Pursuant to notice of May 28, 2025, moved:

That, for the remainder of the current session, all committees consider the influences and impacts of technology in any study, including the consideration of bills, the subject matter of bills, estimates and special studies, authorized by the Senate, including any such work already authorized but not yet completed.

He said: Honourable senators, I’m glad to get on the scoreboard in the Forty-fifth Parliament.

In 2018, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared before a U.S. Senate committee for a hearing that was meant to address serious concerns about data privacy and digital accountability. One exchange quickly went viral. A senator asked Zuckerberg, if a version of Facebook will always be free, “. . . how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?” Zuckerberg responded, “Senator, we run ads.” That response drew both laughter and scrutiny from around the world.

That hearing revealed a generational and institutional disconnect between lawmakers and the technologies that are disrupting our societies and economies. A light was shone upon the gap between the pace of technological change and the capacity of legislators to meaningfully understand and use technology, let alone manage its risks and capture its opportunities.

That kind of disconnect is not just an American phenomenon; it can just as easily happen here, and in some ways it already has. Legislatively, we are not keeping up with our peers. We may not be able to fully close the generational gap, but we can and must address our institutional readiness to legislate in an age of rapid technological change.

That’s why I am introducing this motion. It asks that, for the remainder of this session, every Senate committee consider the influences and impacts of technology in any study it undertakes. Colleagues, I’m not suggesting that we all learn how to code — mainly because we don’t have to; ChatGPT can now write code on demand on our behalf. My focus is on the fact that, regardless of the policy area, our committees need to be equipped to think critically and responsibly about the effects of technology as it relates to the issues we study and how legislation will shape Canada’s integration and use of technology.

Technology is no longer a sector that can be put in a silo or a niche area of expertise. It’s a disruptive, cross-cutting force that shapes every corner of society and our economy. Tens of millions of Canadians use the internet or apps countless times per hour of each day, each month, each year.

Along with the benefits of these services come growing concerns about the security of our digital systems and the data they contain.

Technology is fuelling market-creating innovations that can generate or erode wealth and environmental progress. I’ve celebrated some of these innovations in this chamber and online, from fintechs helping Canadians build their credit scores to carbon-dioxide-removal innovators leading the green revolution.

Technology is also reshaping how we work, from automation and AI to gig platforms, raising new questions about labour rights and protections, and the future of work. Long-standing business models are being completely disrupted and replaced by new businesses that are growing faster than anyone could have ever imagined, a process called creative destruction.

In our democracy, technology is influencing public discourse in new ways. The spread of disinformation and AI-generated content challenges the integrity of our democratic processes. Simply put, technology is disrupting the traditional policy-making process and how we consider solutions that are best for Canadians.

I think it is fair to say the pace of digital transformation will continue to accelerate, so I think it is also fair to expect an increase in the legislative load in the upcoming Parliament, especially when compared to the previous Parliament. In the Forty-fourth Parliament, three pieces of government legislation that affected the digital economy in substantial ways achieved Royal Assent. These were Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act; Bill C-18, the Online News Act; and Bill C-69, the Digital Services Tax Act, which was within Budget Implementation Act, 2024.

Five more pieces of legislation were tabled that did not make it through to Royal Assent: Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization; Bill C-26, the bill relating to critical cyber systems protection; Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022; Bill C-63, the online harms act; and Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. These bills touched upon just some of the complex, fast-moving issues where our legislation and regulations are struggling to keep up. Much more needs to be done, especially if we are to catch up with the digital ambition of becoming a leading innovative economy.

If we want to be a chamber of sober second thought that is prepared for today’s world, we must recognize that technology is no longer an optional context for our work; it is the context for our work.

We all know that the Senate’s strength lies in its committee work, where we investigate, review and improve policies that matter to Canadians. However, today, only the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has a direct reference to technology in its mandate. That’s not to say that other committees have not focused on technology, but there is no consistent or formal requirement or role.

However, I don’t think that we should silo technology into one or even a few committee responsibilities; instead, it should be a core consideration in every committee’s work.

This brings me back to the proposed motion at hand. It asks all committees, for the duration of this session, to consider the influences and impacts of technology in their work, both in reviewing legislation and in special studies. As you know, the Rules Committee, rather than a single senator, is formally responsible for recommending changes to committee mandates. However, despite several attempts to identify ways to raise the profile of technology in committees — including suggestions of merging science and technology with other existing committees — the Rules Committee has been unable to come to a unanimous agreement on this issue.

Colleagues, we know the Senate has countless advocates for this issue. That’s why I thought it important to propose a substep that might help us to move forward while the Rules Committee continues its important work. So, if passed, how would this proposed motion work in practice? I’ll offer two suggestions.

First, we can build on our existing institutional resources, such as the expertise of the Library of Parliament. Library analysts already provide senators with expert, non-partisan support in different aspects of their work, most notably in committees. This motion will enable analysts to consider how a given policy interacts with technology and flag relevant technological trends or risks in committee briefing notes. Library analysts can also support committees by identifying sector-specific or general tech experts as go-to witnesses who can advise committees on technological issues.

Just as we hear from economists, legal scholars and subject-matter experts, we should normalize hearing from technologists, innovators and digital policy experts in committee deliberations. Doing so will increase our capacity to assess potential risks, opportunities and unintended consequences of technology or legislation that might otherwise go unnoticed. These suggestions can help senators build confidence and the muscle to apply a tech lens to their scrutiny of policy issues in committee and more broadly. More importantly, doing so would not require any additional Senate resources, as they would be incorporated into the analysts’ existing responsibilities.

I was thrilled to hear from our new Parliamentary Librarian, Christine Ivory, that they are already implementing plans to ensure that the Library of Parliament can provide better support to all committees in the Senate and House when it comes to technology and innovation issues. I fully support her efforts, and I hope that the Library of Parliament continues to receive the necessary resources and support to equip their staff in meeting parliamentarians’ needs in this critical area.

Second, we can champion the development of a technological assessment policy tool, similar to Gender-based Analysis Plus, or GBA Plus. Just as GBA Plus, language and regional considerations are employed across the board in assessing public policy, we could also champion a technology impact assessment tool that could help us scrutinize how policies intersect with technology. This tool could encourage us to think of pertinent questions, such as: How does this policy interact with emerging technologies? Does the legislation risk unnecessarily restricting the adoption of new technologies? Who will benefit or be left behind by technology-driven disruption? What regulatory gaps exist, and what safeguards — if any — are needed? How will these technologies shape this issue now or in the next 5 or 10 years? How do we ensure that legislation allows for regulatory agility that will accommodate ongoing technological change?

There are examples of impactful policy and assessment tools that we can draw from to achieve this. I already mentioned GBA Plus. Another great example is the Competition Bureau’s Competition Policy Assessment Toolkit, which evaluates whether a policy is pro- or anti-competitive. There is also the Treasury Board’s Algorithmic Impact Assessment, an AI risk assessment tool that can be adapted for public policy objectives. As legislators, championing a similar tool for technology would be a crucial step toward enabling forward-looking, consistent technological perspectives across our important work.

Honourable senators, this motion is not about legislating specific technologies or platforms. It’s about building our capacity in the Senate to steadily strengthen our ability to scrutinize legislation and policies in this technological era. This motion challenges us to make a simple but meaningful change to one of the most important areas of our work as senators: our committees. By systematically applying a technological lens to our scrutiny of legislation and studies in committee, we can expand our skill sets to effectively legislate, investigate and advise on this ubiquitous, disruptive force.

The stakes are high. If we don’t effectively understand the dynamics of technology in our public policy, we risk creating outdated and ineffective laws; missing opportunities for innovation and economic growth; and harbouring blind spots in ethics, privacy, equity and public trust. So, the choice before us is simple: react to technology’s impacts or start to shape them. I hope we choose the latter.

Thank you, colleagues.