Thank you for your question.
I didn't say that all tools were bad. We use many tools in our life, including to wash clothes, clean the house or read. You have a tablet. Technology is a part of our life. No one here is saying that we need to go back to the stone age; even then, people developed tools. Tools are part of us, and we cannot do without them, but it depends on the context in which the tool is used because a tool is not neutral. Right now, the approach for the proposed tool is a utilitarian one that aims to gradually get rid of translators, to replace the translators.
Even if social media makes people want to become journalists, it isn't in the process of replacing the profession of journalist. Just because I use a tool to do my accounting, that doesn't mean there won't be any accountants tomorrow. Just because I am versed in law, that doesn't make me a lawyer. We can make these parallels with professions ad infinitum, and we will always come back to the same thing, which is that the tools aren't there to replace people, the professionals; they are there to help do the work.
Certainly, in the past, some tools have meant that businesses needed fewer workers, among other things.
I'm not here to give you a background on technology, but in this case, it's also important to look at the context and the purpose behind these tools. Then we have to see how a policy in this area interacts with the Official Languages Act. I have the impression in this case that the interaction is jammed. In other words, some aspects don't go together. People want to use a tool for utilitarian purposes to promote official languages, when the goal of official languages is to enhance the vitality and development of official languages and to encourage their use. That isn't the case here.