noted that there is growing evidence that people tend to poorly predict their quality of life in hypothetical situations due to cognitive biases, such as projection bias — projecting current preferences onto future situations — focalism — focusing on what gets worse, not what remains positive — and immune neglect — underestimating one’s adaptive capacity.

Another knowledge gap noted in The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying dealt with the broader impacts of allowing advance requests for MAID in Canada. This would include the impacts experienced not only by those requesting MAID but also by those responsible for deciding if and when to follow through with the requests and by society as a whole.

Honourable senators, medical assistance in dying is indeed a complex and deeply personal issue. As the eldest daughter and primary caregiver of my late mother, who lived with advanced dementia for over a decade, it would have been impossible to follow an advance request had the law allowed her to put one in place before the disease had advanced. Neither she nor I could have anticipated the joy she exuded and spread to everyone on her floor as a person whose advanced dementia made her angelic and happy about everything.

I cannot imagine how I could have followed my mother’s wishes for an advance request for MAID at any point in her care.

MAID and the issue of advance requests are matters that are challenging for every parliamentarian. As legislators, we want to know we are making the right decision. We want clear evidence that our efforts are helping people and not harming them. Yet, on these highly emotional social issues, the path forward is not always clear. It is my hope that through the witness testimony at committee, we will be able to find that path, to hear from those experts in the field about advance requests for MAID and what safeguards we can put in place to ensure Canadians are protected and to ensure that their wishes are heard. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, for the second reading of Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) moved second reading of Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the sponsor in the Senate of Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons) — it’s the “fair travelling tradesperson’s bill,” as MP Chris Lewis said when he proudly introduced the bill in the House of Commons.

I would like to begin by acknowledging my colleague in the other place, Member of Parliament Chris Lewis, for his tireless work on this bill and his advocacy on behalf of Canadian tradespersons. I would also like to thank all of the MPs from all parties in the House of Commons who supported this legislation at third reading and sent it over to this chamber, including unanimous support from the Conservatives, as well as the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party.

Colleagues, Bill C-241 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling where they were employed in a construction activity at a job site that is located at least 120 kilometres away from their ordinary place of residence.

This bill will amend section 8(1) of the Income Tax Act by adding the following to include the tradesperson’s travel expenses:

(q.1) where the taxpayer was employed as a duly qualified tradesperson or an indentured apprentice in a construction activity at a job site that was located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for travelling to and from the job site, if the taxpayer

(i) was required under the contract of employment to pay those expenses,

(ii) did not receive an allowance in respect of those expenses that is not included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year, and

(iii) does not claim those expenses as an income deduction or a tax credit for the year under any other provision of this Act . . . .

Colleagues, this is a simple bill, yet it is very important. Tradespersons play a vital role in our communities. They are hard-working individuals whose skills are essential in providing access to basic needs, like clean water, electricity, safe homes and buildings, safe infrastructure and clean energy. Their day-to-day work life is comprised of long hours, travel and tight deadlines. They frequently miss valuable time with their families. The work they do and the importance of skilled trades are immeasurable. We cannot take for granted the essential services that they provide for all of us.

By the very nature of their work, every construction job is temporary. When one job is done, they must move to the next job site. These job sites are often many miles away from the tradesperson’s home, and sometimes located in another province.

If you are a businessperson, these travel costs have been deductible for a very long time if you incurred those expenses to earn business or professional income. But for tradespersons, this has not been the case.

In March 2021, NDP member of Parliament Scott Duvall attempted to change this inequality when he introduced Bill C-275 as a private member’s bill. Later, in December 2021, MP Matthew Green reintroduced the same bill once again. However, neither of those bills made it to second reading because of the nature of private members’ business in the other place.

During that same period, Canada’s Building Trades Unions, known as CBTU, was actively pressing the federal government to recognize these costs as legitimate, tax-deductible expenses for tradespersons. In their pre-budget submission, their first recommendation to the government was as follows:

That the Government permit a skilled trades workforce mobility tax deduction to allow skilled trades workers to deduct work-related travel costs when these costs are not covered by their employer.

They went on to explain in more detail:

The Income Tax Act is currently an inequitable tax policy in its treatment of construction workers related to the deductibility of work-related expenses. Salespeople, professionals and Canadians in other industries can receive a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals, and accommodations. The same option is unfairly denied to skilled trades workers who work on jobsites that are in different regions or provinces from their primary residence. The Government has a responsibility to ensure a system of tax fairness is in place for all Canadians and to support skilled trades workers who build our infrastructure and communities.

Skilled trades workers have always had to travel for work — that’s why we’re called journeypersons. But infrastructure investments and growth across the country is oftentimes uneven, with some areas experiencing higher levels of construction activity resulting in labour shortages, while others will see high unemployment levels. To build a strong economic recovery, the Government should address the long-standing issue of labour mobility in the skilled trades by allowing skilled trades workers to deduct from their income the cost to travel and go to work.

It was shortly after this that the legislation before us today was introduced in the House of Commons. On February 8, 2022, MP Chris Lewis tabled Bill C-241 to, once again, secure a deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons. In response to the mounting pressure, the Liberal government seemed to recognize that there was validity to this request, and included a new measure in Budget 2022 called the Labour Mobility Deduction, or LMD, for Tradespeople. As explained by the Canada Revenue Agency:

The LMD provides an eligible tradesperson with a deduction for certain transportation, meals and temporary lodging costs incurred for travelling significant distances to earn income at a temporary work location from temporary employment in construction activities during the 2022 and subsequent taxation years.

This was significant, colleagues, because it was a step forward and showed that there is no disagreement in principle over the need for such a deduction.

There was, however, one significant problem: The government limited the deduction to a maximum of $4,000. And according to a representative from Canada’s Building Trades Unions, or CBTU, some tradespersons would max out that deduction in only about two months.

So although the Labour Mobility Deduction was a step in the right direction, it did not go far enough. Bill C-241 will correct this by not imposing an arbitrary cap on travel expense deductions. I would note, colleagues, that this does not mean there are no guardrails around the deduction to prevent it from being abused. There are.

The parameters of what constitutes an allowable travel expense are already well defined by the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. In addition, Bill C-241 notes that a taxpayer does not qualify for the deduction if they received an allowance for these expenses from their employer or received an income tax deduction or tax credit under any other provision in the Income Tax Act for the same expenses.

The deduction is meant to capture those who currently have no way to deduct legitimate expenses from their taxable income. And if more clarification is needed on the application of the deduction, the CRA can and will issue additional guidance to provide the needed clarity, as it currently does frequently on other tax measures.

Colleagues, in his second-reading speech, MP Lewis stated that:

By 2025, Ontario alone will need an additional 350,000 tradespeople to fill the current need. As is often the case, tradespersons can be expected to travel long distances from one job to the next, far from home. With inflation at a 30‑year high and during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, this bill is a common-sense proposal for hard-working Canadians.

When it comes down to it, this legislation is basic fairness for tradespeople.

Tradespersons are fathers, mothers, grandparents, sisters and brothers — hard-working Canadians who are part of the backbone of our Canadian economy. Skilled trade workers are vital to Canada. Each is a master of their craft, and their knowledge and abilities are essential to communities and to our country. We must support them to allow the industry to grow and to provide support for resources for training to allow for the success of future generations of tradespersons.

Canada’s Building Trades Unions are the national voice of over half a million Canadian construction workers, members of 14 international unions who work in more than 60 different trades and occupations. They advocate on behalf of our hard-working tradespersons across Canada.

The CBTU commissioned an independent financial projection which estimates that a Canada-wide implementation of a skilled trades workforce mobility tax deduction could save the federal government an estimated $347 million annually through increased tax revenues and reduced reliance on Employment Insurance and other government programs. This is a substantial impact.

As noted by the CBTU:

Other jurisdictions, such as the United States, already permit a tax deduction like this to those working in the skilled trades. The US Revenue Code allows workers to deduct meals, travel, and accommodation expenses for temporary work away from home. Implementing a similar measure will help put Canadians to work, address labour shortages and reduce reliance on government programs like Employment Insurance, ultimately saving the government hundreds of millions of dollars.

Honourable senators, today I ask for your support for our Canadian tradespersons by sending Bill C-241 to committee for further study. Thank you.