Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, which deals with the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

(Pursuant to the order adopted April 27, 2023, the report was deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu introduced Bill S-265, An Act to enact the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime Act, to amend the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to establish a framework for implementing the rights of victims of crime.

(Bill read first time.)

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

(On motion of Senator Boisvenu, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 30, 2023, at 2 p.m.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, according to a recent report of The Globe and Mail, the activities of the People’s Republic of China agent expelled from Canada last week were known to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, since he arrived here in 2018.

The Globe and Mail reported that while he was in Canada, this diplomat:

. . . took pictures of dissidents, monitored events held by them, documented their identities and sent the information back to China’s secret police . . . .

According to The Globe and Mail, CSIS began sharing sensitive information about this diplomat with Global Affairs Canada in 2020, leader, including his meetings with staff of Liberal MPs. The Trudeau government knew this diplomat was spying on Canadians and did absolutely nothing to stop it for three years. Not one week, leader, for three years. How is that in the best interests of Canadians?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Margot Kontak-Forsyth and Morley Forsyth. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Coyle.

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

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

Colleagues, I cannot comment on the specifics of the discussions that might be or are taking place at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, but I have been advised that the government is engaged with its G7 partners to ensure that the proper regulation of the risk posed by AI is taken seriously and moves forward at the international level. I have been advised further that the government is in discussions with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, and the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, or GPAI, on discussions regarding AI. Also, Minister Champagne is meeting directly with international partners to coordinate on the responsible international regulation of AI.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your questions, senator.

The efforts of the federal government, as well as all the provinces, territories and municipalities, to protect Canadians in the face of an unprecedented worldwide pandemic are well known. In very large measure, they were successful in terms of protecting Canadians from the physical and medical ravages of COVID. Far too many became sick and far too many died, to be sure. Canadians and their families paid a terrible price, but it would have been much worse had the government not acted as it did in collaboration with the provincial, territorial and municipal governments, as well as the not-for-profit sector.

With regard to your specific question, I will certainly bring your preoccupation — the issue that you raised — to the attention of the appropriate minister.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Senator Gold, in a few days, our Prime Minister will join the other world leaders for the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan. Hiroshima was chosen as the host location to symbolize Japan’s commitment to peace. On August 6, 1945, 140,000 people lost their lives when the first atomic bomb was dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima, destroying the city and forever changing our world.

Recently, Russia threatened to deploy its nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The scientific discovery of nuclear fission led some to create weapons to destroy life, and led others to create medical technologies to save lives.

Senator Gold, on Monday, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, gave a talk at the Design Exchange in Toronto, and, yesterday, he spoke at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on artificial intelligence, or AI, oversight. He began his testimony by saying that OpenAI was founded upon the belief that AI could improve nearly every aspect of our lives, but that it also creates risks; therefore, we have to work together to manage those risks. He went on to say that regulatory intervention by government would be critical.

Senator Gold, you’ve spoken in this chamber about Bill C-27 — it is currently in committee in the House — which includes the artificial intelligence and data act. For other technologies such as nuclear, which have both pitfalls and promise, we have strong global regimes in place to regulate them.

Senator Gold, could you tell us if a global regulatory framework to establish safeguards against the potential harms of AI will be discussed at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, or at other international fora in the near future?

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Madam Speaker, first of all, I must say that I’m very honoured to be asking a question in your first week as Speaker of the Senate. Congratulations.

My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

[English]

I want to ask about artificial intelligence, or AI, in a sense picking up from my colleague who asked a question on this subject earlier. Indeed, it has been growing over many years, but I think 2023 will go down in history as the year when AI crossed a Rubicon and perhaps became more intelligent than human beings. First with the beginning of ChatGPT and the soon to follow GPT-4, and the unthinkable letters from the leaders on March 29 written by the owners and inventors of AI calling on the world to slow it down. Even Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the godfather of AI, spoke on CBC Radio this weekend and called on governments to take action to put controls on AI. It’s worth repeating: Inventors of AI are asking the government to intervene in the evolution of their invention, which seems to be going out of control. This week, I’ll be issuing an article by software technology specialist Shawn Brayman on this and how AI relates to polarization.

What is the government willing to do to respond to getting things under control in this world of AI, which seems to be running out of control?

Hon. Scott Tannas: My question is for Senator Moncion, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

Senator Moncion, some months ago, the Senate agreed to conditionally support a return to what is sometimes called the “one-clerk model,” where the Prime Minister would appoint the Clerk of the Senate through a hiring process under his or her control — as has been the tradition for more than 100 years — and that concurrent with the appointment, the Clerk of the Senate would have ultimate executive leadership and responsibility for both the legislative and the administrative operations of the Senate. The condition expressed by the Senate was that we retain the right in the future to remove the administration chief executive function from the Clerk and place that responsibility with someone else of our choosing if we so desire.

I’m wondering if you’ve been consulted or been given an opportunity to review the proposed job description for the new Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments. If so, are you satisfied that the Senate’s right to unilaterally remove the role of administration leadership is sufficiently clear to all participants in the recruiting and hiring process?

Hon. Paula Simons: I have a question for the Government Representative. As of this afternoon, there were 91 active wildfires in Alberta, including 15 wildfires of note, which were so deemed by the province because they pose a threat to public safety, communities or critical infrastructure.

First, I want to thank the government and the people of Canada for providing military support to Alberta in this time of emergency, and I want to say that I, for one, am proud that we live in a united confederation where Canadians support one another when there is a regional crisis.

But Government Representative, in 2005, the Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy predicted many of the drought conditions and types of fires we’re seeing now. Edmonton journalist and author Ed Struzik, who is one of Canada’s leading writers on wildfire, has called that strategy “dead in the water,” which he blames in part on a lack of funding and a lack of buy-in from premiers and provinces.

Can you tell us, in the face of the mounting economic, environmental and human costs, is it time to renew the Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy and put it into action?

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for the question. The second part of your question is a little bit more difficult to answer because of the rules and the act which that particular position is under the purview of.

The recruitment and hiring process is not under the purview of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Under subsection 130(b) of the Public Service Employment Act, the Clerk is appointed by the Governor-in-Council. Therefore, I cannot comment on the second part where we don’t yet have the powers that you are enumerating about with respect to removing that person from office.

As to the first part regarding the job description of the new Clerk, I am confident in the process that is under way to ensure proper functioning of our institution. As you know, much of the Clerk’s job description is statutory in nature and described in our Rules. I will refer you to the Rules of the Senate, under the Clerk position. So far, we have received the proposed job description, which is aligned with its counterpart in the House of Commons. This review took place a few months ago and also comprised salary scales, which were part of the review.

The other portion that I worked on was asking our former Speaker, before he left the Senate, to communicate with the Privy Council Office on a few pending matters, one of which is the appointment of the Clerk of the Senate. The Speaker did put in the request and informed me that the process would be enacted in due course. We still have to define “due course.”

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. First and foremost, I know that I speak for all of us in sending support and encouragement to those families and communities that have been displaced or who are living in fear that they will be displaced because of the ravages of these fires. This government, along with others and provincial governments, is also pleased and proud to provide whatever assistance it can in the short term.

With regard to your question, I will certainly bring this to the attention of the relevant minister.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Colleagues, as you know, and as Senator Coyle referred to in her question, the government has tabled Bill C-27, which is the digital charter implementation act, part of which includes the artificial intelligence and data act. This will create a framework to regulate the risks associated with AI here in Canada and to ensure that potential harms are appropriately mitigated and the risks are managed for those high‑impact AI systems.

Furthermore, I’m advised that Minister Champagne recently convened an emergency meeting of Canada’s Advisory Council on Artificial Intelligence specifically on the issue of generative AI to gather experts’ opinions to chart a path forward for Canada to ensure the responsible use of AI.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Colleagues, as you know, and as Senator Coyle referred to in her question, the government has tabled Bill C-27, which is the digital charter implementation act, part of which includes the artificial intelligence and data act. This will create a framework to regulate the risks associated with AI here in Canada and to ensure that potential harms are appropriately mitigated and the risks are managed for those high-impact AI systems.

Furthermore, I’m advised that Minister Champagne recently convened an emergency meeting of Canada’s Advisory Council on Artificial Intelligence specifically on the issue of generative AI to gather experts’ opinions to chart a path forward for Canada to ensure the responsible use of AI.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Leader, yesterday, I asked you some questions about the dumping of toxic substances into Lake of Two Mountains, which supplies water to hundreds of thousands of people. You said, among other things, and I quote, “. . . the government is not dragging its feet. The government recognizes that this is a very serious situation.” One of the La Presse articles I quoted also states the following:

The discharges that La Presse observed on two occasions this spring are not one-time events. On August 1, 2020, a breach at the same location, in the middle of the hot summer, released thousands of litres of putrid water that was “black as tar” into the same streams, all the way to Lake of Two Mountains.

In Ottawa, this triggered a notification from the National Environmental Emergencies Centre. An email exchange obtained through an access to information request indicates that some 225 Environment Canada officials were notified of the event. A federal inspector’s handwritten notes state that this matter must be brought “to the attention of the Office of the PM,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Leader, I have this note with me. The question is simple. Was the PMO notified following these alarming discharges at Kanesatake? If yes, what measures did the PMO order? If no, why not?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I also followed the issue with interest, concerning that same article. I was told that the government is working with Grand Chief Bonspille and the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake to find ways to mitigate the potential environmental impact of the problems associated with the site, such as water leaks and toxic fumes, and ultimately to rehabilitate the site.

The Government of Canada agrees that a solution is needed. It is also concerned about how this situation affects the community, which also has challenges within its governance. I was also informed that Minister Hajdu met with Grand Chief Bonspille about this and that officials have continued to work with the community on finding a solution.

Of course, honourable colleagues, the situation is complex and worrisome. As this is partially private land, the government’s legal means for intervening are limited. The government continues to work with the grand chief on proposing solutions to the community and it continues to work in close collaboration with Environment and Climate Change Canada, with the Province of Quebec and also with the grand chief and his council to find a permanent solution.

Hon. Brent Cotter moved third reading of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-22. Parenthetically, I should say my own congratulations, Madam Speaker, but I want to say that I’m doing more than all our other colleagues in thanking you. I’ve started a small campaign among all of us to raise enough money to buy you a slightly smaller pair of gloves.

If I may be more serious in my remarks, I’ll touch only briefly on the bill and four or five of the amendments adopted by the Social Affairs Committee. In the interest of commitment to the goals of the bill as well as in the interest of timeliness, I’d encourage you to adopt the bill in its present, amended form.

I have two speeches, and in an effort to commit to my own message about timeliness, I have elected to deliver not the long but the short one. I know you will be grateful.

Once this bill kicks in — by which I mean once regulations are developed and the benefits begin to flow to people with disabilities — we will have achieved a great and meaningful thing, something of which all of us in the Senate can be proud. To get there, we need this bill adopted, and we need it adopted in a timely way.

About the bill and the amendments, let me begin by saying that, as in the other place, I believe we are unanimously committed to the sentiments and objectives articulated in Bill C-22. This was evident in the speeches of senators at second reading of the bill and in each of the interventions at the consideration of the bill before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that each of the amendments advanced at the committee, including the amendments adopted, was motivated by an intention to strengthen the bill and make a good bill better.

As you will know, the bill is a framework bill empowering the minister and the government to develop a disability benefits regime and system by developing regulations under powers provided to it in clause 11 of the bill and in close collaboration with the disability community. Every detail of this bill and the amendments and every word that has been spoken by us about it have been followed closely by a community of interest that is devoted to its adoption. For many thousands, this bill’s implementation is a lifeline to a better life. I think we are all committed to that goal as well.

Nevertheless, various amendments that we are making to the bill do present challenges. I would like to highlight some of them. Some of these challenges, I think, present difficulty for some among us. You may recall that the vote to adopt the report from the committee was a vote on division. Nevertheless, I would urge us all to adopt the bill, as amended, and to get it to the other place as quickly as possible.

Moving to specific provisions, I will first discuss the “coming into force” provision. If you are following, this is clause 14. An amendment was adopted at committee to clean up the “coming into force” provision. It previously called for the bill to come into force at a date that is no later than one year after Royal Assent but did not say who could cause it to come into force earlier. This amendment, introduced by Senator Petitclerc, makes it clear that the day of coming into force is to be fixed by the cabinet no later than one year after Royal Assent. There’s no change to the bill itself, but it identifies the “who” who can implement the coming into force.

Second, and associated with the timing, is an amendment that was adopted by the committee that requires that the regulations be put in place within 12 months of the bill coming into force. This is clause 11, a new subclause (1.2). This is an amendment that is well-meaning but, in my view, problematic. While the minister and the government are committed to timely implementation of Bill C-22, and the minister is aiming for this to occur within 12 months, this amendment actually gives the government — that is, if it were to follow the letter and extent of the law available to it — more rather than less time to implement the bill. This is because the amendment adds 12 months onto the up to 12 months before the bill comes into force. I’m confident we will get to implementation long before this and that the amendment will be rendered essentially irrelevant, but it is, to say the least, an unfortunate message to send.

Third, the bill adds, in clause 11, additional considerations required of the minister respecting the amount of the benefit. These are references, first, to the official poverty line — a hard number that was already in the bill — and four others, namely, additional costs associated with living with a disability, challenges faced in relation to earning a living, intersectional needs of disadvantaged individuals and groups, and international human rights obligations.

Again, these are heartfelt, but the concerns are these: First, the language is problematic, as these days we don’t speak about people “living with a disability.”

Second, in the section that calls for taking into consideration the requirement for disadvantaged individuals and groups, I think I know what was intended. While the concept of “disability” is  understood and defined in the legislation, the word “disadvantaged” is open-ended and undefined, and its literal meaning would, I think, take us well outside the objectives of the bill, which are well articulated in the bill and the preamble.

The other dilemma is a technical challenge for the minister. The clause now requires the minister to take these four factors into account in quantifying the benefit. If we want this to be done seriously, the minister can rely on and make reference to and consider the poverty line, which is a quantified number, but the ability to quantify “additional costs associated with disability” — and when one thinks of the wide range of disabilities — to qualify the challenges associated with earning income, again widely disparate, and to quantify intersectional needs are all complicated issues. They need to be better known, understood and studied than they are today. Realistically, for the minister to honestly and seriously take into account the quantitative aspects of these considerations, and to do that in the urgent time frame we all expect, asks for a great deal, maybe the impossible. In any event, the message in the preamble makes reference to all of these factors, and clearly so, even if they do not carry the clout that this amendment assigns to them.

Fourth, an amendment introduces a new clause 10.1. This is an explicit entitlement to appeal. The bill already contemplates, in clause 11, regulations respecting appeals. The argument advanced was that clause 11 was discretionary. This is true, but that is the structure of the regulation-making power across government. Indeed, the determination of the amount of the disability benefit would itself be discretionary if we take the view that the language of regulation making provides such a wide range of discretion. One might then say that, theoretically, cabinet could simply decide not to make regulations establishing the benefit at all. With respect, I think that’s unrealistic. In any event, for a benefit like this, the law provides an appeal process as a matter of natural justice whether stated or not. Again, in my view, this amendment is heartfelt but not needed.

There is one additional concern. The amendment creates two categories of appeal: ineligibility and the amount of the benefit you get or don’t get. I’m advised that there are various other categories of concern that a recipient or applicant may have, and they do not fall neatly into these two categories of “ineligibility” or “disputed amount of benefit.” The problem is that by creating these two categories and only these by legislation, that, by implication, locks out other categories of appeal. If locked out by the legislation, they cannot be unlocked by regulation.

My fifth and last observation in relation to the amendments is next, but first a bit of context. As committee members, witnesses and even some senators noted at second reading of Bill C-22 in the chamber, a major risk in relation to the effectiveness of the benefit is that it may be eroded or clawed back by provinces or by other providers of the benefit — insurers was one example identified — with respect to people who already qualify for a separate benefit and now could become entitled to a Canada disability benefit. My recollection is that Senator Duncan grilled me gently on this point in February.

Let me say at the outset that this is a legitimate and serious concern. There are two sources of this concern. First are the potential actions by provincial and territorial governments to modify the levels of support that they provide to recipients as a result of the recipients’ receiving the Canada disability benefit. The second possibility — I would even accept the word “probability” — is that private insurers would do the same. The committee heard evidence that wide-ranging clawbacks already exist in insurance contracts associated with disability and that this, if not a common practice, is at least common enough to be a genuine concern for people covered by insurance for disability. Speaking for myself, I accept these as valid and serious concerns. No one wants to see insurers be the beneficiaries, even in small part, of the disability benefit.

In light of this, and urged by some witnesses, an amendment was advanced at committee and adopted so that clause 9 of the act now includes the following:

A benefit under this Act

(c.1) cannot be recovered or retained, in whole or in part, under the terms of any contract, insurance plan or similar instrument . . . .

I appreciate entirely the sentiment of this amendment, but there are two concerns. One is that the language is offered. You will recall the language says that the benefit “cannot be recovered or retained.” Well, insurance companies will never directly receive the disability benefit or be entitled to it so that there will be nothing for them to have retained or to recover.

Second, with respect to this amendment, as heartfelt as it is — and I agree with the sentiment of it — it is an unconstitutional intrusion into provincial authority.

The arguments advanced by witnesses at clause-by-clause consideration suggested that the amendment is constitutional on the basis of the federal spending power or Canada’s commitment under the UN Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities. These arguments inaccurately presented the scope of federal authority and embed in the bill an unconstitutional and intergovernmentally problematic and divisive component to the bill.

Nevertheless, there is a small window to get this bill across the finish line here and in the other place. I urge you, even if you have reservations about the bill, to give it your blessing.

I would be remiss if I did not extend my own thanks again to the many people with disabilities, leaders of the disability organizations and so many others of goodwill who reached out to me; to our critic, Senator Seidman; to members of the committee, and to each of us, with their advice, concerns and universal support for this bill’s objectives, and also an extension of thanks to the committee for its diligent consideration of this bill.

We are doing a meaningful thing today by supporting and advancing this bill. I’m honoured to be part of this great enterprise.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

[Translation]