Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of June 1, 2023, moved:

That the Certificate of Nomination for the proposed reappointment of Heather Powell Lank as Parliamentary Librarian, tabled in the Senate on June 1, 2023, be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament for consideration and report; and

That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

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

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-248, an initiative brought forward by a passionate and diligent advocate for patient autonomy and dignity, Senator Wallin. I know this legislation, like her amendment to the previous government bill, is based on a very personal and painful experience and is presented with sincere intentions.

In the previous speeches I have made on assisted suicide, I have stressed my concern with the speed and the magnitude of the expansions the government has made to what was initially a careful, cautious response to a decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada.

While we were keenly aware at the time of the paradigm-shifting nature of legalizing assisted suicide, most of us were also aware of the need for clarity, certainty and stringency in the law so that we could ensure no life would end prematurely without careful evaluation and the express consent of the individual.

For many of us, the safeguards at the time fell short, yet, as I have said before, I could never have imagined that a few short years after our “slippery slope” arguments were dismissed, we would be legalizing assisted suicide for people suffering from mental illness and tabling committee reports recommending the expansion of assisted suicide to children. These are proposals I find indefensible.

However, I would not put Bill S-248 in that category. I am sympathetic to the rationale for advance requests, particularly for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and dementia, who fear living in an unfathomable state as their illness progresses.

That said, in practice, this legislation would eliminate one of the most fundamental safeguards in Canada’s assisted suicide regime: the need for unequivocal, unquestionable and clear final consent before ending the life of a person.

Advance requests eliminate the ability of a physician to ascertain the person’s present desire, leaving a very real possibility that a person’s life could be ended against his or her wishes.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Carter emphasized numerous times that a person requesting assisted suicide must provide clear consent. If the consent must be clear and unequivocal, it must also be contemporaneous. According to the experts, there are data highlighting the risk of providing assisted death to a patient against his or her wishes.

In discussing advance requests, or ARs, the report of the Council of Canadian Academies on advance requests for MAID prepared for the Government of Canada stated that:

The primary risk involved in ARs for MAID is the risk that a person will receive an assisted death against their wishes.

This risk is supported by Health Canada data. Health Canada’s first, second and third annual reports on assistance in dying in Canada demonstrate that, on average, approximately 20% of people who withdrew their requests for assisted suicide did so immediately before the provision of the assisted suicide.

That is a striking statistic, and one that should give us all pause.

I was not a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, but I did read the testimony and the final report with great interest. While some witnesses certainly agreed with what Senator Wallin is proposing, others raised serious legal, ethical and practical charges with advance requests.

There were three overarching concerns raised by witnesses. The first was the inability of an individual to predict with accuracy what their quality of their life would be in the future, particularly if they are living with a chronic medical condition. The second concern was the inability of a person to withdraw consent, and the third was that the advance requests present the possibility of abuse, coercion and undue influence of vulnerable patients.

On the first point, several witnesses provided examples of the limitations of our ability to assess our future quality of life. Dr. Romayne Gallagher, Clinical Professor of Palliative Medicine at the University of British Columbia testified on behalf of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, stating that:

 . . . . medical and social science literature reminds us that people are poor at anticipating what life would be like with a life-changing illness or disability. People adapt to illness and disability and adjust their needs for a decent quality of life. Many medical conditions have long and unpredictable courses. . . .

Dr. Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry similarly noted that patients making advance requests may have experiences and desires that are different from those that they had in the past. They have never experienced what it is to live a life with fewer cognitive capacities.

He gave the illustration of a 75-year-old man named John who has lost the capacity to make his own health care decisions. It is widely accepted that when health care decisions are made on someone else’s behalf, they should only be made for the benefit of that patient. Dr. Beaudry noted that one would assume that John, without dementia, when he was, say, 50 years old, would know his future self better than anyone and that he would instinctively know what is best for John at the age of 75.

However, that is not so obvious. For one thing, John may be making decisions to, first and foremost, ease the burden on members of his family. He might also imagine his future self bedridden and highly dependent and feel shame at the thought of being seen this way. These assumptions may be based on widely held discriminatory beliefs about the quality of life of people with illnesses and disabilities and about whether their lives are worth living at all.

Dr. Beaudry noted that many people live happy lives with various significant medical conditions or a high level of dependency. However, if John or anyone in his family or health care team does not agree or is unaware of that because of ableist generalizations, John at 75 years old would become the victim of these ableist or ageist stereotypes.

Dr. Beaudry’s overarching point was that when it comes to health care, we should care for the patient before us even when that patient has advanced dementia. It does not mean that John’s past experiences are irrelevant. The holistic assessment of what is in his best interests may include his past wishes and preferences.

The bottom line is we do not give the last word to the former self of a patient, particularly a cognitively and experientially distant self.

The committee also heard from Dr. Alice Maria Chung, a geriatrician who has worked with elderly patients for 30-plus years and teaches capacity assessments to medical students, residents and practising physicians so that they will be able to identify whether a patient is capable of making a medical decision.

Dr. Chung posed this question:

What right does the 60- or 70-year-old you have to judge the quality of life of the 80- or 90-year-old you? Patients with chronic illnesses can often adapt to their altered circumstances and develop a new equilibrium and sense of self, and feel that their quality of life is actually quite good.

There is a body of medical literature demonstrating this point. She noted that she had seen it in her practice as well.

In response to this concern, Senator Wallin said that we do this all the time within the law. We write wills and we leave them with lawyers, we have “do not resuscitate” orders, et cetera. That is all true. However, we all know that actively ending a person’s life without certainty of their present consent is entirely different. In this case, I would argue, if there is any risk of getting it wrong, we cannot ethically proceed.

The second issue is that an individual would be unable to withdraw consent, which is an essential component to informed consent. Consent is a concept that has permeated public discourse over the past several years, and we have come to a societal understanding that, on the most serious of matters, consent must be current, explicit and unambiguous. I cannot imagine a more serious circumstance in which consent must be ascertained.

Are we really suggesting that a lack of refusal constitutes consent? We know that it does not and it cannot.

We can all agree that a person’s autonomy must be respected, and if an individual is capable of decision making and able to clearly communicate that decision, it is reasonable to hold a view that those wishes should be honoured. However, we have decided as a society that there are necessary limits to freedom of autonomy.

Dr. Félix Pageau, geriatrician and researcher, told the committee:

The government must protect vulnerable people and protect people from themselves. Which is why it has established a legal age for alcohol consumption and requires people to wear seat belts in cars and helmets on motorcycles. Freedom of autonomy is therefore not absolute in Canada; it is regulated.

Similarly, our current law places necessary limits on the ability of a person to make future decisions without the ability to change their minds on the most serious medical decision one can make. It is well-documented that when it comes to assisted death, requests and minds are being changed immediately prior to administration. Requests are being withdrawn. This option to withdraw consent at the last minute must remain.

Finally, there is the risk that allowing advance directives for people with dementia and Alzheimer’s could lead to abuse. People already face undue influence to avoid being a burden to their loved ones. As Dr. Chung stated:

I have had multiple patients who have been heartbroken at having been coerced into selling their home and moving into a facility because of family pressures to not be a burden. I cannot currently protect vulnerable elderly from financial abuse with the current safeguards. I do not believe safeguards could be crafted to adequately protect them from undue influence to accept or request MAID.

Trudo Lemmens is an expert in health and law policy. In the submission to a joint committee on this topic, he provided international context to the discussion, highlighting the requirements of other countries that have implemented advance requests for assisted suicide. He noted that:

Belgium only allows MAID based on AR when persons are permanently unconscious, to avoid euthanizing people who still enjoy life and may resist. The Netherlands originally had difficulty with MAID based on AR, since it was considered impossible to defend this practice on the basis that persons ’suffer unbearably’, when they were no longer able to confirm this. It now has permitted it for persons even when they appear to resist.

Neither regime involves explicit contemporary consent, which is arguably constitutionally required in Canada given the Supreme Court’s emphasis on clear consent in Carter.

Lemmens notes that our current medical assistance in dying, or MAID, regime already goes well beyond the Belgium law, while our social and health care support is below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, average. Finally, he pointed out that perhaps, not surprisingly, the Dutch experience with advance requests has led to insurmountable ethical and legal challenges.

Colleagues, while I have tremendous compassion for people who have received a troubling neurocognitive diagnosis in which the future is unknowable and the fear of a poor quality of life sets in, as the experts have stated, there is no way to predict with certainty how one will feel as the illness progresses.

Giving the final sign-off or the last word to the past version of a person is wrong. We cannot give prior wishes of people who cannot fully appreciate their future lived experience priority over current interests. The stakes, colleagues, are too high.

Given that Health Canada’s own data states that 20% of those who withdraw their requests for MAID do so immediately before the procedure, if this bill passes, there will undoubtedly be people who fall through the cracks, patients whose lives are ended against their present wishes — the involuntary ending of a life.

The cost of getting it wrong far outweighs the cost of not acting. For that reason, I cannot support this bill. Thank you, colleagues.

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. Claude Carignan: Colleagues, I rise today at second reading of Bill S-256, the short title of which is the Canadian postal safety act. I fully support the objective of the bill, as described by Senator Dalphond in his November 29 speech. He said, and I quote:

The Canadian postal safety act’s purpose is to assist law enforcement, Indigenous communities and rural municipalities in their efforts to intercept dangerous drugs, particularly fentanyl and other opioids, that could be delivered by the mail system, especially in remote areas. . . .

The aim of this bill is not to weaken or change requirements for searches and seizures, but rather to remove an old statutory limit that prevents police from fully assisting Canada Post inspectors and customs officers in enforcing the law.

The old statutory limit that Senator Dalphond was talking about is subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which reads, and I quote:

Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention.

This provision clearly sets out a broad prohibition — applicable to police officers in particular — on seizing or retaining items in the course of post. As Senator Dalphond pointed out, when an item entrusted to Canada Post is being sent, the police cannot intervene without the assistance of a Canada Post inspector.

The fact is, postal inspectors can open all mail items that weigh 500 grams or more to check whether they contain objects that contravene any Canadian law or regulation. This authority is set out in subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This provision is an exception to the prohibition on seizure and detention set out in subsection 40(3).

Senator Dalphond summarized the very important limits that subsection 40(3) places on police work as follows, and I quote:

While an item is in the mail, the only option the police have is to work closely with 1 of the 25 inspectors at Canada Post — 25 to cover the whole country. An inspector could then find a way to inspect a parcel and retain it if illegal material is found inside. Subsequently, based on the information communicated by the inspector, the police could seize the item for further investigation and possibly to lay a charge.

In his Bill S-256, Senator Dalphond proposes an exception to the prohibition in subsection 40(3). He proposes that this prohibition not apply if the seizure or detention of mail is necessary for the enforcement of federal laws, including the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as well as provincial laws.

Personally, I wonder if it would be better to simply repeal the prohibition in subsection 40(3).

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs also recommended repealing this subsection. The association believed that this would, quote, “increase the effectiveness of the proposed changes to combat the trafficking of contraband,” according to a May 19, 2023, letter from the assembly that I will come back to later.

In my opinion, subsection 40(3) was rendered obsolete in 1982, when protection from unreasonable seizure was enshrined in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is important to note that the prohibition on seizure in subsection 40(3) is a privacy safeguard established long before 1982. Indeed, the current wording of subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act is substantively very similar to previous versions from the last few decades. Examples include the 1981 version, subsection 38(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, and the 1951 version, section 41 of the Post Office Act, which reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything in any other Act or law, nothing is liable to demand, seizure or detention while in the course of post, except as provided in this Act or the Regulations.

Like Senator Dalphond, I think the current wording of the ban is undesirable because this ban is far too broad.

This provision jeopardizes the safety of Canadians and it even prevents a judge from issuing a warrant under section 487 of the Criminal Code or section 11 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to allow police officers to open a letter which they have reasonable grounds to believe contains fentanyl or other banned substances.

This problem was raised in 2017 in R. v. O’Dell in the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan. In fact, Ms. O’Dell was charged with trafficking in fentanyl. The day before her arrest, she dropped off a package containing that drug at a Canada Post office. Police officers seized it without a warrant, but obtained one afterward before opening the package. The judge found that the seizure of the package was not authorized under the Canada Post Corporation Act, because of the ban in subsection 40(3).

This subsection also prevents, for example, a judge from authorizing police, under section 487.01 of the Criminal Code, to intercept and secretly open an envelope left in the possession of Canada Post by a suspect. That was the finding in the 2018 Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling in R. v. Perkins. In that case, an individual was accused of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. In its ruling, the court accepted the admission of the Crown prosecutor that the judge could not provide this judicial authorization given the prohibition in subsection 40(3).

I am going to the trouble of citing these examples to demonstrate that if subsection 40(3) did not exist, the police would have to respect the usual privacy protections found in the Constitution, the Criminal Code and other laws.

I am obviously thinking of the protection against unreasonable search and seizure in section 8 of the Charter, and also sections of the Criminal Code imposing rigorous conditions that police must satisfy in order for a judge to issue a search warrant.

In addition to these legal provisions, there are thousands of court decisions interpreting them. In other words, since section 8 of the Charter was created in 1982, there have been more than 40 years of case law, primarily from the Supreme Court of Canada, requiring police officers to obtain judicial authorization to conduct investigations or seizures in situations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy or protection.

Thus, the common law principles created by these decisions will automatically apply if exceptions are created or if we repeal the prohibition on seizing or retaining objects in the intended course of post.

This contradicts the argument that Bill S-256 proposes overly broad exceptions to the prohibition set out in section 40(3), a provision that, on the face of it, no longer serves any purpose. It has become outdated since the Charter was created.

Bill S-256 grants no new investigative or seizure powers to police officers compared to those they already have with respect to packages shipped by any company other than Canada Post.

As Senator Dalphond pointed out, traffickers have spread the word that there is much less risk of their packages being intercepted if they send them through Canada Post rather than through any other private courier company, such as FedEx, UPS, Purolator or DHL.

It is critically important that we do everything we possibly can to combat fentanyl. Bill S-256 is a step in that direction. It also represents a concrete solution to enable police to tackle one of the links in the fentanyl trafficking chain by allowing judges to issue authorizations to police officers to open parcels and letters in the possession of Canada Post, when there are reasonable grounds to believe they contain fentanyl or other criminally prohibited goods.

As the saying goes, great sorrow is often silent. This is true of the sorrow experienced by many people who are, or will be, suffering from opioid addiction. Many of them will die or find themselves vulnerable, living on the margins of society or even homeless. They need us, as parliamentarians, to speak out and take action against the ravages of opioid trafficking on public health and public safety.

Opioids have caused over 32,000 deaths in Canada according to statistics recently posted on a Government of Canada website.

The trafficking of opioids and other hard drugs does not just affect addicts. This scourge tears families apart and increases the violence and profits of criminal organizations. That is the situation described by Justice Moldaver in his dissenting opinion in the 2021 Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Parranto, which was uncontradicted on that point. Justice Moldaver said, and I quote:

The dangers posed by trafficking in hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, have long been recognized in Canada. . . .

Trafficking also leads indirectly to a host of other ills, including an increase in all manner of crime, committed by those seeking to finance their addiction, as well as by organized crime syndicates . . . .

A further and perhaps even more devastating consequence of the hard drug trade is its impact on families and the intergenerational trauma it causes . . . .

Justice Moldaver goes on to say that the threat posed by the trafficking of drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, and I quote:

 . . . pales in comparison to the one posed by fentanyl and its analogues. . . . [F]entanyl has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada, revealing itself as public enemy number one. . . .

The scale of fentanyl’s devastating impact becomes even more apparent when one considers that, between 2016 and 2020, there were approximately 3,400 homicides across Canada, a number far below the number of fentanyl-related deaths . . . .

Therefore, to prevent such misdeeds, I urge you to vote in favour of Bill S-256.

As I explained, this bill will finally close the loophole that traffickers have been exploiting in the Canada Post Corporation Act. This loophole, which only applies to items sent by Canada Post and not through other courier companies, means that traffickers prefer to do business with Canada Post because they know that this law deprives the police of their usual legal means of seizing, opening or tracking items containing lethal drugs.

As Senators Dalphond and Boniface mentioned in their speeches, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has in fact publicly expressed, in a resolution adopted in August 2015, the need to close this loophole as soon as possible.

Why is it that, six years after this resolution, the federal government has not introduced a bill to try and address this urgent problem? How seriously does the government take the fact that the Canada Post Corporation Act deprives police and postal inspectors of essential powers to intercept mail containing drugs or other illegal and dangerous items?

On this point, I would like to return to R. v. Gorman, which Senator Dalphond referenced in his speech. In this case, the judge found, among other things, a very important power of inspectors in subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act to be unconstitutional.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador was not appealed by the federal government. In fact, the Attorney General of Canada even decided not to intervene to plead legal arguments before the judge.

The court first gave the federal government one year, which ended on April 12, 2023, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. Subsequently the court granted an additional six months, which will end on October 12.

On April 20, the government introduced Bill C-47, the 2023 budget bill. Clause 509 of the bill proposed a legislative amendment required to comply with the ruling in R. v. Gorman.

Let’s recall that, in this case, the court found that the challenged provision was contrary to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it allowed the postal inspector to open a package without objective reasons to suspect that it contained an illicit object. If the bill is passed, the wording of clause 509 would correct this problem. The relevant part of clause reads as follows:

“Non-mailable matter” is defined in a regulation as “Any item transmitted by post in contravention of an Act or a regulation of Canada.”

Although section 509 of Bill C-47 makes it possible to comply with the ruling in Gorman, I find it disappointing, inexplicable and very worrisome that the proposed amendment still proposes maintaining the words “other than a letter” in subsection 41(1). That means that postal inspectors are still not allowed to open items that are being transmitted by post weighing less than 500 grams, which is the regulatory definition of a letter, even if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the letter contains fentanyl or other illegal objects within the meaning of the Criminal Code. Five hundred grams of fentanyl is a lot, given that consuming even the tiniest bit of this drug can be fatal.

If the government chose to amend subsection 41(1) through the 2023 budget bill in response to the Gorman decision, why didn’t it take the opportunity to incorporate the contents of Bill S-256, the heart of which is an amendment to subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which I mentioned earlier? The federal government was well aware of this problem.

As evidence of that, here’s an exchange that took place in the Senate on December 1, 2022, between Senator Dalphond and Minister Hutchings, Minister of Rural Economic Development. Senator Dalphond asked the following question:

As you may know, it is reported that, for fentanyl sellers, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice, and often the only one available to ship these illegal products into rural and remote communities.

 . . . are you ready to consider proposals such as Bill S-256 to remove from the Canada Post Corporation Act restrictions that impede the police from seizing illegal drugs and other illegal items shipped through mailed envelopes?

The minister replied with the following:

Thank you, senator. That is an incredible question because it alludes to what I mentioned earlier about the terrible drug problem that we have in rural Canada. As you know, Canada Post is a Crown corporation, but I will be following that bill’s progress to the detail. I know that is exactly how some of the drugs are getting into these rural communities.

If Bill C-47 on Budget 2023 were adopted and came into force in its current form, postal inspectors would still be prohibited from opening an object weighing less than 500 grams in the course of post containing drugs, weapons or any other object prohibited under the Criminal Code. Police would also still be prohibited from opening any object in the course of post with the assistance of a postal inspector even if the police had obtained a search warrant from a judge.

In view of these facts, are you, like me, seriously concerned about the fact that the federal government is not taking seriously the threat of the trafficking of hard drugs, such as fentanyl, shipped through Canada Post? Why is the government not closing as quickly as possible the loopholes I have just mentioned that are in the Canada Post Corporation Act?

Another thing in Gorman fuels my concerns about the inadequate measures taken by the federal government to combat trafficking in hard drugs. In this case, a significant amount of cocaine was seized: It was two kilograms of apparently high purity. What’s more, the judge found that Mr. Gorman was planning to receive more packages containing the drug, again for trafficking. I’m concerned that because of government Bill C-5, which just passed, this individual will be given a sentence to be served in the community and not in prison.

In closing, I completely agree, on one hand, with the purpose of Bill S-256. I invite you to refer this bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for further scrutiny. On the other hand, I hope the Senate committee will carefully consider in its study of Bill S-256 the two recommendations for amendments that I raised in my speech. These are exactly the same recommendations that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs made in the letter I mentioned previously and that it sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs as part of its study of Bill C-47 on Budget 2023.

I will read an excerpt from that letter about these recommendations. The assembly makes the following recommendations to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:

1) Replace the current section 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act with the proposed amendment from Bill C-47, and remove the words “other than a letter” from the provision; and

2) Remove section 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act in its entirety.

I also note that the position of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed during the study of Bill C-47 by the Senate committee was along the same lines as the two recommendations made by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

In closing, I thank attorney Michael Spratt and law professors Steven Penney and Steve Coughlan, and the Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal-Laval-Longueuil and the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense for sharing their observations about certain aspects of this bill with my team. Thank you.

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

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Daniel Allain, Minister of Local Government and Local Governance Reform, from the beautiful province of New Brunswick. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Mockler.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, for the second reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, sponsored by Senator McCallum.

The objective of the bill is as follows, and I quote:

 . . . to develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to address the harm caused by environmental racism.

That is a major problem affecting marginalized communities, particularly low-income, Indigenous, and Black and racialized communities. This bill is a necessary step in addressing this problem and guaranteeing all Canadians access to clean, safe environments.

[English]

Environmental racism has a long and painful history in Canada. For decades, certain communities have been disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards, such as pollution, toxic waste and other environmental hazards. These communities are often marginalized, and lack political and economic power to protect themselves from environmental harm.

I want to start by saying that my prayers and thoughts are with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation community. This year has been particularly difficult on them. We must show solidarity and do more to stop what the evidence shows is a flagrant case of environmental racism. On June 2, Chief Allan Adam urged the evacuation of more than 1,000 people as wildfires raged in northern Alberta — just months after he received reports regarding a leak of toxic waste water at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oil sands mine affecting his community’s land and water. For the last 10 months, four tailings ponds at the facility have been leaking toxic sludge into the surrounding environment.

The Alberta Energy Regulator and Imperial Oil failed to inform Indigenous communities downstream, despite regularly discussing the disaster behind closed doors. It took another incident — which released an additional 5.3 million litres in late February — for the communities and the public to be notified.

The impacts of industrial development on Indigenous lands and waters have been devastating, causing harm to people, animals, wildlife and the environment. Another example of this is the Grassy Narrows First Nation community in Ontario, which has been dealing with the effects of mercury poisoning from industrial activity for more than 50 years. The impacts of this pollution are still being felt today — 90% of the population in Grassy Narrows has neurological problems, such as numbness in fingers and toes, or seizures and cognitive delays, caused by mercury that entered the food chain decades ago.

Environmental racism is not limited to Indigenous communities. Racialized communities in urban areas across Canada also face disproportionate exposure to pollution, hazardous waste and many other environmental hazards. Dr. Ingrid Waldron, one of Canada’s leading experts on environmental justice, has documented, at length, cases of environmental racism in Canada. Her book entitled There’s Something in the Water, which was later adapted as a documentary, exposes the dire conditions of the Black community outside of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, due to well water contamination, and illustrates how colonialism has led to systemic environmental racism.

The Black community of Africville, Nova Scotia, for example, was greatly underserved by the City of Halifax, and was a dumping ground for many undesirable and dangerous developments that threatened the health of the community. It was later demolished in the 1960s, without meaningful consultation, to make way for industrial development, expropriating all residents from their tight-knit community. This is not how we should treat our fellow Canadians, and yet this kind of problem persists today.

Indeed, scientists and Indigenous people agree and highlight the inability of typical environmental laws to protect the environment. In their view, this inability is because the line drawn by environmental law is so far removed from the line drawn by the laws of nature that the phenomena of global environmental degradation, which endanger all forms of life on Earth, have not been stopped or prevented, thus greatly penalizing already vulnerable populations.

Instead of designing, implementing and enforcing laws that protect people, we have been relying on companies that cause pollution to set their own rules for pollution prevention. This system bakes in a conflict of interest — with companies prioritizing cost minimization over pollution prevention.

Colleagues, we all know that toxic tailings ponds in Canada are a ticking time bomb. This should be more evident now, especially after we heard about the wildfires in northern Alberta closing thousands of gas wells. These ponds are massive reservoirs of toxic waste that leak into groundwater and release toxins into the air, leading to high rates of cancers and respiratory diseases among Indigenous communities who live downstream. The failure to manage these ponds has led to catastrophic environmental damage, which can take centuries to clean up.

To address this issue, we need to move away from the current approach of asking polluters to set rules for pollution prevention, and instead implement scientifically rigorous plans for the cleanup of tailings ponds. Companies must be held financially responsible for the costs of cleanup rather than passing them on to taxpayers and future generations.

In the short term, we need to work in partnership with Indigenous governments to ensure that they’re never again kept in the dark about environmental disasters that threaten their communities. Indigenous people have a deep connection to the land; their knowledge and expertise must be taken seriously in environmental decision making.

Environmental racism is the result of systemic discrimination, the lack of community representation at the decision table and the absence of meaningful community engagement in decision-making processes. These factors have contributed to a situation in which certain communities are more likely to live near pollution sources and face higher rates of exposure to environmental hazards.

To address environmental racism in a meaningful way, we need a comprehensive strategy at the national level that recognizes the unique experiences of different communities and provides a framework for action.

It is time for Canada, as well as its provinces, territories and regulators, to act by designing, implementing and enforcing laws that really protect people and the environment.

Bill C-226 proposes such a comprehensive strategy. This strategy must be developed with meaningful community consultation, and must address various aspects of environmental racism, such as identifying the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk; mapping areas with high levels of pollution; improving access to environmental information; and looking for feasible solutions.

One key aspect of the bill is the recognition of Indigenous people’s rights and perspectives in the development of the strategy. This recognition is critical in acknowledging and addressing the historical and ongoing impacts of environmental racism on Indigenous communities.

This bill is a necessary step toward addressing environmental racism in Canada. By establishing a comprehensive strategy and ensuring meaningful community engagement, we can work toward a more equitable and sustainable future for all Canadians.

The passage of Bill C-226 would have several important benefits for all Canadians: First and foremost, it would lead to an improvement in the health outcomes for marginalized communities that have historically been impacted by environmental racism. By identifying areas with high levels of pollution and other environmental hazards, we can take action to reduce exposure and mitigate the impacts of these hazards.

Additionally, the establishment of a national strategy would create opportunities for accountability for polluters, and ensure there is oversight of environmental policies and regulations. This will help prevent future instances of environmental racism.

The bill also aligns with Canada’s commitments to human rights, environmental sustainability and, of course, reconciliation with Indigenous people. By doing so in the development of the strategy, we can work toward a more just and equitable society.

[Translation]

In conclusion, Bill C-226 offers a simple but important opportunity to better inform our decision-making on environmental justice in Canada. By passing this bill, we will take an important step towards creating a more just and sustainable society for all Canadians, including future generations, regardless of race or socio-economic status.

Colleagues, I encourage you to support this bill and send it to committee as soon as possible.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, farmers and food producers everywhere are feeling severe financial pressures. We recently saw Dutch farmers flying their country’s flag upside down to protest their government’s plan to cut fertilizer use in half. The protests generated widespread support as people finally focused on what “farm to table” really means.

Farmers feed the world. Our farmers feed the world.

Arbitrary rules to reduce fertilizer usage or taxes on farm activities will only push high food prices even higher and lead to food insecurity in developed countries and continued shortages in the poorest. Food insecurity is not acceptable in the age of plenty. My colleague Senator Burey just last week spoke very eloquently on this issue. We have a responsibility to ensure that people do not go hungry globally because of some ill-considered policies here at home.

These concerns I have raised relate directly to Bill C-234. There is growing concern about the future cost to farmers and consumers of Ottawa’s approach to net-zero policies and the impact on production and yield, the cost of land and equipment, the movement of grain and what this all means for the global supply of food or global hunger.

Farmers have long known about the cyclical nature of weather and that extreme weather linked to climate change can affect crops, so many of their practices have been revolutionized to respond. Farmers are the stewards of the land and their livelihoods depend on the wise use of water, land and air. They are, in a sense, the original environmentalists.

But the cost of the carbon tax on agriculture has been exorbitant and disproportionate, putting many smaller operations on the auction block or out of business. There have been some exemptions for on-farm use for gasoline and diesel fuel, but this bill seeks to expand that to other qualifying farm fuels like propane and natural gas. This is crucial, as it provides much‑needed relief from the overwhelming cost of the carbon tax on such things as heating or cooling the barns where they keep animals, climate mitigation and, most importantly, grain drying. You can have a great crop, but if it rains at the wrong time, the crop degrades literally overnight — along with its value.

Farmers are not asking for a handout; they put their own money where their hearts live. In my own province, for example, more than $11 billion will be invested by farmers this year across the province to get their crops into the ground in 2023, according to a report from Economic Development Regina. The report takes into account the cost of seed, treatment, fertilizer and labour to reach that $11-billion number. Seeding is without question Saskatchewan’s largest annual megaproject. When you consider the impact of this work extending across our economy, it’s impossible to overstate the value to our province and country.

There are over 34,000 farms in Saskatchewan comprising more than 43% of the cropland in Canada. Saskatchewan generated more than $18.4 billion in international sales last year and contributed over $82 billion to the province’s gross domestic product in 2022.

Colleagues, the cost of the carbon tax and the clean fuel tax to farmers is millions upon millions of dollars a year, and these costs move all along the supply chain as food makes it from farm to fork. In the end, the consumer pays more. It is an inevitability unless we do something about it, here in this chamber, before we rise for the summer so that our farmers can take advantage of this much-needed bit of relief before this year’s harvest.

There are many ways to reduce carbon emissions in agriculture, and farmers are already well ahead of the game. Colleagues, don’t let this bill languish and die on the Order Paper or delay it to another session or another year. Farmers quite literally cannot face another season with the increases to the costs of their operations. Please do not hinder the relief for Canadians who feed this country and the world.

This bill came to us with multiparty support from the other place, with the Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois and Green Party all voting in favour. Three of the four parties on that list, of course, support the tax on carbon, and yet they still voted in favour of this bill. I think that sends a message about the necessity of this legislation.

For our farmers, our ranchers and our growers, but also for everyone in this country who is living through one of the greatest periods of food inflation this country has ever seen, please take the right stand. Combatting climate change is important and we are all working diligently, but the burden should never fall disproportionately on the shoulders of those who are at the core of our economy and who feed us. Let’s help them fight food insecurity for all of our sakes.

Thank you.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you for your speech. The last few weeks we’ve heard about food security and the various risks that are involved in the agriculture industry in Canada. Last week, I was the host of a panel in New Brunswick where one of the senior people from Nutrien was present and it was on exactly this topic. The one thing I walked away with was the impression of the challenges that our agriculture industry face, whether it be passing the family farm on to kids who may not want that farm or any number of issues. To me, this bill seems to be of absolute fundamental importance to food security. Do I have that wrong? This is something that we can do today — in this session of Parliament — to help secure the future of our agriculture industry and our farms.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: When we as senators know about this blatant racism against First Nations, Métis, Inuit and other minority people, and that this action of racism is directed at them through no fault of their own — they are there; they were living their lives and then this happened to them and further marginalized them — do you think it’s egregious that we, the senators, sit on this issue when there’s premature mortality and increased morbidity? Could you tell me why you think that it isn’t being sent to committee?

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.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: I have a question if the senator will take one.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Martin, will you take a question?

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Your Honour and honourable senators, I rise today in support of the bill now before us, Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).

I’d like all of us to pay particular attention to this bill, which aims to give tradespeople, whose skills are so badly needed, the opportunity of deducting expenses when they work more than 120 kilometres from their home.

This isn’t a new topic in the political arena. It has been the subject of various pieces of legislation since 2006 that have never been passed by Parliament.

Bill C-241 fits on a single page. The few lines that make it up didn’t generate much discussion when it was studied in committee in the other place. It took just 17 minutes for it to be sent back to the House of Commons for passage.

What is surprising is that all members from each of the opposition parties voted in favour of this pro-tradespeople bill, but all the Liberal members voted against it. Fortunately for tradespeople, this is a minority government.

I’m now hoping that everyone in this chamber, which some describe as non-partisan, will pass it quickly.

We can’t lose sight of the fact that electricians, plumbers, welders, tinsmiths and many other construction workers are working in trades that are essential in our society.

While this class of workers has been ignored or even devalued for too long, it now includes people who earn very respectable wages, taxpayers who pay their fair share of taxes.

We’re currently facing a labour shortage, and it’s not uncommon these days for tradespeople to take jobs on construction sites that aren’t necessarily in their home community. As a result, they have to temporarily incur travel and living expenses in order to earn their wages.

Bill C-241 that is before us today seeks to enhance the mobility of construction workers and make it easier for business owners to hire workers.

What’s more, I believe that a bill like Bill C-241 will likely help different trades to convince young and not-so-young people to work in construction.

Construction workers are badly needed.

Our economy has always been based on construction. However, work sites aren’t always located in communities that have the workers needed to do the job. What’s more, the working conditions offered by business owners don’t always cover tradespersons’ travel costs.

Bill C-241 seeks to set guidelines that will encourage construction workers to travel in order to make it easier to complete certain projects.

This is also a good way to address the current labour shortage.

I now want to talk a bit more about why I think the Liberal MPs are refusing to vote in favour of this bill that is good for middle-class workers.

They must have had to tow a party line because the current government believes it has done its part by bringing in a $4,000 tax deduction for the mobility of tradespeople. In contrast to this deduction, Bill C-241 doesn’t set a ceiling and will allow tradespeople to choose the tax regime that is most favourable to them and their family.

I want to emphasize the family aspect here.

Even though we already have compensation programs for workers who have to move to be within 40 kilometres of their work site, it’s important to remember that a family today is often made up of two people who earn a salary and children who are rooted in their community.

Moving can sometimes mean a job loss for the spouse, in addition to having to work to recreate a family and school setting for the children. These tough choices aren’t just limited to construction workers.

As a police officer with the Sûreté du Québec, I personally refused to enter competitions for a promotion because I knew that this could lead to a move and that my wife would lose her job.

Bill C-241 seeks to allow tradespeople who agree to temporarily move to earn a living to deduct employment expenses when those aren’t paid by the employer.

The current mobility tax deduction of $4,000 is insufficient and, in my view, too restrictive.

However, the Liberal members in the other place haven’t understood this. Instead, they’ve decided, in a partisan manner, to turn their backs on construction tradespeople.

The right to claim travel expenses as tax deductions mustn’t be reserved for the elite.

I will close by reminding you that the members of this chamber and those in the other place have travel allowances and per diems because they’re called upon to travel temporarily outside their place of residence.

This situation is indisputable.

Furthermore, our tax system allows any businessperson or professional in Canada to travel by plane, train or automobile, to stay at hotels and to claim meal expenses when these expenses are work-related.

They can do so as often as they like during a fiscal year and that is indisputable.

If it is acceptable in the two situations I just talked about, ask yourselves why construction workers, who must travel in their own vehicle and with their own tools, wouldn’t have the right to claim such expenses when they have to travel more than 120  kilometres from their home to earn a living.

When people travel to earn a living, it makes no difference to me if they’re travelling with a toolbox or a computer.

I therefore hope that you will feel as I do about tradespeople and vote in favour of Bill C-241 to grant them the right to tax deductions in cases that require extensive travel.

I believe that the mobility of this workforce is essential for construction, which is a major economic sector. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved second reading of Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada), which passed the House of Commons on April 26, 2023, after a near‑unanimous third reading vote of 319 to 1 and which was introduced in the Senate the same day. It is my expectation that this bill will be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, and it is my hope that it will be referred before the summer recess.

Given the time of year and the hour of the day, and the fact that the principle of the bill has overwhelming support and should thus result in a relatively quick second reading, I promise I will not speak for the allotted 45 minutes.

I thank the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Brian Masse, Member of Parliament for Windsor West, where the park will be located, for his dedicated work for many years on this significant project, both outside and inside Parliament. The idea for this bill was initiated by a public town hall hosted by Mr. Masse in 2019, but the fight to establish Ojibway national urban park has been ongoing for decades. I wish to acknowledge the residents of the Windsor region and the local Indigenous peoples who have been working diligently and passionately to protect this significant green space and its ecosystem.

As a senator from southern Ontario — my hometown of Kitchener is not far from Windsor — I am honoured to have been asked to shepherd this legislation through the Senate. This is also important to me as a staunch and long-time advocate for reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples.

This is one bill, colleagues, where I will not refer to any clauses because if you have read it, you will have found it to be little more than longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates and 304 instances of the word “thence.” Indeed, Samuel de Champlain’s astrolabe might prove useful in that regard.

The bill itself sets out the boundaries of the approximately 900 acres of publicly owned land that will become Ojibway national urban park: Ojibway Park, Spring Garden Natural Area, Black Oak Heritage Park, Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park, Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve and Ojibway Shores. Of note is that Ojibway Shores, a 33-acre green space, is the only remaining undeveloped natural shoreline in the Windsor-Detroit area and is home to 130 endangered species.

Crucially, ownership of the land on which Ojibway Shores is located was also recently transferred in May from the Windsor Port Authority, under Transport Canada, to Parks Canada. That had been a long-standing hurdle, now overcome, on the journey toward creating Ojibway national urban park.

Colleagues, the lands that compose the future Ojibway national urban park — including the Detroit River — are home to hundreds of endangered species, including butterflies, birds, other fauna and trees, and it also mitigates flooding due to climate change.

Further, as you all know, North America’s busiest border crossing is between Windsor and Detroit, and is currently served by the Ambassador Bridge. In 2025, the long-awaited Gordie Howe International Bridge is expected to be completed and opened to traffic, also between Windsor and Detroit. With six lanes for vehicle traffic — three Canada-bound and three going into the United States — and one multi-use lane for pedestrians and cyclists, the new bridge will serve as a vital new link for people and trade between Canada and the United States at our busiest crossing.

However, progress for the economy, including increased tourism, often comes with hardship for the environment. With thousands of vehicles, including transport trucks, expected to cross the bridge every day for business and ecotourism, as is already the case for the Ambassador Bridge, the impact on the local ecosystem, especially endangered species, in the adjacent lands of the proposed Ojibway national urban park will increase significantly.

Compared to the Parks Canada process, the more expedient process of this bill, which will ensure the impacted land and ecosystem are protected sooner once the bill is enacted, is partly why local Indigenous communities and environmental groups, along with the City of Windsor, whose city council in April 2022 voted unanimously for a resolution supporting Bill C-248, are all in favour of this bill.

Also, the creation of the park and the resulting protection and preservation of its land and species will offer significant mental health benefits as residents of the local communities and surrounding areas will be encouraged to get outside and enjoy the park. We all saw how important access to green and outdoor spaces was during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic when lockdowns and social distancing were in effect.

Colleagues, in my introduction, I referred to reconciliation. It is important to note that along with the City of Windsor; the Wildlands League, a major national conservation organization; and the Friends of Ojibway Prairie, a volunteer group that promotes public awareness of the biological and historical importance of the Ojibway Prairie Complex, the Caldwell First Nation also offers its vital support for Bill C-248.

On October 28, 2022, during consideration of Bill C-248 at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Mary Duckworth, Chief of the Caldwell First Nation, appeared as a staunch supporter of the bill, the process it has undertaken and the ultimate creation of Ojibway national urban park. In responding to a question from Mr. Masse about whether Caldwell First Nation views the park as reconciliatory — after claims by Chief Duckworth that Caldwell First Nation was not meaningfully consulted by the federal government about the Gordie Howe International Bridge, which is being constructed on its ancestral territory — Chief Duckworth spoke about the importance of action in reconciliation. She said:

In truth and reconciliation, we talk about that, and the truth is that we’re trying to create a national park through a legislative framework so that it is solid and it will be there.

The reconciliation part comes with action. There can be no truth and reconciliation without actions from the governments that sit over top of the nations. We like to see ourselves as equals to you; however, we are not treated as equals, as you know.

She went on to say:

Being able to have truth and reconciliation means exactly what we’re doing. Look at us all working together at different levels of government, as well as non-government, special interests and people who care about the environment. We’re all at the table.

We’re all waiting. . . .

In closing on that question, with a specific reference to Parliament enacting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in June 2021, Chief Duckworth stated that:

. . . we know Canada has aligned itself with the rights of indigenous people. Where is Canada at with that? Now that Canada has adopted that, it’s a piece that we need to look at when we’re developing these parks and respecting what is happening.

Colleagues, as Chief Duckworth made clear, and as we have heard so much in the past few years as we discuss reconciliation and the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples, words are nice, but they’re nothing without action.

The treaty rights to the Anishinaabe territory on which the parcels of land that will compose Ojibway national urban park are held by the peoples of the Three Fires Confederacy. That is the Anishinaabeg in the Windsor area, which comprises the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi peoples.

I understand that Parks Canada is actively engaged with the Caldwell First Nation and the Walpole Island First Nation on co‑management agreements in which both nations are interested. According to the Parks Canada website, both nations have also:

. . . expressed strong interest in . . . the potential of the park as a place for traditional and cultural practices, a place to demonstrate leadership in conservation and stewardship, and a place with potential for economic benefit for their communities.

So, colleagues, Ojibway national urban park is not just a park but an example of reconciliation in action.

As Chief Duckworth said at committee in the other place, part of the reason getting the park established through this bill is so important not just to the local First Nations but also to the residents of the Windsor area is that it is a concrete, legislated framework.

That leads me to address the concerns about the competing processes underway to create Ojibway national urban park. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, establishing Ojibway national urban park is a long-standing goal of many stakeholders, including Parks Canada. The goal is not in dispute but, rather, the path to achieve it.

I will be brief in summarizing this debate at second reading as it is during eventual review by the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources that these technical and very important details should be studied.

Mr. Masse, Member of Parliament for Windsor West, introduced Bill C-248 in the House of Commons on February 9, 2022, after a public town hall in August 2019 where the plan to create Ojibway national urban park was initiated. It was not until two years later, in August 2021, that Parks Canada launched its national urban parks program. According to the backgrounder on the program available on Parks Canada’s website:

The new National Urban Parks program will build on the many successes of the Rouge National Urban Park, exploring different approaches that involve working with partners to develop collaborative and innovative management and governance frameworks.

The backgrounder further states that:

Parks Canada is developing a national urban parks policy to guide the designation and management of national urban parks. The Policy will provide a flexible framework in recognition of the unique characteristics and local circumstances of each national urban park, such as local Indigenous authorities, while also ensuring that national urban parks across the country meet a common set of standards.

That is all well and good, and Parks Canada is, of course, an agency of which all Canadians should be proud for its stewardship of our best-in-the-world national parks. However, while Bill C-248 has, between February 2022 and today, gone through the entire legislative process in the other place, with extensive public consultation before and during, and is now being debated in this chamber, the Parks Canada national urban parks policy is, nearly two years after its launch, still in draft form. In fact, its website, as of two weeks ago, on May 23, when it was last modified says:

Over the coming months Parks Canada will prepare a first edition of the National Urban Parks Policy. . . .

I do not believe, colleagues, that Bill C-248 is cutting any corners, neither in terms of consultation nor due diligence. What I do believe, as someone with a few decades of experience in public policy and governance, both as a federal public servant and as a parliamentarian, is that this debate comes down to bureaucratic process versus action.

The approximately 900 acres of publicly owned land that will compose Ojibway national urban park is an area of significant biodiversity that is home to hundreds of endangered species.

Protecting the land and conserving its natural environment is vital for the flora and fauna that call it home, for the region’s human residents who rely on the green space to lead active lives conducive to their physical and mental health, for the regional economy on both sides of the international border and for the strengthening of the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples who have called these lands home since time immemorial.

All of this, while the explicit goal of stakeholders on all sides, will happen sooner through this legislation than it will through the national urban parks policy of Parks Canada.

I would encourage all honourable senators interested in this legislation, and especially members of the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to review the debate on this bill in the other place, as well as the transcript of the meeting held last October 28 at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

While there are indeed questions about process and consultation, the creation of Ojibway national urban park — the very principle of the bill — has overwhelming support both inside Parliament from all parties, including the government, and outside Parliament, including from Parks Canada.

Therefore, colleagues, I encourage senators to vote to refer Bill C-248 to the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources expediently, before the summer recess, so the bill and any concerns may be studied in depth by the committee when we return in the fall.

Thank you.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today as critic of Bill C-248, An Act to Amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada).

This bill proposes to create the Ojibway national urban park in Windsor, Ontario. It is the product of years of effort from Brian Masse, the Member of Parliament for Windsor West, and I first and foremost want to commend him for his passion and determination on this initiative. As you know, colleagues, shepherding a private bill through Parliament can be a challenging task.

You may have recently received an information package from the MP’s office regarding this bill, which I found to be thorough and helpful, and I encourage you to review it if you have not already done so. Senator Boehm, the sponsor of the bill here in this chamber, has just provided us with a detailed overview of the legislation, so I do not intend to speak at length, but I do want to outline why, as critic, I am comfortable and supportive of Bill C-248.

Essentially, this bill is 22 pages of coordinates. There’s not much to it. These coordinates mark the latitudinal and longitudinal boundaries that would be added to Schedule 1 of the Canada National Parks Act, creating the Ojibway national urban park of Canada.

This new national urban park, or NUP, would amalgamate six existing public land areas, including Ojibway Park, Spring Garden Natural Area, Black Oak Heritage Park, Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park, Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve and, finally, Ojibway Shores, a 33-acre green space that is the last remaining undeveloped natural shoreline in the Windsor-Detroit area. If looking on a map, these lands are essentially adjacent to each other in the western area of Windsor and are all already publicly owned.

Together with the Detroit River, the Ojibway NUP would provide for 900 acres of green space in an environmentally sensitive area that is already pressured by industrial development and its role as a transportation hub. The Windsor-Detroit border crossing is already the busiest border crossing between Canada and the United States, and with the Gordie Howe International Bridge set to open in 2025, pressures on the neighbouring ecosystems are bound to increase.

Although we all enjoy parks and green space for their natural beauty and recreational opportunities, these lands also serve a major role in protecting the local flora and fauna. The area we are discussing today constitutes the home of hundreds of rare and endangered species. Many of these species rely on the area for migration and habitat. It is an environmental hotspot that, in my opinion, should be provided the appropriate federal protections.

In a 2017 ecological report entitled Ojibway Shores Natural Heritage Inventory/Evaluation, which looked at the Ojibway Shores area alone, 554 different species of flora and fauna were documented on the land during the study, 28 of which were federally or provincially protected species.

The report adds, “. . . Ojibway Shores is an important stop‑over for migratory birds which includes eight Species at Risk . . . .”

It concludes:

Undertaking this study has provided a unique opportunity to study an unaltered piece of habitat in an otherwise developed area. Despite such close proximity to development and residing in a bi-national Area of Concern . . . Ojibway Shores supports a number of species and likely supports many more living adjacent to the property. Given the species diversity and habitat heterogeneity, this property would be a great candidate for preservation and habitat enhancement.

Furthermore, in a letter endorsing this bill, the environmental organization Wildlands League stated:

Windsor embodies the threats and opportunities that are being faced across Canada’s South. Its remnant Tallgrass Prairie is the most endangered ecosystem in Canada, and there are more rare species than anywhere else in Ontario. It is a biodiversity hotspot within a hotspot. But Tallgrass is also the land cover most resilient to a warming climate and one of the best natural sponges when the skies open up and water rises. This is a natural solution in a city where annual flooding makes insurance almost impossible to obtain.

Colleagues, our national parks are something I think all Canadians treasure, all with uniquely memorable beauty. Banff, Jasper and the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve out west come to mind. Or on the East Coast, I think of Gaspé, Quebec; Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland; and, of course, Sable Island National Park Reserve and the Cape Breton Highlands National Park, both in Nova Scotia.

Although these lands may be celebrated for their picturesque and quintessentially Canadian landscapes, our national parks are also critical to protecting vulnerable ecosystems, which is why I believe there is growing interest in the establishment of more national urban parks near our ever-expanding and developing urban centres.

Ojibway national urban park would be the second national urban park in the country, following Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto, which I sponsored in this chamber. Parks Canada is currently studying the feasibility of establishing four other national urban parks in other urban areas. National urban parks provide an opportunity to not only preserve the beauty in the natural green space but also provide the protection of habitat for our flora and fauna that are increasingly pressured by nearby urban development.

As I’ve already mentioned, colleagues, all lands that would constitute Ojibway national urban park are already in public ownership. There are no private lands in question, and the current public entities that own the areas that would form this national urban park are all in support of transferring ownership and control to the federal government.

As I mentioned at the outset, the proposed urban park is the culmination of years of efforts by local residents and stakeholders, so allow me to outline the process and support for the project.

The initiative was officially launched in 2019 with a town hall hosted by Mr. Masse to publicly discuss the formation of the Ojibway NUP with local and national organizations, including grassroots groups such as The Friends of Ojibway Prairie, Friends of the Rouge, the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, the Wildlands League, scientists and local Indigenous leaders. All Windsor municipal, provincial and federal officials committed to this initiative.

Caldwell First Nation and Chief Duckworth also fully support the establishment of the park. It is also significant to note that it was announced that Ojibway national urban park is to be co‑managed with the Indigenous community.

In terms of municipal support, in 2021, the Windsor city council unanimously endorsed the proposal and have indicated their intent to transfer its lands to the federal government as soon as feasible for Parks Canada.

Also in 2021, the federal government signed a statement of collaboration with the City of Windsor to work towards designating the area as a national urban park and, furthermore, committed $130 million towards the establishment of national urban parks. It was at this point in the process, after years of collaboration and widespread support, that Mr. Masse introduced his bill in the House of Commons in February 2022. Since this time, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has committed to transferring ownership of Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve, one of the six parks that would constitute the NUP, to the federal government.

And, finally, in what Mr. Masse called the “final piece of the puzzle,” Ojibway Shores, the 33-acre parcel of undeveloped land on the shores of the Detroit River, has officially been transferred from the Windsor Port Authority, under Transport Canada, to Environment Canada, allowing for Parks Canada control.

Bill C-248 then passed in the House of Commons at third reading by a margin of 319 to 1.

Colleagues, after due process in the other place, it is now in our hands, and although I speak to you today as critic, I do so in full support of Bill C-248. Given the extensive support that this bill has, including all-party support, I believe it would be prudent of us to act on this bill as quickly as possible and, therefore, I recommend we send it to committee as quickly as possible. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Klyne, for the adoption of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Amendments to the Rules, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, as the Deputy Chair of the Rules Committee, I’m presenting what the Chair of the Rules Committee, Senator Bellemare, called a friendly amendment to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. Senator Bellemare is unable to present this amendment because she has already spoken on this matter, but she is in full agreement with this.

The fourth report of the Senate Rules Committee added the following new rule:

1. adding the following new rule immediately after current rule 1-1(2):

“Accessibility

1-1. (3) If a provision of these Rules or a practice of the Senate constitutes a barrier to a senator’s full and equal participation in proceedings solely due to a disability, as defined in the Accessible Canada Act, the Speaker, or the chair of a committee, may authorize reasonable adjustments to the application of the rule or practice.”;

The amendment that we are proposing today clarifies that adjustments to allow full participation for a senator in proceedings of the Senate Chamber or a committee only applies to proceedings here in Ottawa.