The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has the honour to table its

FIFTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 20 and 36 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, April 27, 2023, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

A.Division 20 of Part 4

Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Yukon Act to facilitate the transition of the administration and control of the abandoned Faro Mine site from the Government of Yukon to the Government of Canada. This is in accordance with an agreement reached between the two governments in 2020. These amendments grant authority to the Government of Canada to undertake measures necessary to address adverse effects to people, property and the environment at or from the Faro Mine. In keeping with the Government of Yukon’s jurisdiction to manage its land and water resources, these amendments will only apply where the Government of Yukon has first relinquished administrative control to the federal government.

The committee heard that extensive consultation and engagement took place with all partners and affected communities across Yukon before these amendments were proposed, and that they are fully supported by the Government of Yukon and all affected First Nations.

However, given the evidence we heard concerning the challenges of managing the 70 million tonnes of tailings, 320 million tonnes of mining waste rock and other contaminated materials at the site, the committee makes the following observations for consideration.

Observation 1

Given the remediation project occurring at the Faro Mine site and the ongoing work being done in the vicinity, which is occurring on top of toxic materials and contaminated lands, it is critical that regular standard assessments are done to ensure the health and safety of the workers and protect the environment.

Observation 2

An assurance must be made that mitigation of the impacts of operations and work occurring at the Faro Mine site meets the threshold set out in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Guiding principles can be found in sections 91(5)(b) and 91(5)(c) of that Act regarding the release of toxic substances.

Observation 3

The committee notes the importance for all activities and operations at the Faro Mine site to partner with the surrounding First Nations to ensure that First Nations are equitably included in decision-making processes that impact their lives and lands, as well as are equitably included in opportunities flowing from operations at the Faro Mine site.

B.Division 36 of Part 4

Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to create a new section establishing the Environmental Economic Instruments Fund and setting out the framework for the fund’s administration.

Committee members were told by government officials that currently, the Environmental Economics Instruments Fund is only being contemplated for use under the Clean Fuel Regulations (the regulations). Those regulations require liquid fossil fuel providers to gradually reduce the life cycle carbon intensity from the fuels that they produce and sell for use in Canada. They include a number of compliance mechanisms meant to help mitigate compliance costs while maintaining the objective of delivering greenhouse gas emissions reductions. One of these mechanisms is an emissions reductions fund where regulated parties can pay up to $350 per compliance credit for up to 10% of their compliance requirements (each credit represents a lifecycle emission reduction of one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent). This fund will invest in and obtain greenhouse gas reductions in the short term. Moreover, the regulations offer the flexibility for more than one compliance fund and funding program to be established in accordance with criteria specified in the regulations. The framework for the Environmental Economics Instrument Fund is what is established by the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 in this part of Bill C-47.

Observation 1

The committee notes that officials representing Environment and Climate Change Canada did not provide comprehensive information about the functioning of the Environmental Economics Instruments Fund or any emission reduction fund created in compliance with the regulations. The intent and scope of the fund is vague.

The committee expresses its discontent with the responses given by the officials, and there is an outstanding request in writing that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (the minister) appear before us and offer further explanations.

Witnesses suggested that overarching policy direction for eligible funds must be articulated. Greater clarity is needed to ensure that multiple compliance funds do not undermine the environmental integrity of the regulations. Witnesses also agreed that the compliance fund must only be used for near-term emissions reductions only, showing emission reductions within a period of up to five years. Finally, that the compliance fund should be the last resort to meet compliance, available only when regulated parties have exhausted all other compliance options available under the regulations.

Observation 2

Given that officials did not provide clear answers on this issue, the committee is also concerned with accountability measures for the fund. The regulations stipulate that an emissions reduction funding program issue an annual public report including:

• the name and description of the fund;

• the amount of funding it received;

• its location;

• the status of its milestones and its estimated completion dates; and

• the actual or anticipated reduction in the quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent from the project and the date on which the reduction was achieved or is estimated to be achieved.

There is nothing in the regulations to require that the minister publicly report to Parliament on the annual management of the fund. In addition, as the regulations allow multiple parties to establish eligible emission reduction funds, there is the possibility of multiple annual reports.

Due to these concerns, the committee expects to see detailed information on funds received and dispersed under the Environmental Economics Instruments Fund and any other funding programs established under the regulations included in the minister’s annual report to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as required in section 342 of that Act.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to table its

FOURTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35 and 38 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, April 27, 2023, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

Division 15 – Canada Labour Code

Division 15 would amend the Canada Labour Code’s provisions for leave related to the death or disappearance of a child available to employees in the federally regulated private sector.

Your committee initially studied the Canada Labour Code’s leave provisions for the death or disappearance of a child as part of the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, and suggested at that time that the Government of Canada should “raise awareness among federal workers” of these leave provisions and the supporting Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime. Your committee was not informed of any significant awareness or outreach initiatives since 2021 and is concerned that federal workers in the private sector remain unaware of this benefit and leave, and are not accessing them in times of need. Your committee therefore urges the Government of Canada to explore ways to better inform Canadians and organizations working in victims’ rights about this benefit and leave.

Your committee had hoped to gain a better understanding of the population of Canadians that may be eligible for and/or using leave related to the death or disappearance of a child, but was informed that limited data are available. Your committee therefore suggests that the Government of Canada collect more disaggregated data on federally regulated workers in the private sector who may be eligible for this leave, as well as those who are currently claiming it.

Division 17 – Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Sponsorship Applications)

Division 17 proposes amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with a “for greater certainty” provision allowing the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to set a maximum number of applications received for specific privately sponsored refugee applications, including the Groups of Five and community sponsors.

Your committee heard that processing backlogs for applications under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program contribute to extended wait times and uncertainty for asylum seekers who seek protection in Canada. However, your committee is concerned that, by empowering the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to impose additional caps on the number of privately sponsored refugee applications as a backlog management strategy, the amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act proposed by Division 17 may have the effect of excluding some of the most vulnerable people in dangerous and high-risk situations from seeking the protection of Canada. Your committee therefore recommends that, in exercising their power under the provision, the Minister consider alternative administrative and processing strategies to manage backlogs before deciding to impose a cap on applications received.

Division 18 – College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act

Division 18 proposes changes to the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act to strengthen the governing body of immigration and citizenship consultants, including by implementing a more effective complaints and discipline process, and enhancing protection from unethical or fraudulent representation.

The amendments proposed in Division 18 would extend immunity against proceedings for damages to current and former members of the Board of Directors, employees, agents and mandatories of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (the College) and others acting in good faith. Your committee heard that while this liability protection is standard for judicial and administrative bodies, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association considers it a premature measure for the College, given that they are a relatively new body with a history of complaints under the previous regime.

Part of Division 18 proposes expanding the College’s purpose to include “establishing and providing training and development programs for licensees.” Your committee heard concerns that this may cause a conflict of interest as the College would be the developer, accreditor, and regulator of the program, as well as concerns that this additional mandate would place a significant resource burden on the College, which could affect its ability to protect immigration and citizenship clients.

Your committee heard that the expanded powers proposed in Division 18 would allow the College to apply, without notice, for an injunction allowing them to seize and enter current and former licensees’ private property. Your committee notes the seriousness with which the College should take this expanded authority, given its potential to violate Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms.

Division 19 – Citizenship Act

Division 19 proposes amendments to the Citizenship Act that would grant express authorities to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to administer the citizenship program using electronic means, enable automated and machine-assisted processing, and permit the collection and use of clients’ biometric information.

Bias in artificial intelligence, automation and other machine-assistance tools has been well documented, especially against racialized people and other vulnerable populations. Recognizing that the measures proposed in Division 19 would be used to support decision-making, including by sorting citizenship applications, but not in making final decisions, your committee is concerned that these tools and their sorting decisions could influence the final decisions made by officials. Your committee recommends that the Government of Canada commit to the creation and implementation of safeguards around the use of machine-assisted decision-making tools in this program, in order to avoid negatively influencing application decisions with bias. Your committee also suggests that the Government of Canada continue to invest in ongoing training for decision-making officers as it relates to bias in application decisions.

Your committee notes that existing bias and discrimination within citizenship and immigration programs are the product of human intervention, and that while new technologies may offer ways to mitigate such human discrimination, caution must be exercised when implementing electronic means, including artificial intelligence. In fact, your committee heard that artificial intelligence is not truly “intelligent,” but rather should be understood as artificial pattern matching that relies on existing data and information, thereby risking reinforcing historic biases and discrimination. Your committee also notes that implementing electronic means of enforcement and administration, and biometric information collection may negatively affect certain populations (i.e., applicants with limited access to digital technology). Your committee therefore urges the Government of Canada to continue conducting rigorous GBA Plus on these proposed changes and their impact, in order to better understand how diverse and intersectional populations are affected.

Your committee heard that over the past 20 years, there has been a significant decline in permanent residents seeking Canadian citizenship. In part, witnesses attributed this decline to the complex and lengthy citizenship application process. Your committee is concerned that prospective Canadian citizens may be disenchanted with the system, and or disincentivized for other reasons, and therefore urges Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to work with its partners to determine how it can facilitate and support applicants, and reduce barriers.

Division 27 – Food and Drugs Act (Natural Health Products)

Division 27 proposes amending the Food and Drugs Act to expand compliance and enforcement authorities, introduced through the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law), to natural health products by including them in the definition of “therapeutic products.”

Your committee welcomes the movement of natural health products under the purview of Vanessa’s Law to strengthen protections for Canadians’ health. Though, your committee notes that further changes may be needed to the Food and Drugs Act to rigorously regulate and label natural health products, supplements and other compounds that make health and wellness improvement claims, including considerations to robust scientific evidence of effectiveness, safety (e.g., when taken with other compounds), purity and appropriate labelling. In addition, your committee is concerned that the concept of “low risk” is being used by Health Canada to exclude health and wellness claiming products from appropriate regulation and notes that “low risk” is not equivalent to “acceptable risk” and that in the absence of robust demonstration of effectiveness, no risk would be the more appropriate consideration.

Your committee heard that the Government of Canada remains committed to establishing a regulatory framework around self-care products – including cosmetics, natural health products, and non-prescription drugs – and that the amendments proposed in Division 27 are part of the process to introduce a risk-based approach to regulatory oversight for all self-care products. Your committee notes that a majority of Canadians interact with these products on a daily basis, and therefore looks forward to further information about the implementation of the awaited self-care framework.

Division 28 – Food and Drugs Act (Cosmetics Testing on Animals)

Division 28 proposes amending the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the sale of animal-tested cosmetics and animal testing for cosmetics in Canada.

Your committee heard that while a majority of international markets have eliminated or prohibited the need for cosmetics testing on animals, some countries still mandate it. For example, the People’s Republic of China, requires proof of animal testing on cosmetics, or a government-issued good manufacturing practices certificate. Your committee was informed that as a short-term solution, the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec are currently issuing good manufacturing practices certificates because the federal government, through Health Canada, has declined to do so. Your committee suggests that Health Canada continue to investigate this issue and work with Canadian cosmetics exporters to find a viable long-term solution.

In addition to the ban on cosmetics testing on animals proposed by Division 27, your committee heard that the Government of Canada is also committed to reducing and prohibiting animal testing for other substances (e.g., Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act proposes limiting animal testing for toxicity). Your committee therefore recommends that the Government of Canada invest in developing the capacity of Canadian regulators, formulators, and scientists in non-animal-based testing methods across industries.

Division 29 – Dental Care Measures Act

Division 29 proposes enacting the Dental Care Measures Act, which would facilitate Health Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada’s ability to confirm reliability criteria for prospective applicants.

Your committee notes with concern that while the Dental Care Measures Act would facilitate the departments’ ability to confirm reliability criteria for prospective applicants, there are no mechanisms currently in place to monitor and collect data pertaining to the potential delisting of dental benefits by private dental care insurance or coverage.

Given that the potential delisting of benefits could result in persons eligible for the Canada Dental Benefit losing some benefits that would have been previously covered under a private dental insurance or coverage plan, your committee recommends a more formal monitoring process for gathering and analyzing data to ensure such a gap in coverage does not occur.

Division 35 – Employment Insurance Act

Division 35 would amend the Employment Insurance Act to extend temporary provisions allowing seasonal workers in targeted regions to claim up to an additional five weeks of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

Your committee notes that the measures proposed in Division 35 continue to extend a temporary policy first introduced in 2018. If Division 35 is adopted – extending this provision through to October 2024 – these “temporary” measures will have lasted for six years. Your committee looks forward to the development of a more permanent solution that will support seasonal workers across the country.

Division 38 – Employment Insurance Board of Appeal

Division 38 of Part 4 would amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to establish the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal (Board of Appeal) and make consequential amendments to the Social Security Tribunal.

Your committee notes that the Executive Head and some members of the proposed Board of Appeal are to be appointed by the Governor in Council. Your committee is aware of delays in other appointments made by the Governor in Council and is concerned that these delays may have an impact on the inauguration of the Board of Appeal.

Part of Division 38 would require the Executive Head of the Board of Appeal to report on its overall performance to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (the Commission). Employers and employees alike emphasized to your committee the importance of upholding the tripartite principles that are foundational to Canada’s EI program and recommended that the Executive Head report directly to the Commission. Your committee was pleased to learn that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance amended Bill C-47 to remove references to reporting through the Chairperson of the Commission, reducing the risk of a conflict of interest and upholding the equal representation of government, workers, and employers.

Your committee was informed that the total net cost of establishing and operating the Board of Appeal between 2023-24 to 2027-28 is estimated by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be $132 million and that this amount is expected to be recuperated through the Employment Insurance Operating Account and by increasing EI premiums by less than one cent. Your committee heard concerns that this increase may not be enough to adequately support the transition to the proposed Board of Appeal and that additional increases to EI premiums would have a negative impact on Canadian workers and employers.

Before the Social Security Tribunal was implemented in 2013, first level EI appeals were made to the tripartite EI Board of Referees. Your committee was concerned to learn that the cost per appeal more than doubled with the implementation of the Social Security Tribunal and therefore recommends that the Government of Canada closely monitor the cost per appeal as the proposed Board of Appeal is implemented.

General Observations

Your committee wishes to, once again, highlight the critical importance of collecting high-quality disaggregated data, and using it to conduct iterative intersectional analysis in order to better understand the impacts and outcomes of federal policies and programs on persons in Canada. Your committee would also like to emphasize the importance of this data and analysis to the consideration of legislation, and therefore looks forward to the Government of Canada’s continued efforts towards more robust use and collection of diverse data.

Your committee has no specific observations regarding Divisions 8, 13, 14, 16, and 25 of Part 4 of Bill C-47.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to table its

FOURTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 30, 31, 34 and 39 of Part 4, and in Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, April 27, 2023, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

The committee held five hours of meetings in May 2023, and heard testimony from: the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; officials from the Department of Justice Canada; officials from the Department of Finance; Philippe Dufresne, Privacy Commissioner of Canada; Jennifer Poirier, Team Leader, Senior Legal Counsel Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada; Anne Lawson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer; Rachel Huggins, Co-chair of the CACP Drug Advisory Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; Jean-Pierre Larose, Chief Nunavik Police Service ; Jonathan Noonan, Lawyer with Noonan Piercey; and, Michael Rowe, member of the CACP Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

General observations

The committee repeats its concern from its last report on a budget implementation bill (Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures; Fifth Report, 44^th Parliament, 1^st Session) regarding significant amendments and additions to criminal laws that are introduced in such legislation. Amendments to criminal laws engage important constitutional and legal questions that require in-depth study in committee and thorough debate in the Senate. This concern is equally relevant to amendments to electoral laws that also engage important democratic values and legal questions.

Bill C-47 is 430 pages long. There was not enough time or opportunity to receive evidence to thoroughly analyze its provisions assigned to this committee and the impact of its amendments. This does a disservice to the legislative process and the committee’s mandate that includes the scrutiny of legal and constitutional matters. This is particularly concerning regarding amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Elections Act.

The committee recommends that these types of amendments should be introduced in separate bills.

The committee has reported in the past about the decades of piecemeal amendments to the Criminal Code that result in cumbersome, sometimes repetitive, or inconsistent provisions, and in the need for comprehensive review and reform (see for instance, the committee’s 2017 report Delaying Justice is Denying Justice at pp. 41 to 43.) The committee reiterates past recommendations that an independent body should undertake a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code. The newly revived Law Commission of Canada could undertake such a review, including a study of all provisions in the Code that pertain to violence against women, particularly intimate partner violence and family violence.

Division 30 of Part 4 - Canada Post Corporation Act

In response to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador’s decision in R. v. Gorman (2022 NLSC 3), this clause amends section 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act to limit Canada Post’s authority to open nonletter mail. The amendment establishes an objective standard based on reasonable suspicion to justify the search of any nonletter mail. The committee notes the testimony of Mr. Jonathan Noonan, defence counsel for the accused in R. v. Gorman, who was of the view that the amendment will bring this section into constitutional compliance.

The committee notes that the restrictions on the ability to open mail are stricter for Canada Post than other private carriers operating in Canada, and that the Canada Post Corporation Act includes different privacy protections for letters compared to nonletter mail in the care of Canada Post. Furthermore, these rules prevent police from searching and seizing any letter or nonletter mail that is in the care of Canada Post.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) testified that:

[If] police have reasonable grounds to believe that a package of fentanyl or a prohibited weapon is being sent through the mail, the police cannot lawfully detain or search the letter or package until it has been delivered to the addressee.… Canadian laws must be modernized and include the necessary judicial oversight to protect privacy and safeguard citizens from harmful material being trafficked through the postal system.

The committee notes the testimony of CACP representatives and Nunavik Police that the trafficking of contraband using Canada Post, including in letter-sized mail, is an urgent problem. The committee is particularly concerned about the public safety risks and consequences of trafficking fentanyl through Canada Post, including to remote communities.

The committee also notes the testimony of CACP representatives and Nunavik Police that Bill C-47’s proposed amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act does not permit Canada Post inspectors to open domestic letter mail to intercept contraband, as they are authorized to do with nonletter mail. Consequently, the proposed changes do not address the issue of trafficking contraband, particularly fentanyl, using letter mail through Canada Post.

The committee notes that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, representing 62 First Nations, has requested changes to section 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act to allow Canada Post inspectors to open letter mail to search for contraband, when reasonable grounds exist. The committee also notes that Canadian customs officers have been authorized to open international letter mail to intercept contraband following the passage of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, in 2017.

The committee therefore recommends that Parliament and the Government of Canada give urgent attention to addressing these concerns.

Division 31 of Part 4 – Royal Styles and Titles Act

This section enacts the Royal Styles and Titles Act, 2023, which states that the Parliament of Canada assents to the establishment of the Royal Style and Titles for King Charles III for Canada. These are:

Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

The Act is similar to the previous Royal Styles and Titles Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-12, which was originally enacted in 1953 following the accession of Queen Elizabeth II, except that it does not include the title “Defender of the Faith” or refer to the United Kingdom.

The committee did not receive evidence regarding Division 31 of Part 4 during its study.

Division 34 of Part 4 – Criminal Code (criminal interest rate)

This section amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, lower the criminal rate of interest and limit the cost of borrowing. It lowers the criminal interest rate from an effective annual rate of 60% to an annual percentage rate of 35%. In real terms, if the interest rate is expressed as an annual percentage rate for both, the actual rate decreases from only 47% to 35%. This section also authorizes the Governor in Council, by regulation, to fix a limit on the total cost of borrowing under a payday loan agreement or to exempt bridge financing.

The committee recognizes the importance of having a clear and consistent criminal rate of interest that is set at a reasonable level to protect Canadians from unfair or otherwise problematic lending practices. Individuals who use high-cost credit products with high interest charges or who are vulnerable to predatory lending practices risk being trapped in a cycle of debt. The committee also recognizes that many Canadians benefit from the ability to borrow money from stable lending institutions or other reliable sources of credit. Even with the amendments made to the criminal rate of interest – reducing it from 47% to 35% – too many of the most economically marginalized individuals will remain isolated from these institutions or other reliable sources of credit and are likely to remain trapped in cycles of debt. The committee recommends that the government undertake further study into other ways in which the government may further assist the most economically marginalized to escape poverty.

Division 39 of Part 4 - Canada Elections Act

The committee recognizes that all federal political parties must have robust safeguards in place to protect Canadian electors’ personal information. These safeguards, or the lack thereof, can impact Canadians’ trust in political parties and, by extension, the electoral process in general.

This section amends the Canada Elections Act to “provide for a national, uniform, exclusive, and complete regime” for the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and disposal of personal information by federal registered or eligible political parties. The amendment creates a framework for a potential future regime. It does not actually establish any such regime.

The committee urges the establishment of a national, uniform regime in relation to federal political parties’ use, collection, disclosure, and retention of electors’ personal information.

The committee again emphasizes that amendments to the Canada Elections Act should be introduced in a separate bill to allow for thorough study. Such amendments to the Canada Elections Act should be undertaken only after consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, which was not the case with this bill.

Subdivision B of Division 3 – Criminal Code (digital assets)

This section amends the Criminal Code and related laws to expressly allow for the search, seizure, detention and return of digital assets that are proceeds of crime. This section also expands the list of offences for which the Attorney General may seek a warrant for the disclosure of income tax information for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

The committee heard evidence regarding the challenges for criminal investigations brought on by the evolving forms of digital assets and currencies.

The committee was unable to assess the appropriateness of tools and procedures that are needed to respond to the evolving challenges inherent in searches and seizures in criminal investigations that involve digital assets and the various forms of virtual, digital, and non-traditional currency.

The committee again emphasizes that amendments to criminal laws should be introduced in a separate bill to allow for thorough study.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to table its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Clauses 118 to 122 concerning cryptoasset mining in Part 2, and Divisions 1, 2, 6, 7, 26, 33 and 37 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, April 27, 2023, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

1. Part 2, clauses 118 to 122 concerning cryptoasset mining

Clauses 118 to 122 of Bill C-47 propose amendments to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) found in the Excise Tax Act, to set out the GST/HST rules for cryptoasset mining activity.

The committee is concerned that despite the consultations held by the Department of Finance Canada in 2022 on this topic, there is still ambiguity that arises on its implementation. The committee suggests that the department consult again with stakeholders, in particular to address concerns of the Digital Asset Mining Coalition.

2. Part 4, Division 1

Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to create a single external complaints body for banks.

The committee believes that switching to a single external complaints body is beneficial for consumers, but suggests that a deadline, such as one year after Royal Assent of the bill, be considered for the designation of the external complaints body and for the resolution of ongoing complaints by the former external complaints bodies. Once the external complaints body is established, the committee expects the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to use its powers to ensure that it is held to the highest standard of transparency and accountability and that it is fair for all parties.

3. Part 4, Division 2

Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to allow federally regulated pension plans and pooled registered pension plans to offer a variable payment life annuity to plan members at retirement.

The committee notes that much of the relevant information about variable payment life annuities will be contained in regulation, which is key to interpreting the legislation. At this point, the committee does not believe that it has sufficient information on this topic, particularly with respect to issues such as the expected market and scale for variable payment life annuities.

4. Part 4, Division 7

Division 7 of Part 4 would enact the Canada Innovation Corporation Act.

The committee suggests that the government conduct an evaluation of the Canada Innovation Corporation three years after its establishment to determine whether it has been successful in meeting its mandate and to publish the results of this in-depth evaluation in its annual report that should be tabled in Parliament.

Finally, the committee expects the government to conduct extensive consultations with stakeholders, as certain witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed that the government consultation process was insufficient. The committee continues to be concerned that the federal government chooses to include substantive changes to Canadian law in a budget implementation bill, which means that there is not sufficient time to properly examine the bill and hear stakeholders’ concerns.

The committee has no material observations regarding Divisions 6, 26, 33 and 37 of Part 4.

Respectfully submitted,