Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Patterson, for your question and for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of the correspondence.

I would be happy to inquire on this matter, and then perhaps you and I could meet. You could brief me further so that my inquiries with the government will be that much more productive. If it would be helpful to arrange a meeting with the responsible ministry officials, you know my office is always happy to do that for you or for any other senator on a matter of this importance.

Senator D. Patterson: Thank you for that answer, Senator Gold. The sixth Auditor General of Canada flagged that the long‑standing issues include incomplete surveillance and insufficient data about vessel traffic in Canada’s Arctic waters. The need for better Arctic surveillance was also echoed in the House of Commons National Defence Committee’s April 2023 report A Secure and Sovereign Arctic.

Senator Gold, would you agree that, especially given the current geopolitical realities resulting from the Ukraine war and China’s description of itself as a near-Arctic state, Canada should make better efforts to protect its Arctic and improve its maritime domain awareness overall?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

[English]

Senator Gold, the budget bill proposes to amend section 41 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. The amendment aims to ensure the constitutionality of inspections of Canada Post parcels by Canada Post inspectors. This is an amendment that will likely fix the problem raised by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador last year in the Gorman decision.

However, the amendment does not authorize inspectors to open letters that are being delivered by Canada Post even if they have grounds to suspect the presence of dangerous products such as fentanyl. As I said before, traffickers of fentanyl use Canada Post letters as their preferred means of delivery.

Will the government consider amending Division 30 of the budget bill to allow for the inspection of letters by Canada Post inspectors who have reasonable grounds to suspect the presence of fentanyl?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. AI technology has enormous potential but also enormous risk, and must be used responsibly and regulated appropriately.

With regard to one aspect of your question, Minister Champagne is already actively engaged with leading experts in the field as well as with counterparts in other jurisdictions. Among many aspects of this, Canadians have to have confidence that the regulation is appropriate and that their data and privacy is being respected.

You referred, senator, to Bill C-27. This is an important piece — not the only piece, but an important piece — in addressing the challenges that AI technology poses. This will ensure that Canadians have first-class privacy and data protection and that companies respect those rules, otherwise facing consequences. On the matter of AI, this bill will also put in guardrails to ensure that AI is built and deployed responsibly as well as provide penalties for non-compliance.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question and for your engagement on this important issue. As you correctly pointed out, the amendment to which you refer was a direct response to a very specific issue, and, indeed, the amendment already reflects Canada Post’s usual practice of only inspecting parcels if there’s reason to suspect prohibited material may be inside. In that regard, the amendment does not change the day-to-day practices, though it does respond to the issue of constitutionality.

That said, in the opinion of the government, a broader reform of how mail is handled and inspected requires careful study and likely more changes than simply one provision in the Budget Implementation Act.

In that regard, I would be very happy to facilitate a meeting between you and the minister to discuss this matter further. I’m just not aware at this juncture and at this stage in the legislative process as to whether your suggestion is one that can be entertained. But it certainly merits discussion. I’d be happy to facilitate that.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Senator Gold, alarms are being sounded globally about the hugely potential disruptive — and not in a good way — impacts of generative artificial intelligence, or AI, on the health of individuals and populations, democratic processes and institutions, work and economic development, arts and culture and pretty much every aspect of human behaviour. This does not even contemplate the damage that can be realized if so-called poison data spills into the AI universe. If the disinformation deluge we see in current social media is an example, we should be prepared to see this in AI as well.

My question is this: In the face of activities under way in the United States, which include an AI Bill of Rights and an Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework that reports directly to the White House, and while Bill C-27 awaits committee study in the other place, what is the Canadian government doing now to manage the impact of AI here in Canada?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, and for mentioning this aspect of Canada’s responsibilities with regard to human rights violations and Canadian companies.

I’m not aware of what the office of the ombudsperson is doing. I’ll make inquiries and report back.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The government is not trying to keep anything. The government is engaged on all fronts with regard to its relationships, in this case with China — in a responsible and prudent way.

Colleagues, this government is committed to ensuring that our infrastructure and our institutions are free from interference from foreign or nefarious actors of any origin. Our relationships with China are complex. The saga of the two Michaels shows how vulnerable Canadians who reside in China or are doing business in China, or companies doing business in China, are to coercive measures.

What the government is doing very often needs to be done both diplomatically and carefully. That’s what the government is doing.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

In June 2021, Health Canada made a proposal for regulatory changes to vaping flavours, and opened a consultation for input. In their press release, Health Canada noted:

Research shows that flavoured vaping products are highly appealing to youth, and that youth are especially susceptible to the negative effects of nicotine — including altered brain development, which can cause challenges with memory and concentration.

Data from the 2021 Canadian Tobacco and Nicotine Survey shows that fruit flavours are the most used flavours among young people aged 15 to 19.

In a post published on March 12, 2023, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada lamented:

More than 600 days after federal officials last gave any sign that they intend to finalize these regulations, it now seems prudent to conclude that the flavour ban has been left to die on the vine.

Senator Gold, has the federal government simply given up on banning flavoured vaping products?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The short answer is that I don’t know the current status of this, and I will make inquiries.

One can happily celebrate the decrease, and it’s a marked one, of people of all ages — but certainly young people — smoking or burning tobacco to inhale it. One should be — and is — concerned about the rise in nicotine-infused vape products, along with the addiction that inevitably entails.

I’ll make inquiries, senator. I hope to have an answer as quickly as I can.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, last Thursday I asked about the unacceptable wait time for visitor visas for Pakistan, which was 638 days. Yesterday, I heard from community members that it has gone up this week to 802 days — this is inhumane.

Leader, that means that family members have to wait for almost two years to be able to visit their loved ones. What is being done to reduce the wait time for visas?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The government has deployed significant efforts and resources to speed up the process, which is unacceptably long for far too many applicants and their families.

The government is processing these applications faster than it did before the pandemic; it’s an average — plus or minus — of 200,000 per month over time. This was made possible by digitizing certain processes and hiring new employees.

The figures that you cite are of great concern. I will make further inquiries, senator. We all hope that the situation improves. I hope to have an answer in that regard soon.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Gold, I’m following up on my previous question to you when I noted that Chevron, the American multinational energy corporation, recently announced it was selling its 41.1% stake in Myanmar’s Yadana gas field to a subsidiary of Edmonton-headquartered MTI Energy Inc.

In contrast, TotalEnergies, a French company, announced in January 2021 that they were exiting the country over human rights abuses and a deteriorating situation with respect to the rule of law.

I asked the following: Why are Canadian companies permitted to invest in this brutal regime? But today, my question is about the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, or CORE. CORE has the mandate to review complaints about possible human rights abuses by Canadian companies when those companies work outside of Canada in the garment, mining and oil and gas sectors, and to promote the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Senator Gold, what is CORE doing about Canadian companies enabling human rights violations by the brutal Tatmadaw in Myanmar?

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, this Mental Health Week, I’d like to speak to how digital entrepreneurship is not just crucial to our collective prosperity; it is also a tool to improve mental health. I’ve seen this first-hand. Twenty-five years ago, I was the CEO of a start-up that developed sophisticated science-based programming to address severe reading disabilities, like dyslexia. In this highly technical field, we expanded access, reduced costs and improved outcomes. These are not mutually exclusive factors.

Allow me to offer some more recent examples. Rise, a national program based in Toronto, provides loans, business coaching and mentoring to individuals who are starting businesses, in particular, individuals with mental health and addiction challenges. Over the past 10 years, Rise has loaned over $3 million to clients who have launched over 700 diverse businesses. One of those entrepreneurs told CTV that Rise not only helped him launch a successful business but also helped to improve his diagnosed depression and anxiety, especially at the height of the pandemic. Providing access to resources that support people’s passions and create additional sources of income might not be exactly what the doctor ordered, but there’s no denying that its impact is helping people to thrive in spite of their mental health conditions.

Think also of busy families. Whether they’re in an urban or rural community, families struggle to access mental health supports. Strongest Families Institute is an organization built on research conducted at Dalhousie University and the IWK Health Centre in Nova Scotia. Over the past decade, they’ve worked to increase access to their specialized mental health and developmental disability services. Today, their data-driven e-mental health delivery platform remotely delivers customized care to children and families in most of our provinces and territories.

Lastly, think about parents whose child is showing signs of neurodevelopmental disabilities. The gateway to receiving any support is a formal diagnosis. Just imagine their anxiety and despair when they realize that simply accessing a diagnosis is years away. Alternatively, they can access the Parents Empowering Kids program, which remotely delivers evidence-based strategies and tools that empower parents to better support their children and improve life at home. Over 400 families in rural Atlantic Canada have accessed this evidence-based mental health care and support from home.

Honourable senators, I ask that you please encourage the development of innovative mental health program delivery models, enabling more Canadians to lead more productive, joyful and healthy lives. We have to think outside the box and leverage unconventional tools, like entrepreneurship, technology and paraprofessionals, if we’re to create the capacity necessary to meet the growing need. Thank you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Congratulations, Senator Miville-Dechêne.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act, as the official critic. This bill is the government’s attempt, after nearly seven years, to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action numbers 53 through 56.

Bill C-29 provides a framework for the implementation of a national council for reconciliation, a framework that was flawed when presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. The committee worked hard to repair Bill C-29, yet two issues remain that will require the close attention of senators here. I speak to the composition of the board of directors, specifically clause 10(1), and to the inclusion of the recognition of the importance of economic reconciliation as a driver for Canada’s overall efforts to reconcile with Indigenous peoples.

The bill sets aside directions for the construction of the council’s board of directors. The board will be composed of a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 13 directors. Originally, the board was to consist of three guaranteed seats, one each for the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK; and the Métis National Council.

Through witness testimony, it was heard that these three groups do not represent all the First Nations, Inuit or Métis in Canada. It was through the interventions of the Conservative members of the committee that two other national organizations were considered for these guaranteed seats: the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada gives voice to Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people in Canada, inclusive of First Nations — on and off reserve, status and non‑status, disenfranchised — Métis and Inuit. The Native Women’s Association works on a variety of issues, including employment, labour and business; health; violence prevention and safety; justice and human rights; environment; early learning child care; and international affairs.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents the interests of Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit Indigenous people living off-reserve in Canada. The congress works collectively with its 11 provincial and territorial organizations across Canada to improve the socio-economic conditions of their constituency living in urban or rural areas.

Thankfully, through the advocacy of Conservative members and with support from other opposition parties, the bill was amended at committee stage to include guaranteed seats for the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, along with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. However, at report stage in the House of Commons, the Liberal government introduced a motion to specifically remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from clause 10(1) of Bill C-29.

The Liberal government along with their coalition allies, the NDP, voted together to ensure that the motion would pass, effectively silencing the voices of over 800,000 Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit Indigenous people living off-reserve in Canada.

Truth and Reconciliation Call to Action 53 set out the conditions for the establishment of the council. Call to Action 53 called on:

. . . the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members.

Of note, there is no condition that limits the government to provide a guaranteed seat, nor is there a condition to specify which organizations should be on the council. The only condition present in the Call to Action is that the legislation would establish the council that contains “national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members.”

There are five recognized Indigenous national organizations, yet only three were part of the original bill. While, thankfully, the latter two were added at committee, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, a nationally recognized Indigenous organization, was removed by a Liberal amendment in the House.

One of the most glaring issues with Bill C-29 was the lack of representation for largely urban status and non-status Indigenous peoples in this country. Conservatives advocated to address this serious oversight, but the government has chosen to deny a large swath of disenfranchised people.

Senator Brazeau stated, as a former elected Indigenous leader of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples:

If there is an exclusion of one recognized Indigenous organization, I fail to see how there is any respect, cooperation or partnership here.

Furthermore, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK as it is commonly known, has raised its own concerns regarding clause 10(1), going so far as to withdraw its support from Bill C-29. ITK President Natan Obed fears the council created by the bill could undermine ongoing Inuit work to build a direct relationship with the federal government and advance Inuit rights and interests, adding that the bill as it stands also does little to make the federal government accountable for fulfilling its obligations on reconciliation.

According to ITK, the proposed council would force Inuit — who have constitutionally protected Indigenous rights — to sit with organizations that are not rights holders, and that the bill could compel the government to pick and choose the people it listens to and how it does its work.

ITK has now officially withdrawn their support from Bill C-29, stating that the Liberal government’s claims that this legislation was co-developed are wrong. As President Obed stated:

It has been debatable on the Inuit side on whether or not we would describe how we’ve interacted with the federal government as co-developed.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief RoseAnne Archibald has stated that Bill C-29 is “not within the spirit and intent of reconciliation, and it’s very paternalistic.” The AFN is very concerned that the federal Crown-Indigenous Relations minister would get to appoint the majority of the proposed national council for reconciliation’s first board of directors.

This issue was raised by Conservative members at the committee, asking how independent this council will be if members of the board are picked by the Minister of Crown‑Indigenous Relations. While the bill does state that directors will be chosen by the council and not the minister, Bill C-29 does stipulate that the first board of directors will be selected by the minister in “collaboration” with the transitional committee. But let’s not forget that the transitional committee was also selected by the minister in December of 2021.

Why is this important? The first board will have the vital task of establishing the articles of incorporation and other founding documents that set aside how future boards will be elected and who will constitute a member. In other words, the minister and his hand-picked transitional team will determine the future of this “independent” council whose job includes taking the minister to task over their failed record on reconciliation.

The other flaw in this bill that I would like to draw senators’ attention to is the lack of economic reconciliation as a factor of true reconciliation inherent in the bill.

What is economic reconciliation? According to Reconciliation Canada, an organization that, though partnerships and community outreach programs, delivers reconciliation workshops across Canada, economic reconciliation:

Aims to create meaningful partnerships and mutually beneficial opportunities based on a holistic, values-driven approach to attaining community economic prosperity.

This shared-prosperity approach draws on the values of the community to inform the structures, processes and environments to stimulate action toward community resilience.

The Assembly of First Nations says that economic reconciliation is a process wherein First Nations benefit from the resources extracted from their lands and waters to build their own wealth and have access to the wealth derived from those resources.

The First Nations Financial Management Board, an Indigenous-led organization that aims to provide the tools and guidance that will instill confidence in First Nations’ financial management and reporting systems to support economic and community development, says that Indigenous economic reconciliation creates pride in Indigenous ownership, nation building and Indigenous individuals’ self-actualization.

Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

Simply put, economic reconciliation is about free, prior and informed consent, and about partnerships that create opportunity for Indigenous peoples for their benefit that support pride and individuals’ self-actualization.

Economic reconciliation is an important pillar in overall reconciliation. It represents Canada’s efforts to reverse the Indian Act’s deliberate purpose to remove First Nations from the national economy. The Indian Act contained specific restrictions on education, on how one could leave a reserve and how to obtain permission to do so, severely hampering efforts at trade and commerce. It shrank resource-rich areas to tiny reserves, and it prevented First Nations from hiring lawyers to fight for their rights. While Indigenous people fell into poverty and squalor, the rest of Canada grew and prospered — yet the principle of economic reconciliation is completely left out of the bill.

To right the 155 years of policy failure for Indigenous peoples that have contributed significantly to socio-economic gaps in housing, infrastructure, water and much more, economic reconciliation must be considered.

Indigenous peoples want to address their own issues with their own resources and to return to a sense of self-sufficiency and honour that has been stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Conservatives recognized this and attempted to rectify this through proposing an amendment to clause 12 by adding, “(f) Indigenous organizations that focus on economic reconciliation and prosperity as the path to self-determination.”

Clause 12 outlines the representatives of the council’s board. It includes such categories as Indigenous elders; First Nations, Inuit and the Métis; youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons; and Indigenous organizations as defined in section 2 of the Department of Indigenous Services Act. Yet it does not include organizations that promote economic reconciliation.

The silencing of over 800,000 Indigenous voices and the discounting of the importance of economic reconciliation do nothing but hamper our efforts to support true reconciliation in this country. With the concerns raised by the AFN and the withdrawal of support by the ITK, I urge all honourable senators to seriously consider when deciding to support this legislation or not.

Reconciliation must be centred on the future of Indigenous peoples, not what is in the best interest of the current government.

Honourable senators, there is more work that needs to be done on this bill and this important issue. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who have contributed to the debate at the second reading of this bill and for their thoughtful analyses, consultations and efforts thus far. Senator Anderson stated:

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to examine, question and use sober second thought to ensure that when we are considering a bill that not only arises from TRC Calls to Action but impacts Indigenous peoples, we are not repeating the historical wrongs of Canada in the guise of reconciliation.

I agree. It is also our duty to carefully review and re-examine bills from the House when there are glaring gaps and issues identified. I am confident the Indigenous Peoples Committee will do just that, and we, as a chamber of sober second thought, will do what is in the best interests of all those whom this bill will affect.

Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill C-29, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, this Mental Health Week, I’d like to speak to how digital entrepreneurship is not just crucial to our collective prosperity; it is also a tool to improve mental health. I’ve seen this first-hand. Twenty-five years ago, I was the CEO of a start-up that developed sophisticated science‑based programming to address severe reading disabilities, like dyslexia. In this highly technical field, we expanded access, reduced costs and improved outcomes. These are not mutually exclusive factors.

Allow me to offer some more recent examples. Rise, a national program based in Toronto, provides loans, business coaching and mentoring to individuals who are starting businesses, in particular, individuals with mental health and addiction challenges. Over the past 10 years, Rise has loaned over $3 million to clients who have launched over 700 diverse businesses. One of those entrepreneurs told CTV that Rise not only helped him launch a successful business but also helped to improve his diagnosed depression and anxiety, especially at the height of the pandemic. Providing access to resources that support people’s passions and create additional sources of income might not be exactly what the doctor ordered, but there’s no denying that its impact is helping people to thrive in spite of their mental health conditions.

Think also of busy families. Whether they’re in an urban or rural community, families struggle to access mental health supports. Strongest Families Institute is an organization built on research conducted at Dalhousie University and the IWK Health Centre in Nova Scotia. Over the past decade, they’ve worked to increase access to their specialized mental health and developmental disability services. Today, their data-driven e‑mental health delivery platform remotely delivers customized care to children and families in most of our provinces and territories.

Lastly, think about parents whose child is showing signs of neurodevelopmental disabilities. The gateway to receiving any support is a formal diagnosis. Just imagine their anxiety and despair when they realize that simply accessing a diagnosis is years away. Alternatively, they can access the Parents Empowering Kids program, which remotely delivers evidence-based strategies and tools that empower parents to better support their children and improve life at home. Over 400 families in rural Atlantic Canada have accessed this evidence-based mental health care and support from home.

Honourable senators, I ask that you please encourage the development of innovative mental health program delivery models, enabling more Canadians to lead more productive, joyful and healthy lives. We have to think outside the box and leverage unconventional tools, like entrepreneurship, technology and paraprofessionals, if we’re to create the capacity necessary to meet the growing need. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Thank you very much to our colleague Senator Martin for all her work and for acknowledging our colleagues for the work everyone has contributed thus far. I am pleased to hear that you are encouraging us to get this to committee because it clearly needs everybody’s attention at the Indigenous Peoples Committee for us to tease out all of the issues that you have raised.

My question is to make sure I understand what you were saying: The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is a recognized national Indigenous organization, yes? That’s one point. The point you are making is that just like the Native Women’s Association of Canada — due to that recognition as a national Indigenous organization — it should have a place at that table. I heard that; I think that’s what you were saying.

You also said that there were 800,000 Indigenous people in Canada who would not be represented if — I believe you were drawing the link between those and that group?

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