“This bill gives a lot of power to a new group of unelected officials. We must look at the details very closely so we do not hand our responsibilities over to them.”

“Madam Speaker, the bill would establish the digital safety commission of Canada, a new federal bureaucracy that would be entrusted with deciding a number of important and contentious matters. The bill is something of a framework legislation, but it delegates a great deal of authority to that commission. Does my colleague agree that we will need to examine all of these contentious details very carefully to ensure that the bill truly reflects Parliament’s intent and that responsibility is not simply handed over to unelected officials?”

“This bill deals with youth and education. Those areas belong to Quebec and the provinces, not the federal government. A House committee already told the government to respect provincial powers on this issue. I want to know why the government introduced this bill without consulting Quebec or the provinces.”

“Madam Speaker, as I said earlier during my question, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is studying similar issues, and the issue here is not a simple one. It concerns youth and education. These are matters under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage warned the government against the temptation to act alone. As proof, it even made a recommendation to that effect: 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. Why is the government showing up with a bill without having consulted Quebec or the provinces at all, it seems, on an issue that they will eventually have to work and collaborate on together?”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “In addressing the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since October 29.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill affects things the provinces control, like schools and child protection. I want the government to consult Quebec and the other provinces, and let them set their own rules.”

“Madam Speaker, because it has jurisdiction in the area of telecommunications, the federal government may make regulations on social media and digital safety, but this also affects areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in terms of social matters, youth protection and education. Would my colleague agree that Bill C‑34 should have an asymmetrical and flexible approach and that Quebec and the provinces should be consulted?”

“We must act to protect children from the harms of social media. We cannot leave this only to parents and schools. But I want to know how this bill will work. I worry the government is avoiding hard choices by leaving all the difficult decisions to the new digital safety commission.”

“Madam Speaker, I am accustomed to working with my colleague from Trois‑Rivières on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, also known as HUMA. We work well together. We agree on one thing: Maintaining the status quo is no longer an option. She talked about her experience as a mother. As the godmother of a young adult, the aunt of a preteen and a teenager, and the mother of a preschool-age little girl, I see the challenges that come at every age with the use of screens and social media. She also said that the young people she consulted told her that the government has a responsibility in this area. We cannot shift everything over to the education system or foist it on parents. One of the questions we have relates specifically to the creation of the digital security commission. Is this not, to some extent, a way for the government to sidestep responsibility for the most contentious issues by introducing framework legislation that sets out broad principles ? Our question regarding such a complex issue centres on the “how”. It is when we examine the “how” that the most difficult and controversial issues come up. How will the government be able to take a stance on the most contentious issues if everything is delegated to the digital security commission?”

“Psychologists told our committee that chatbots can cause severe mental harm to adults in as little as 72 hours. Companies that make this technology should be held responsible for the harm they cause and should have to pay victims.”

“Madam Speaker, if I were a bit of a joker, I would ask my colleague to repeat what he heard. In any case, in a documentary from the early 1980s, if I remember correctly, entitled Comme en Californie, a computer whiz tells the interviewer that, one day, human beings would enjoy relationships more in front of a screen than in real life. Now that may be happening. During a study on AI and the harms of artificial superintelligence at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, psychologists told us that, right now, chatbots can induce psychosis in people, even adults, who had no such symptoms before being in contact with a chatbot. That could take just 72 hours. Would my colleague agree that the companies that manufacture this type of technology should be liable for the harmful effects and that compensation should be provided when such effects occur?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →