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. 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.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Can you explain the budget, because I see here it’s $134,764, and it includes transportation for four senators at $16,000 each for $74,600, accommodations for seven nights at $820 per night, per diems, taxis and a charter bus? Could you explain exactly why the budget is so expensive?

Senator Black: Thank you for your question, senator. As you well know, when we submit a budget, we have to submit it at the largest possible number. Taking into account the maximum number that could travel as well as the high cost — in this case, the euro is trading high against the Canadian dollar right now, inflating a budget prepared in our currency. As well, travelling in the summer is vastly more expensive, as tourism returns to pre‑pandemic levels. The timing chosen is to guarantee senator attendance at the Global Soil Partnership Soil Plenary Assembly, as well as engaging with integral stakeholders and experts. Unfortunately, these are just a few of the difficulties we’ve had when we put together the budget.

The cost of the accommodations is the maximum that we found. We will look for less expensive accommodations. We’ve also put on a larger dollar for bus travel in case we have to travel from outside the area to get a cheaper rate on accommodation.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock, when we resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock. Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Hon. Senators: Question.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Denise Batters: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the report be amended by adding the following at the end of proposed new rule 1-1(3):

“in order to facilitate the senator’s participation in proceedings in the Senate Chamber or in the committee room, as the case may be”.

Thank you.

[Translation]

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

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Batters accept a question?

[English]

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Dupuis, do you have a question?

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is focused on ensuring it’s well positioned to provide a meaningful and well-rounded report on soil health to support Canadian farmers, producers and the world.

With food security, land use, biodiversity and environmental and agricultural health in mind, the committee looks to have a fulsome and in-depth perspective on soil health that will be as beneficial as the previous Senate report has been for nearly 40 years.

In order to do this, the committee finds that it is essential to meet with global counterparts in Rome as a greater opportunity to engage with experts on soil health from around the world. This fact-finding mission originates from an invitation extended to the Agriculture Committee from the deputy director of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, or UN FAO, to meet many international experts with the organization, which would be impossible to coordinate in a virtual method.

This will involve roundtable discussions as well as a mix of formal and informal meetings that will highlight the importance of global coordination on soil health programs and projects.

Honourable senators, as you know, I’m not one to lay idle, and I keep my schedule booked solid with meetings while also adhering to my responsibilities here in the chamber and in committee. This fact-finding mission will be no different. So to my colleagues travelling with me, we can look forward to a very busy schedule, packed full of meetings, tours and a soil conference as well.

Our Agriculture Committee has had consistent and meaningful discussions around this budgeted option. We understand that this is a large expenditure for Canadians. Soil health, however, is a global problem, and while the committee is working to travel throughout Canada to better understand soil health here, an international perspective will have vast benefits as well. We can learn from other experts, beyond Canada, and from our largest trading partners and allies. As I’ve alluded to earlier, we will also be attending the Global Soil Partnership Plenary Assembly where we’ll engage in meaningful discussions with leading stakeholders and experts on soil from around the world, who can, without a doubt, contribute to our understanding of soil health here in Canada.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, if it’s the will of the chamber, I hope that we can pass the report today so that our diligent committee support staff can begin making arrangements for this travel, expected to take place in mid-July. Thank you, meegwetch.