CPAC - Monday, May 27, 2024 - 10:00 a.m. (ET) - Segment #2

and I think from thegraduates of the PhD level, you're going to have to be able to disclose how much of your thesis was produced by AI and how much of it is original content and what your sources are. Well, I definitely think thatwhen people know how to use it properly, then I think it would be good as a useful tool, rather than something to use as cheating. Yes, it could certainly generate interesting. Information sets based on the available material that's been fed into it. I am a writer by education, so I can certainly see the value of AI in helping drive creative method. Well, you know, there's talkabout different restrictions, it does have its benefits. But, perhaps in terms of communication skills, it will definitely deter people from developing them perhaps, especially inthe younger, younger grades. They'll just-- I mean, it's a skill to write a proper paragraph andI noticed in my working world, most people lack communication skills. Not too sure on that one. I know they use it in phonesand all these different things now, but I don't think it should be in schools and classrooms just because thekids need to learn basic stuff. I think as long as it isapproached in a structured way that is also learning for-- you're able to learn something from it. I think it can be used in moderation maybe, but I don't think relying on it is necessarily the best way to go. I think that students should betaught how to use it as a tool so that they can they can take advantage of it and not be left behind with the whole world taking advantage of it. And I think that it being a tool and not something to relyupon to get your grades up is, yeah, that's what I think. Yeah I think there's a way toproperly use AI in schools. We hear a lot about ChatGPT and cheating on exams in upper level university courses and even, junior level university courses. So I think teaching the ethics behind that, no different than you would teach ethics in accounting or finance or whatever it might be. Oh, for sure. Once more is known about it and we have the ethics and governance around it to take care of the data and the peoplethat are using it, for sure. It's going to change the world. Under some circumstances, yes. Why? Well, I believe that often teachers just don't have the expertise and everythingthat's out there and artificial intelligence can be actually programmed to be able to provide information that teachers cannot keep up on all the time. So yes, limited, limited. [theme music plays] The largest provinciallegislative building in Canada is located where? Toronto, Ontario. Regina, Saskatchewan. Edmonton, Alberta. Toronto. Edmonton. Edmonton. Going to go with Toronto. Toronto. Edmonton, Alberta. I want to say Toronto. Yeah, let's go with Toronto. Regina. It's Regina. Really? Really? I'm from Saskatchewan, somaybe I should know that. [Glen] Located in theprovincial capital of Regina, Saskatchewan'sLegislature is the largest provincial legislativebuilding in Canada. The building wasofficially opened in 1912. Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, otherwise known as the notwithstanding clause, gives parliaments in Canada the ability to override certain parts of the charter, notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution. Recently, conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, in a speech to the Canadian Police Association, suggested his governmentwould, for the first time, use the notwithstandingclause on the federal level to help deal with court decisions on bail. Conversely, the notwithstanding clause was used by the Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec provincial governments inthe past, but would using it on a federal level be acceptable, or would it compromise the integrity of the charter? We took this question to Canadians. Now, I find it's a bit scary.

I'm not really in agreement with that. I think there would need to bea lot more steady behind this. And, really understanding what we're getting into. Yeah, I would not be comfortable with that. No, not at all. I think, if everybody usesthe notwithstanding clause, what's the point of having afederation of provinces, right? It's the same situationwhere, if everything applies to everybody, but it doesn't apply to me, you're kind of exhibiting the height of hubris by removing yourself from the common good, and the common application. You have to measure at what point are you inclusive or excluding yourself from the table? No, I don't. I think that our laws are good as they stand. I don't think we want to slip back into American-style lawmaking,and the whims of one politician riding over the will of the people. So, I think, we have a prettygood system as it is today. As a general rule, I'mnot a fan of, necessarily, of like, notwithstanding clauses, because it speaks of like overreach, or just authoritarianism. Well, you shouldn't be able to over pass other people's jurisdictions, who've already made a ruling. They've had the job. They've had the education. They know the system. One person shouldn't be able to override that. I don't believe in a notwithstanding clause for anything. The only time we have seen it used is to violate someone's rights,and to modify the charter, which is why it was put there. And, it was put there so that we could get another minority in theQuebec government to, in fact, sign on. And, I think it has nowbeen abused since that time. And, it's the Quebec government that's probably used it the most to abuse the human rights of people in their province. And, I think that, if you lookat what Poilievre is talking about, it's the same thing. We're going to use it totake away somebody's rights. If they do that, then what's stopping them from changing other laws? It's, as I've read in the paper, as I've seen, everybody calls it a slippery slope. And, I definitely agree with that. Too much power corrupts. So, yeah. If we let this one slide, allof a sudden notwithstanding clauses are going to be used like band-aids. I'm going to say no, becauseif they want to truly change laws and create a better society, they should go through the proper channels. Get through the House of Commons and the Senate to build that reform. By using this notwithstanding clause, it's just a slippery slope to dictatorship. I think that's taking things too far, for sure, especially if it involves bypassing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You know, that's what our country is built on. You know, once you start messing with that, then you start to get into a whole world of trouble. And, that we have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a reason. And, we're all entitled to those. And, when those are ableto be infringed, based on, you know, a politician's, like,personal opinion or views, that's only setting up a recipe for disaster and more issues like that. I mean, we see it in the United States with people revoking abortion laws. And, I think, that will be thenext step that comes from it. That's a tough one, because I'ma big believer in civil rights for everybody, right. So, I have a-- when it's been invoked in the past, it's impeded people's civil rights. And, I don't think that's a right thing. So, without some kind of review or debate over it, and making it unilateral, I have a problem with that. I think we need the checks and balances. And, I think that's acornerstone of our democracy. And, citizenship, and having people involved in how and when laws are going to be enforced, and to whom. Well, criminal-- yeah. I mean, you have to take it in context. If Pierre is doing criminal Justice reforms, I think just that part of it,I think, is based on the fact that right now I could go rob a bank and be out of court tomorrow. I'm in jail overnight. So, I think what he's doing is, he's taking the best parts of itand applying it to a problem. That's what he's doing. The liberals, on the other hand, would obviously use it to their own benefit, and just change laws that suit their needs. So, there's a difference between using laws, and changes to laws, for commonsense, and achieving an agenda. And, I think, that's what's happening with it. You know, I have to do alittle more research into that, because I only just heard about that last week. With the federal election happening in this country in a year and a half, at the very latest,

protecting our democracy frominterference and disinformation seems to be becoming more of a priority, as we draw closer to voting day. As part of CPAC's upcoming project focusing on disinformation and democracy, both here in Canada and around the world, we took to the streets toask people if disinformation will have an effect on the democratic process in this country. Our question. Yes, indeed, I would be concerned about disinformation affectingthe next federal election. I think that, with social media, people have to be discerningin what they are listening to, and what they're reading. And, it's upon all of us, as citizens of Canada-- a democracy, and certainly wantto maintain that democracy-- that we are adept at reading different genres of news information. And, making sure that we aregetting the right information, concerning both the politicians, and around the issues thatdifferent provinces are facing. Yes [Glen] Why? Why? I think there's way too many actors out there distributing information. I think there's way too manybiased views being offered. And, I think, they'regetting a far greater reach than they would get if theywere the small fractions they used to be. [Glen] Do you think social media plays into it? I think social media plays a huge role in it. [Glen] And, why is that? What's that? Why? [Glen] Why. Oh, it's just way too easy todistribute a point of view, and make it sound as if it's reflective of a significant portion ofthe population, when it's not. You know, there's so much going on, social media-wise, especiallywith Russians and Chinese. You know, they're in there meddling, and doing their thing. And, you know, it just is what it is. So, it is a concern. Yeah. I'd like to think that we're smart enough not to just believe the first thing we see. But, there's going to still bea handful of people that just take it as the gospel truth. And, yeah, short answer, yes. Yeah. I think there's a lot of disinformation about, like, different leaders, and what they want to bring to Canada, in terms of progressing our society. And, I think there's a lot of hate spouted on both sides for different parties to spread that disinformation. Good question. Well, there's definitely a lot of disinformation, I think, on both sides. And, people have to bemore informed, personally, about what's going on in Canada, and not make rash decisions based on what they hear from other people, that's for sure. Or other, you know, whether it's mainstream or alternate media, you know, there's a definite problem, for sure. Well, I mean, you have to-- first of all, it's hard to discern what is disinformation. For one thing. You know, the Liberals accuse the Conservatives of disinformation, and vice-versa. And, of course, the waysocial media runs these days, you know, there's so much fake news on there that it's really hard to discern what's true and what's not. Oh, am I concerned? 100%. Because, people are very gullible. And, it's hard to decidewhat news channels to trust, and who to trust,nowadays, because everyone has such close access to spreading their opinion. You could have a lot of followers, but not have a lot to say. For sure. I think we saw, even recently,a lot of issues with photos of the MET Gala, and people being convinced that people were atthe MET Gala when they weren't. Celebrities and stars. I think, if we're thatsusceptible to just, you know, a celebrity event, we're probably pretty susceptible to somemisinformation for elections. So, I think we have to bemore considerate citizens, and more aware of, like, whatthat means for disinformation, and how to identify it,just within our own lives, election or not. Always. Always a possibility. I mean, every government has their own reign. Every government has their own fall. You know, Rome wasn't built in a day, but it crumbled just as quick, right. I mean, you can havethousands of years of history, and you can lose it all in a second. I believe there's people who, kind of, gain from disinformation. And, there's also people who are lazy, so they try to find informationthat's easy for them to access, or that they agree with. So, then it becomes the information. But, a lot of, like, the election is complex. There's nothing that's black and white. A lot of analysis needs to be made. And, journalists, that's what they are here for. And, I have opinions on things, but I

Copyright protected and owned by broadcaster. Your licence is limited to private, internal, non-commercial use. All reproduction, broadcast, transmission or other use of this work is strictly prohibited.

Transcripts