Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Seidman, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poirier, for the adoption of the first report of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, entitled Consideration of an Inquiry Report from the Senate Ethics Officer, presented in the Senate on November 21, 2023.

Hon. Brent Cotter, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, November 30, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

TWENTIETH REPORT

Notwithstanding section 1.5.3.1(a) of the Financial Policy for Senate Committees, your committee, to which may be referred matters relating to legal and constitutional affairs generally pursuant to rule 12-7(9) of the Rules of the Senate, respectfully request funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 1(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

BRENT COTTER

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 2248.)

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

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 5:50 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

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

Hon. Senators: Question.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

[Translation]

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I will continue from where I left off previously in support of Bill S-269, as brought forward by Senator Deacon from Ontario. I’ll focus on the potential harms that this bill may be able to, in part, mitigate — the public health challenge of problematic gambling. I’ll focus on the developmental cohort in which problematic gambling often begins, and that is young people.

Last winter, I was watching a National Hockey League, or NHL, game with some of my grandsons. In between the fragments of vigorous play, we were treated to a deluge of advertising for online sports betting. Indeed, it seemed that the amount of time provided for exhorting the virtues of online sports betting may have been close to equal to the amount of time provided for watching the entire game.

During one of the many commercials that promoted online gambling, one of my grandsons exclaimed that he wanted to place a bet so that he could win tons and tons of money. That led to a conversation about what gambling is, the odds of winning and losing, recreational enjoyment of making a wager and the catastrophic impacts on the lives of some people who become problem gamblers.

After we finished our chat, and following some considered contemplation, my grandson inquired, “Why would Auston Matthews say it was good if it was not good?”

Indeed, colleagues, that was a question that I could not answer without delving into the realm of speculation and the siren lure of lucre, so I simply said, “I don’t know.”

Colleagues, as children grow up, they need heroes. They take their inspiration from heroes. Their heroes are often celebrities, and these heroes become their role models. We can only hope that their heroes are living up to the faith that our young people are putting in them.

Senators, here I would like to clarify the difference between recreational wagering and problem gambling. Had my far-out seatmate Senator Boehm and I hung loose in our teens, we may have considered it gas to drop some bread on a wager on, for example, whether our principal wore a toupée or not. It would have been a bummer to lose, but that kind of teen innocence is not what I am speaking about here.

Gambling becomes a problem when it negatively affects a person’s daily activities, mental and physical health and relationships, and impacts their academic or vocational pursuits. The research evidence — some of which was cited by Senator Deacon — alerts us to the fact that problem gambling has its origins in the decade following the onset of puberty.

While it onsets there, it often persists into adulthood, and its pernicious effects are seen both during these years and in the decades following the transition out of adolescence. We know that adolescents — as a group — may be at a higher risk of developing many different negative life-impacting behaviours, such as gambling. Indeed, according to Gambling, Gaming and Technology Use — formerly known as the Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario — young people aged 10 to 24 years old have higher rates of problem gambling than adults.

Problem gambling can create substantive negative impacts in young people, and it becomes established in this age group with its negative impacts continuing into their futures.

Who are these young people who are most at risk? Well, honourable senators, we have a pretty good idea of who they are. In a comprehensive, population-based study of over 2,500 teenagers — published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction in 2022 — Edmond and colleagues found that problem gamblers at age 20 had a history of hyperactivity, conduct problems, being high sensation seeking and an external locus of control. They were more likely to have mothers who had problems with gambling, reported less parental supervision and had higher social media usage. Indeed, even for moderate-risk/problem gambling, it was associated with regular cigarette smoking, high levels of illicit drug use and the problematic use of alcohol.

Other research supports these findings, and the profile of the adolescent gambler shows a vulnerable population in which problem gambling is added to a host of other challenges. These include the personality traits of impulsivity and sensation seeking; psychological factors, such as low self-worth, depression and anxiety; and family factors, such as having a parent who is a problem gambler.

Just as all young people are not at equal risk for developing problem gambling, different types of gambling also impact the risk for developing problem gambling. Data from the Canadian Youth Gambling Survey showed that over 40% of adolescents in their sample had gambled in the past three months, and, concerningly, those young people who gambled online scored high in problem gambling severity compared to those engaged in land-based gambling. It’s the online version that is the problematic one.

Consequently, colleagues, the profile that emerges is one of a teenager who is already at risk for a negative life trajectory becoming a target for online gambling advertising. By creating an environment that increases the exposure of all teenagers to messages that encourage online gambling, we are taking a toll on those who are struggling. It’s the same as kicking someone who is already down.

However, these concerns become even more substantial if we turn the question around and ask, “What is problem gambling in adolescence associated with?” In other words, it’s not what factors increase the risk for problem gambling, but what does problem gambling increase the risk of for those youth who do gamble?

The scientific literature has spelled this out for us: Problem gambling in adolescence is associated with substance abuse problems; mental health problems; criminal activities; school difficulties, including truancy; financial problems; disrupted family relationships; and increased suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

Now we turn to the following: What can we do about it? We know that young people are highly affected by peer pressure and celebrity role modelling. We know that what friends are doing impacts all of us — young people even more so. Although the science is robust on this understanding, all of us in this chamber who have ever parented a teenager, or who have ever been a teenager themselves, can attest to this reality from personal experience. Celebrities can have substantial impact on young people, both positive and negative.

When celebrities become role models for young people, groups of teens can engage together in friendship circles to emulate, aspire to be like, take advice from or even idolize a celebrity. When a celebrity endorses a product or activity, young people who look up to that celebrity can be influenced by those endorsements.

Additionally, a teen who is part of a peer group that gives adulation or respect to a celebrity will be more likely to participate in what that celebrity endorses than one whose peer group is not so inclined. Although there are a variety of characteristics that may make certain types of advertising impactful on youth, it is clear that young people are engaged by advertising that appeals to them, such as making activities seem trendy, fun, glamorous and exciting, or — to my colleague Senator Boehm in his adolescence — groovy.

The impact of lifestyle advertising on teenage behaviour is a good example of this. When celebrity or lifestyle advertising is consumed by teenagers, there can be significant impacts on their behaviour — positive or negative.

Online gambling advertising that uses celebrity or lifestyle advertising can have a negative impact on teens, including increasing the risk for developing problem gambling. Therefore, as a public health truism, limiting exposure to negative or toxic inputs can have a positive impact on health and mental health outcomes. Therefore, limiting teen access to online gambling advertisements — that use celebrity endorsement or lifestyle glamorization — should be used as a public health intervention to decrease the risk for the development of problem gambling.

Monaghan and colleagues at the University of Sydney in Australia — who have extensively studied the complex interaction between advertising and gambling behaviour in young people — are quite clear on this point, as they state, “. . . regulations are needed to ensure advertisements for gambling products do not target or unduly influence children and adolescents.”

Gambling advertising is not only an influence on entry into gambling for young people, but it can also be an influence in supporting their addiction once that pattern of behaviour has been established.

Colleagues, this bill is important, as it has the potential to be part of the solution to mitigating the prevalence and the negative impact of problem gambling in teenagers, and in adults as well. This public health problem will require other interventions. These will include — but not be limited to — education; early identification and treatment; and enforcement of legislation and regulations.

Honourable senators, we can help with this public health challenge, and it is imperative that we take this opportunity to do so. I am asking you to vote to send this bill to committee, where it can be critically studied so that its impact might be of benefit not only to those who we do not personally know, but to those who we know only too well.

Recently, I told two of my preteen grandkids that I was going to be speaking about problem gambling and teenagers, and I asked them if there was something that they would like me to say on their behalf. So, this is from Avery:

Kids, don’t gamble. You could lose or get money, but it is more likely that you will lose money. Your parents will get so annoyed.

And this is from Oliver: “Kids, it’s a bad addiction. You can lose all your money now and when you’re older.”

Sage advice.

I, for one, would appreciate not having Auston Matthews, Connor McDavid and Wayne Gretzky encouraging my grandchildren and their friends to gamble.

I end my speech today by appealing to all those celebrities who are heroes to our young people, asking them to exercise caution and their best judgment when it comes to which products and activities they endorse. They are very powerful moulders of young minds, and to quote Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Thank you. Wela’lioq.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

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

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), on behalf of Senator McPhedran, I move adjournment of the debate for the balance of her time.

Hon. Bev Busson: Would Senator Kutcher take a question?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald moved second reading of Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust — perishable fruits and vegetables).

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-280, the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers act. The bill before us, an initiative of the member of Parliament for York—Simcoe, Scot Davidson, arrives with near-unanimous support at third reading in the other place, passing by a margin of 315 to 1.

Colleagues, it’s easy to take for granted our accessibility to food and proper nourishment. Most of us will simply visit our local supermarket weekly, fill our cart with our usual necessities and stock our refrigerators and pantries at home. We forget just how much we actually rely upon the producers of this food: the farmers. We rely upon them three times a day, every day.

Our farmers have always played an essential role in this country. In many ways, they are a cornerstone industry. They are an indispensable workforce. They feed our families and communities — rural and urban, big and small.

However, despite their essential role in supplying our families and communities with nutritious produce, fruit and vegetable farmers, in particular, are financially vulnerable due to the nature of their product. That is the issue Bill C-280 proposes to address.

Our current bankruptcy laws do not provide adequate financial protection for Canadian fresh fruit and vegetable farmers. Unlike other sectors, fruit and vegetable producers are particularly vulnerable because the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and related legislation do not account for the unique nature and characteristics of the sector; in particular, it does not account for the fact that their product is quickly perishable.

In circumstances where a buyer of produce unexpectedly becomes insolvent and is unable to or fails to pay the suppliers, these farmers will most likely incur that loss without the ability to recuperate payment or their product. Currently, under existing laws, it is near impossible for our farmers to recoup the economic value associated with the product delivered. By the time insolvency proceedings have concluded, the produce in question has long since perished and can no longer be repossessed and resold.

Adding to the vulnerability of fruit and vegetable farmers, the sector has a lengthy typical payment term whereby it can take upwards of 30 days or more after the product is delivered to buyers before the supplier receives payment. In an industry that already has a small margin on returns, this leaves our fruit and vegetable farmers particularly vulnerable to buyer insolvency, an occurrence that is unfortunately fairly common — more common than we realize.

For the most part, the sector consists of small- and medium-sized growers, many of which are family farms. Lacking the financial protections needed, the farmers are often unable to reinvest into their business in a sufficient manner, severely limiting the potential growth of the sector.

Another challenge facing our growers is the loss of protection under the U.S.’s Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or PACA, which provided preferential treatment and protection for Canadian companies that sell products to the United States. This protection was revoked for Canadian companies in 2014 due to a lack of reciprocal mechanisms in place in Canada, further exposing our fruit and vegetable farmers to increased financial risk.

Bill C-280 offers the financial protections this sector needs.

The legislation proposes establishing a limited deemed trust for produce sellers, which would give them priority access to the proceeds of sale, limited to only the inventory, accounts receivable and cash on hand derived from the sale of produce during the bankruptcy proceedings of an insolvent buyer.

By establishing a limited deemed trust and providing priority access, Bill C-280 ensures that Canada’s bankruptcy laws recognize the unique challenges and demands of our fruit and vegetable farmers, and provides them with the financial protections warranted for the especially perishable nature of fresh produce and the lengthy typical payment term that currently exists in the industry.

As I stated, colleagues, Bill C-280 received pan-partisan support in the other place, passing nearly unanimously by a margin of 315 to 1. This is truly a non-partisan issue.

This is about providing this essential sector with the protections it needs by recognizing the unique nature of the industry and the current deficiencies of our bankruptcy laws. This is about ensuring the viability and growth of this sector and the Canadian farming business.

It is important to note as well that this legislation comes with no cost to the government or to the taxpayer. The government would not be required to carry any financial liability or backstop any losses.

Bill C-280 also has support from across the industry as well. In fact, they’ve been advocating for these provisions for years.

During consideration of this bill, the House of Commons Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee heard from stakeholders from across the industry.

Keith Currie, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, offered the following:

While this bill would provide the much-needed financial support to our fresh fruit and vegetable sector, which supports nearly 250,000 jobs in this country, it is about much more than that. Bill C-280 is about preserving the fibre of local and rural farming communities, maintaining the integrity of our food supply chains and supporting Canada’s domestic food security.

He continued:

. . . risk management is a big part of what we do. From the moment that seed goes in the ground or that calf is born, there is a risk that I won’t see a crop at the end of the day or see that calf mature into a milker or head to market. However, unlike cash crop, livestock or supply-managed producers in Canada, fresh fruit and vegetable producers carry additional risks and costs that are unique to the production of perishable goods.

Mr. Currie outlined that the government has protections in place for other sectors, including, for example, the Canadian Grain Commission holding roughly $1 billion of financial security from individual licence holders to pay grain sellers in case a grain buyer becomes insolvent. But no such financial security exists for the fruit and vegetable sector.

Offering the Canadian Federation of Agriculture’s support to the legislation, Mr. Currie stated that Bill C-280 is “. . . a tailored solution to a clear gap in our risk management tool kit for Canadian producers.”

The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, or FVGC, is also adamant in their support for the bill, and hopeful for its swift adoption. At the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee, the association stated:

This legislation offers a framework that bolsters the stability of our industry and promotes fairness in business practices, ensuring the viability and growth of our sector for years to come.

FVGC sees this bill as a game-changer, providing our members with much-needed protections and possibly leading to greater market opportunities. . . .

A more robust and secure Canadian produce industry, backed by these protective measures, would help to address the growing concerns of Canadian food security and food sovereignty.

The association also explained why the finer details of the legislation are significant:

A key aspect of this legislation is that, once the proceeds from the sale of fresh produce are deemed to be held in trust for the supplier, they are not included in the company’s property. This is significant, because it means these assets would be protected, and it does not take away from other creditors’ ability to access their claims . . . .

Additionally, the definitions included in the legislation consider the realities of our industry. Acknowledging that the fruits and vegetables might be repackaged or transformed, and yet remain the beneficial property of the supplier, is an important detail.

Colleagues, this legislation will also potentially pave the way for reinstating the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or PACA, protection in the U.S. for Canadian growers. As I had mentioned, PACA was revoked for Canadian growers nearly 10 years ago because of a lack of reciprocity in Canada. The reinstatement of protections under PACA for Canadian exporters would be welcomed enthusiastically by our growers, ensuring preferential treatment and a dispute resolution mechanism that had been crucial for Canadian companies that sell to the United States.

Patrice Bourgoin, General Manager of the Quebec Produce Growers Association, echoed this sentiment at committee, stating that Bill C-280 reflects the tried-and-true model in the United States, and that implementing this legislation would, indeed, pave the way for Canadian reinstatement under U.S. regulations.

The Quebec Produce Growers Association also explained how important it is to provide protection and stability to the supply chain by stating:

If one of the links has not received payment, it affects the entire system, right down to the family farm. . . .

Colleagues, Bill C-280 offers a solution by way of a safety net that the industry not only wants but needs.

Again, there is no burden to the government; there is no burden to the taxpayer.

This legislation would create a more predictable and stable market by providing the financial assurances our farmers deserve — financial assurances that will allow our farmers the opportunity to reinvest in their business, and that will ultimately result in a reduction of costs to Canadians, saving consumers an estimated 5% to 15% on their annual fresh fruit and vegetable purchases.

This bill is a game-changer for this sector, colleagues. I ask for your support in sending it to committee as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Would the Honourable Senator MacDonald take a question?

Senator MacDonald: Certainly.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia moved second reading of Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care.

He said: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure today to speak to you as the sponsor of Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care, and designate an age-related macular degeneration awareness month.

Our vision allows us to experience the beauty of our world, to connect with others and to navigate the complexities of daily life. However, for too many Canadians, vision care is a luxury. Access to essential vision care services remains a challenge, and it’s one that we must address with both urgency and compassion.

Advances in technology and virtual care have opened pathways in this regard. Vision care is an integral part of a comprehensive health care system, and we should make it a priority to ensure that high-quality vision care is accessible for all.

In my clinical practice, I have witnessed the tragic sequelae of preventable ocular diseases in many instances purely on the basis of a lack of access or affordability. Vision impairment, whether through experiencing visual challenges or requiring assistance such as glasses, contacts or other aids, has touched the lives of virtually everyone either directly or through loved ones.

Before I begin, I want to express my gratitude to MP Judy Sgro, who has championed the efforts towards a strategy for vision care in the other place and has been a national advocate for people with age-related macular degeneration and various vision health issues.

I also applaud the careful thought and consideration of my members on the Standing Committee on Health in the other place. This past spring, members carefully studied this bill and helped maintain the federal and provincial jurisdictional limits on health care, professional training and guidelines. This bill passed with resounding unanimity, underscoring the collective recognition of the importance of vision care in our society.

We are presented with a unique opportunity to champion a cause that touches the lives of individuals, families and communities across our country.

The vision loss crisis in Canada requires a coordinated response, and this is what the national eye care strategy is all about. Over 8 million Canadians — or one in five — have an eye disease. There are 1.2 million Canadians who live with vision loss or blindness. There were over 1,200 deaths associated with vision loss in 2019 alone.

Meanwhile, 75% of vision loss cases can be prevented if patients are diagnosed early and have access to treatment.

Colleagues, the need for a national strategy is necessary to address the gaps and inconsistencies in access and delivery of vision care across the country. As we know, with our 10 provinces and 3 territories, it can feel like we sometimes have 13 separate health care silos or that we’re living in 13 fiefdoms.

Basic eye examinations are not universally covered under provincial health care plans. Some provinces provide coverage for specific groups such as children, seniors or individuals with certain medical conditions. Many Canadians rely on private insurance plans to cover the costs of routine eye exams, glasses and contact lenses. But even with private insurance, there might still be out-of-pocket expenses for vision care, especially for individuals who have no coverage. The cost of eyeglasses, contact lenses and certain eye treatments can be a significant barrier for Canadians accessing the necessary care.

Accessibility also depends on where you live, with urban areas generally having better access to eye care facilities than rural or remote ones. Practically speaking, this can impact the ability of individuals to access preventative care and may contribute to delayed diagnosis and treatment of eye conditions. By detecting these early, the health care system can avoid the costs associated with advanced treatments and complications.

The challenges associated with the delivery of vision care services have been exacerbated by COVID with many Canadians missing regular eye appointments, surgeries and other treatment plans, increasing the risk of more complications.

Vision loss has a profound impact on individuals, their families and society, costing our economy an estimated $32.9 billion a year. Of this cost, $4.2 billion is attributed to reduced productivity in the workplace. Over half the cost — $17.4 billion — is attributed to the reduced quality of life, which is primarily due to a loss of independence, especially in our aging demographic. Over $983 million was spent last year across Canada on injections to treat macular degeneration.

Losing one’s vision increases mental, financial and social hardship. It can lead to a loss of mobility, an inability to live independently, to drive, to read or to participate in physical activity. It can result in the loss of social interaction, which can often lead to loneliness, isolation and the mental sequelae thereof. A national strategy can promote cost-effective and efficient use of health care resources and dollars to help combat vision loss across the country.

The bill before us today is straightforward. It calls for the Minister of Health in consultation with representatives of provincial governments responsible for health, Indigenous groups and other relevant stakeholders, including health care researchers and practitioners, to develop a national strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye disease as well as the vision rehabilitation plan to ensure better health care outcomes for all.

It outlines the strategy that encompasses preventive care, early detection, treatment and accessibility. The strategy would aim to raise awareness of the impact of vision loss and blindness, improve eye health care and support and foster innovative research to advance new therapies for vision loss and rehabilitation. The bill is also calling on enhanced access to eye health care for Indigenous people.

While there are benchmarks, including timelines, by design, it is not overly prescriptive in what the strategy should entail. The government must be allowed the flexibility to respect the consultative process of this legislation. This legislation would ensure a coordinated national strategy aimed at ensuring Canadians have access to vision care regardless of where they live.

It also recognizes Canadians’ experiences and struggles with age-related macular designation through a designation of February as age-related macular degeneration awareness month.

Age-related macular degeneration is a condition that affects many Canadians over the age of 55 and is the leading cause of blindness among these Canadians. I know that many of us are in this demographic.

This condition affects the central vision, which is the most important part of an individual’s eyesight. It is a progressive condition that leads to vision loss and may increase the risks of other health concerns such as anxiety, depression and progression to dementia.

As our population ages, we must be vigilant in promoting awareness around age-related macular degeneration, increasing accessibility to currently available treatments and supporting the necessary research for developing new treatments needed by many Canadians across our provinces and territories.

We have the opportunity to be one of the global leaders in the delivery of vision care. We can draw from strong examples in other nations for service delivery and accessibility in vision care. While we know that there is no one-size-fits-all model for the delivery of care across different countries, the strategy will examine existing strategies, frameworks and best practices, as well as lessons learned from other jurisdictions.

Honourable colleagues, a national strategy would address the wide inconsistencies in access to care; work to prevent and slow the progression of vision loss, where possible; help us tailor services to the needs of all Canadians in a culturally appropriate manner; and allow us to foster research and innovation to better inform policy-makers on this issue.

This bill is important to millions of Canadians and is long overdue. Let us acknowledge the tireless effort of health care professionals, advocacy groups and individuals who have championed this cause and called for federal leadership. Their commitment to the well-being of Canadians deserves our utmost respect and support.

Making eye health and vision care a health priority requires all of our support. Colleagues, we can work together to ensure that 1.5 million Canadians with sight loss are provided with the necessary supports and the opportunity to live productive, healthy lives. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Thank you very much for your remarks and introduction of this bill, Senator Ravalia. I have one short question and then a supplementary question.

To which committee do you envision this bill going?

Senator Ravalia: Thank you, Senator Duncan. I envision that this bill would likely go to the Social Affairs Committee.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?