Jacques Gourde

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑34. We have heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence this morning, and I believe all my colleagues would agree that something along the lines of a precautionary principle is warranted. In risk management, we are often faced with uncertainty about the economic or social consequences of taking political action. However, uncertainty must not keep us from taking action. In this case, I believe we are dealing with an issue that calls for the application of the precautionary principle. Like all my colleagues, I am familiar with the many concerns surrounding digital platforms and social media, whether it be Facebook, TikTok, harmful influencer content, the spread of misogyny or the rise of toxic masculinity. I do not intend to revisit all of those issues today. I believe my colleagues have already painted a compelling picture this morning. These are challenges we are all aware of, and for those of us who have children in our lives, they are concerns we all share. As we consider this bill, I want to steer the conversation to something else, the thorny issue that the Liberal government often tries to sidestep, namely, the autonomy and the cultural distinctiveness of the Quebec nation. There is no getting around this issue in the context of this bill. However, I want to be clear from the outset: The Bloc Québécois is convinced that we need to take action urgently to hold web giants to account and protect young people from online harm. My colleagues have made that very clear in their speeches. If members look at the Constitution, they will see, as I do, that because the federal government has jurisdiction over telecommunications, it has a responsibility and a duty to implement modern regulations that are commensurate with the problem. However, it must be said this issue has many facets and some of those facets fall under areas of provincial jurisdiction. For example, Bill C-34 has an education component when it comes to what public authorities need to do to support young people in the digital world, yet that cannot fall under federal jurisdiction. In my view, that alone is enough to call on the federal government not to act alone on Bill C-34. What has the Liberal government done so far after asking public servants to draft Bill C‑34? Unfortunately, it has decided to act alone. The government actually already had guidelines for addressing this kind of problem. In particular, there was the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which warned the government about the effects of influencers and social media on children and teens. The committee recommended: That the Government of Canada, in addressing the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents—and while recognizing the jurisdiction and primacy of the provinces in matters relating to social services and youth protection—adopt an asymmetrical and flexible approach. Had the government followed the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we should have seen an asymmetrical and flexible approach in Bill C-34. This raises a fairly straightforward question. Does Bill C-34 respect the jurisdiction and primacy of the provinces in matters relating to social services and youth protection? Does the bill adopt an asymmetrical and flexible approach that takes Quebec’s specific circumstances into account? We will have the opportunity to examine that in committee, but at this stage, the answer appears to be no. That raises another question. In drafting Bill C-34, did the federal government consult with Quebec and the provinces to seek their views on the issue at hand and on the best ways to address it? To my knowledge, once again, the answer appears to be no. Next, we would need to determine whether the mechanisms provided for in Bill C-34 apply a principle of asymmetry. This seems essential to me in the Canadian context, where there are 10 provinces. Actually, Quebec is not really a province, since it is a nation. Such a principle would allow a territory, for example, Quebec, to develop its own response and solutions to the problem. Upon reading Bill C-34, it appears that no such provision for asymmetry exists. However, it is clear that the democratic will of Quebec and the provinces may differ from the solutions ultimately adopted by the federal government. This possibility is all the more likely given that Quebec, again, is not a province like any other, but rather a nation with a certain degree of political autonomy and distinct cultural characteristics. As I mentioned in my introduction, the Bloc Québécois is not necessarily opposed to the solutions presented in the bill, although we do prefer educational measures and tools, a preference that, incidentally, is perfectly compatible with our other preference for decisions and policies made and adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec, which has sole jurisdiction over education. This brings up another issue that I think is fundamental. In our society, which level of government is ultimately responsible for protecting youth in Quebec, creating social conditions that are conducive to their development and ensuring that they have a better future? The answer is very clearly the Quebec government. Logically, major social debates affecting Quebec youth are discussed within Quebec’s own democratic processes and result from decisions made by the Quebec government, which are carried over into Quebec laws. These laws are passed in the only parliament with the standing to make decisions for the future of Quebec society as a whole: the Quebec National Assembly. Issues affecting Quebec youth will not be decided in this Parliament. Ottawa will not be the one to decide how we can protect Quebec youth in the context of digital platforms. Quebeckers will want to discuss, debate and agree on the best way forward. Canadians will rightly hold those discussions too, but they will be two separate discussions held by two distinct nations. In this case, Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness must be taken into consideration, as well as our desire for greater political autonomy. Quebec may want to restrict access to social media to children and teenagers, or it may find another solution that works for it. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage wisely recommended that the government understand and respect this reality. Unfortunately, it appears that the Liberal government has not seen the wisdom of heeding the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The Bloc Québécois will fully co-operate with members of all political parties in discussing aspects of the issue that fall solely under federal jurisdiction and in studying and exploring the best ways to hold big tech to account and force tech companies to adopt more responsible practices. I must emphasize, however, that the Bloc Québécois will defend Quebec’s jurisdiction over youth and education and will assert the primacy of Quebec’s democratic conversation and its superior authority in shaping the most important societal debates. Nothing is more important than young people and their future, but any decision on the matter falls within the purview of the Quebec nation.”