Honourable senators, dear colleagues, it is my pleasure to rise today in strong support of Motion No. 3, introduced by Senator Colin Deacon.

This motion is both timely and important. Technology is reshaping every part of Canadian life, from how we work and learn to how we govern, heal and connect with one another. Making technology a core consideration across Senate committees is essential for responsible governance in this period of rapid transformation.

This means asking not only what technology can do, but also who benefits, who may be harmed and how these changes strengthen the well-being and prosperity of society as a whole. In other words, the “how” of technology-driven transformation is just as important as the “what.”

This motion is asking us to recognize that steady state is not an option. A sober second thought should not be steady state. And as complex as technology and innovation may be — and it is — what is truer is that technology is fast moving.

Forgive me, but I am not sure the Senate is always built for speed. However, I do believe the Senate can move at the speed of technology. In fact, we have no choice. We are in a global technological sprint — in the midst of many marathons — that is rewriting every file this Senate touches, and Canada must lead, not lag.

Technology; artificial intelligence, or AI; and machine learning, or ML, are influencing some of the world’s most pressing issues, whether we like it or not, from health care, the economy and markets, national security, education, mental health, climate and people — us.

Emerging technologies are advancing at an unprecedented speed. Canadians expect not only cutting-edge tools but also fairness, transparency, ethical oversight and resilient systems. If technology is an afterthought in our work, we will lose influence and miss something that we shouldn’t, and we may even become irrelevant. Change is hard; irrelevance is harder.

Let me take you on a journey from my old world. I would promise not to speak about it every time I speak, though I’m not sure I can. However, I ask you to now remember two things: a name and a statement. I will come back to them later.

The name is Adam Raine. This is the statement:

I was going to try and kill myself tonight when I reached out, and they helped me so much, I feel like I can fight another day. And they told me that I’m a fighter.

I love speaking about this journey in places where people are kind of confused as to why I am speaking there: on the stage of a tech festival like Elevate or, before that, Collision; at Davos and the World Economic Forum; even at global mental health conferences that don’t necessarily even consider digital, in places like Singapore, Australia and the United Kingdom; and here in the upper chamber, the Senate of Canada.

I will quote again, though this is not really a quote:

What the heck is a social service charity — albeit the most trusted charity brand in Canada — nonetheless, a social service charity on our stage talking to us about technology?

That journey I will talk about relates to Motion No. 3 as well as technology and innovation. I will talk about a simple thing: a mindset shift, exactly what Motion No. 3 is asking us all to enact.

At Kids Help Phone, or KHP — the social service charity I mentioned and the only 24-7 e-mental health solution coast to coast to coast in Canada — that mindset shift happened seven or eight years ago.

It was anchored in the idea that if you know who you are, you will know where you need to go; you will actually see it.

We sat around an executive table and a board table grappling with how we were going to stay relevant. Kids are changing faster, and technology even faster than that. We did something very odd: We put two things that were obvious to the side. We put being a charity — because that was obvious — to the side. The odd thing that day was that we put youth mental health to the side, because we were Kids Help Phone and that was obvious. Then we looked at what was right in front of us, and that was not so obvious.

It was clear then, though, that we understood we were an innovation- and data-driven technology charity with a laser-sharp focus on youth and mental health. It was a reordering of words, a nuance, but it was a mindset shift. It was who we were, and it changed everything — from how we organized our front lines, to how we operated, to our vision, strategy and brand. And we quickly built the Innovation Imperative — “imperative” being the operative word.

In 2018, we used artificial intelligence and machine learning to launch new services and technology. We created new programs and access points from coast to coast to coast, with a strong focus on equity. We even changed our mojo. We didn’t just sit meekly at the corner of the table and ask to speak. We took our place at and even chaired that table many times.

As smart as we thought we were with that mojo, what we didn’t know — we had no clue — was that what we were doing was building for COVID. And when Canada and the world shut down, we scaled and then scaled again, from 1.9 million interactions in 2019, a 30% increase from the year before, to more than 22.5 million interactions as of yesterday — a 250% increase.

With that kind of growth, you must decide what you’re going to give up. We promised youth we would be there, so what could we give up? Nothing. Technology, AI and ML were an integral part of how we scaled and how we ensured that wait times stayed at around three and a half minutes over every 24-hour period and quality scores stayed over 90%. KHP moved at the speed of youth and technology.

I tell you about this real-life application of AI and ML — of technology and innovation — because it required one very clear, intentional thing: a mindset shift.

Since then, KHP has taken the stage in the technology innovation sector many times over, even launching the acceleratorKHP at Elevate last October and Davos last January. Why? Because lives depend on it.

Let me bring this back to Motion No. 3 and all of us. If the Senate examines technology in isolation, it risks enabling systems that unintentionally leave people behind or cause harm. By explicitly broadening the lens, the Senate can help ensure that Canada builds a future economy that is not only innovative and competitive, but also just and inclusive. These are not marginal issues. They are central to ensuring that technological progress delivers real benefits for Canadians.

Other jurisdictions have recognized this. The European Union Horizon Europe program, the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development — or OECD — Oslo Manual and the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act all require technology to be assessed alongside its broader socio-economic impacts. The United Kingdom and the Nordic countries also embed these dimensions into their innovation strategies, not only measuring success through patents and profit, but also health, equity, inclusion and regional prosperity.

Canada should do no less. There is no question — the pace of change is relentless. The Senate can either shape that change or be overtaken by it. Motion No. 3 is a simple structural step to make a technology lens routine in committee work. This is not a procedural nicety. It is a decision — a decisive act — that will equip our committees to protect Canadians, preserve equity and ensure public policy keeps pace with how people live, work and play.

Let me bring you back to the beginning: Adam Raine, a 16‑year-old from California, a great kid who died by suicide in April 2025 with the help of ChatGPT.

I was going to try and kill myself tonight when I reached out, and they helped me so much, I feel like I can fight another day. And they told me I’m a fighter . . . .

A KHP service user triaged, using AI, to a human crisis responder.

In Canada, steady state is not an option. There are too many Adams who are asking us, pleading with us to ensure there is technology for good and AI for good in all the work that we do. Time is of the essence. Innovation and data-driven technology are, in fact, life-saving.

We must ask ourselves in every committee, during every study how technology — AI, ML — is impacting this work in Canada. Motion No. 3 is a mindset shift that can change everything.

I thank you, dear colleagues. Meegwetch.

Senator Deacon, would you like to ask a question?

Yes.

Thank you for the question, Senator Deacon. I did promise not to always speak about my former world, but I will in this case. There is no equity in Canada when it comes to health and mental health and many things with regard to rural and remote communities. That is without question. And so what I do now, in the vast data that KHP has — which is the largest, most significant, unique, real-time, real-geography, real-language data in the country — 40% of all those data points that I speak about come from rural Canada, because they do not have all the same services wrapped around them that they might have in an urban area.

So technology enables accessibility and programs they wouldn’t even have. For example, the Counsellor in the Classroom Program, which is easy to deliver to a classroom using curriculum with teachers and video with a counsellor, perhaps — in a remote area, that works, but it feels very transactional. So, technology like virtual reality is changing the game when we are in remote communities using technology and AI.

So if your question is whether rural Canada and remote Canada will benefit, 100% they will benefit. New programs, new accessibility points — it is proven time and time again through the work that I have done that programs, first of all, distinction-based and — I wouldn’t even say co-created — created by the communities that we serve are not only successful but game-changing and life-changing, and wouldn’t be possible without technology.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 3, putting a technology lens on the work we do.

I find it a bit odd that my first response to a motion begins with a confession. I have a sad lack of knowledge about this subject matter. Singer-songwriter and Ottawa native Alanis Morissette might call that ironic. And making a pop-culture reference that is 30 years old explains my situation.

Is it arrogant of me to rise in this historic chamber to speak on a subject I know very little about? Well, I suppose it probably isn’t the first time.

But no, this isn’t arrogance. It’s humility. In the short time since I became a privileged member of this esteemed body, I have noticed that most of what we do is intended to correct failings and to remedy shortcomings. Motion No. 3 is no different, except the potential failings and shortcomings are our own.

Motion No. 3 prompts us to look in the mirror and ask ourselves: When it comes to technology, have we brought enough humility to our discoveries? Are there unintended gaps in our deliberations? Can we be confident in our decisions? As a man of a certain age, my mirror is brutally honest. My mirror also tells me I don’t know enough about technology. My mirror tells me I don’t even know what I don’t know. My mirror has no mercy.

But I do know this about technology: There are many Canadians, wise Canadians, who would be happy to explain it if we asked. We should ask. We should ask often.

The other thing I know about technology is that it’s not all bad. We are currently witnessing significant advances in AI, bringing our workplace productivity up. We are seeing technology enable advances in medical science and in every field of science at a previously unimagined pace. Likewise, we are at the brink of unimagined opportunities.

But the same tools that are being used for good are being exploited by bad people: predators and adversaries. During a discussion in June, a group of national security experts described Canada as being in a polycrisis environment. Specifically, we have four overlapping threats: climate, geopolitical, societal and technological.

Going back to the song I mentioned earlier, I’m grateful to Ms. Morissette and her co-writer, Glen Ballard, who inspired such discussion about irony. Some of you may recall the many debates that followed the release of that song.

Dictionary definitions were shared and dissected. People argued about situational irony versus dramatic irony. It warmed the cockles of every educator’s heart. Even some spoofs followed. The comedy website CollegeHumor pointed out that rain on your wedding day would actually be ironic if you were marrying Ra, the Egyptian sun god.

The mayhem that Ms. Morrisette and Mr. Ballard unintentionally caused helped me to segue to my final point. I am not alone in my lack of understanding of the complex and serpentine impact of technology. I know there are others in this chamber who feel the same way, and we are joined by millions of people across our country. If the motion made by my honourable colleague is passed, the experts who will teach us, will also be teaching them.

We cannot forget that the Parliament of Canada itself is a technology platform. Putting a technological lens on the work we do would naturally become a teaching tool. Sharing critically important lessons with fellow Canadians will enable us to climb this steep and urgent learning curve together. Now isn’t that ironic? Or is it?

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the great Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.

I, too, am pleased — and I’m sure there is some irony there — to have the opportunity on our first day back to express my support for Motion No. 3, which calls on Senate committees to consider the influences and impact of technology in any studies that they undertake.

Thank you to our colleague Senator Deacon for bringing forward this motion. I appreciated many of the points, Senator Deacon, that you made in your speech in June and your ideas for how this motion could effectively and practically be implemented as they relate to our committee responsibilities as senators.

There is no question that the rate of technological advancement and growth is outpacing Canadians’ awareness and knowledge of where we are, and legislators are no exception. As legislators, we need to be asking ourselves how we are keeping abreast of technological advances with all the work that we are doing.

Let’s take the technological reality of AI as an example, one that is affecting all aspects of our lives, whether we know it or not. Some of these we may be aware of, and others we aren’t.

I believe it is important to understand how AI is impacting the particular issues we are addressing in the Senate. How is AI being used to support, advance or possibly hinder the work being done in different areas like health, finance, social benefits and other major areas that Canadians depend on? How is AI impacting the systems and structures in place to support Canadians, and what can we do to make this more transparent? These are some of the questions that a committee can ask and consider in all their deliberations.

Another key reason I support this motion is because it will help us focus on the intersecting issue of technology and equity. I believe that this is an important issue, and it is something I have been considering and addressing through the lens of my work in recent years.

Regarding AI, there has been a long-standing concern regarding the way it has developed, particularly as it relates to discriminatory practices due to the input of discriminatory information. Several groups, including women, Black, Indigenous and racialized peoples, have been particularly targeted and harmed as a result of misinformation, sexism and racism. Tools created with AI for public good will only support progress if their development includes the people most at risk.

With the technological lens that Motion No. 3 encourages committees to use, issues around AI development should be top of mind as we engage in our work. Senators are encouraged to ask questions and learn about technology and equity.

We can build on our understanding of the use of technology by young people and the impact on their mental health. We can explore how women are being affected, particularly those with an online presence, including journalists and politicians. Too often, technology is utilized in an abhorrent way against women, mainly to silence and discredit. Yet, AI is an extraordinarily powerful tool capable of supporting massive transformation and helping us to better understand complex problems of the day and potential solutions not yet imagined.

As we engage in our work in various committees and begin to apply a technology lens to the complex studies and bills before us, I imagine much will be revealed that otherwise would remain hidden. Such revelations will allow us to better understand technological advancements and needs, while we deepen our own literacy and comprehension about technological implications of particular policy directions. Essentially, colleagues, if we’re not asking the questions, we cannot know the answers, and in this time of massive technological change, we cannot afford to leave our blinders on.

Colleagues, please join me in supporting this motion. Let’s endeavour to have the Senate of Canada lead the way in how legislators can consider technology as part of our work in an inclusive and intentional way.

Thank you, meegwetch.

I will. Thank you.

Thank you for the question. Perhaps it is TMU, but what I can say as a member of SOCI, is that a few of us have been visiting institutes established by the federal government to develop Canada’s capacity in AI, and I’ve had an opportunity to visit two, one just last week in Toronto, the Vector Institute, where we’ve been privy to learn about advancements, particularly in health care, for example, that are being made in terms of achieving more robust and useful information population-wise and in terms of which treatments are working and which aren’t, but also for which populations.

I was particularly encouraged by that, and that’s what I call “technology or AI for good.” This week, Friday, some of us are going to Montreal to learn more from the institute there as well. That has been my journey as someone who comes from a very non-technical background.