Analysis · Debate question · beta

Tamara Kronis

101 words · 3 sentences · 5 clauses

Following a speech by Jacques Ramsay (Liberal)
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the safe social media act. This topic holds considerable interest for many people in my riding of La Prairie—Atateken. I sincerely thank everyone who shared their views with me. I want to start by addressing a reality that is quite familiar to families in my riding. In Candiac, Saint‑Constant, Kahnawake and other communities across the country, the first thing that many young people see on a screen in the morning and the last thing they see at night is an app. These services have real and undeniable benefits. They provide information, bring people closer together, and offer an outlet for creativity. However, they also expose our children to risks that we would never tolerate in other circumstances. The numbers are clear: One in four young people aged 12 to 17 say they have been cyber-bullied. Reports to police concerning online child sexual exploitation are increasing dramatically. In 2023‑24, the RCMP received over 100,000 reports in Canada alone in a single year. Young people harmed in this way are much more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including suicidal ideation. Fourteen years ago, Amanda Todd took her own life because she was a victim of sextortion and cyber-bullying. Since then, two bills addressing online harm have died on the Order Paper. Victims and their families tell us that they have waited too long, and they are right. For a time, we hoped that the companies would take the necessary steps to keep our youth safe, but Canadians’ trust has eroded. Their voluntary action has never kept pace with the scale, speed and severity of the harm caused. In addition to individuals’ predatory behaviour, there are also design flaws, algorithmic recommendations, autoplay and infinite scroll. These are engineering choices that amplify harmful content. Worse still, today, AI chatbots are forming unhealthy, sustained relationships with young people, sometimes during the most difficult times of their lives. Tumbler Ridge is one example. Bill C-34 is based on a simple principle: The people who design these services must be held accountable for the risks they create. The bill establishes two pieces of legislation: the digital safety act and the digital safety commission of Canada act. Allow me to outline their key provisions. First, there is a duty to protect children. All regulated services will be required to integrate safe design features and implement age restrictions. As for social media, the government has provided that children must be at least 16 years old to have an account. However, the commission can grant exceptions to platforms that demonstrate that they have implemented and maintained sufficient protections for children. In other words, we are not closing the door. We are setting a standard. Access to pornographic content must also be restricted using adequate age verification and age estimation measures. This responds to a call for action from our communities. In the spring, digital entrepreneurs and experts from Quebec, including some from my riding, launched an online initiative called AgeStandard, which calls for the enforcement of the 16-year-old age limit on social media. Thousands of people have signed the petition. Their message is simple: A check box has never protected a child. They are right. Second, there is a duty to remove two types of content that do not belong anywhere: child sex abuse material and intimate images shared without consent, including sexual deepfakes. Social media platforms will be required to make such content inaccessible within 24 hours of it being flagged or reported, through a notice and appeal process. For a victim, every hour counts. Third, there is a duty to act responsibly. Platforms will have to mitigate the risk of exposure to seven categories of harmful content, including content that induces a child to harm themselves, content used to bully a child, content that foments hatred, content that incites violence, and violent extremism content. They will have to provide simple tools for blocking, reporting and labelling synthetic content, and a readily available resource person. Fourth, the bill establishes rules governing AI chatbots. If I am not mistaken, this is a world first. As soon as a user expresses suicidal thoughts or the intention to self-harm or hurt others, the service must immediately interrupt its interaction with the user and direct the user toward crisis intervention services that permit the user to interact with a human being. The chatbot may not pose as a human being or a professional, nor use manipulative engagement techniques to maintain an emotional attachment that causes the user to withdraw socially. Fifth, the bill provides for greater transparency. Each regulated service must submit a digital safety plan containing information on the risks, the measures implemented and their effectiveness. Accredited researchers will be able to access the data. The days when platforms had to be taken at their word are over. Lastly, the digital safety commission of Canada will be created and equipped with real technical expertise to develop standards, conduct audits, receive public complaints and impose penalties. Penalties for violations could be up to 3% of gross global revenue or $10 million. Convictions on indictment could lead to fines of up to 5% or $20 million, whichever is greater. For companies of this size, this is what sets a recommendation apart from a requirement. Colleagues in this House, experts and citizens have raised serious concerns that deserve to be examined. First, there is a concern about freedom of expression. In my opinion, freedom of speech is not affected. For example, this bill does not apply to private messaging. It does not require platforms to proactively monitor everything that is being posted. It concerns these services’ design and risk management. That is a fundamental difference. We have also heard concerns about privacy and age verification. I share those concerns. Nobody here wants Canadians to have to hand over a piece of ID to watch a video. Where necessary, this verification should be done automatically. It will need to be properly regulated. This is something the committee will need to look at closely, particularly with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I also want to acknowledge the sustained effort put in by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, whose bill, Bill S-209, has passed in the Senate and is now before the House. It aims to restrict young people’s access to online pornography. Both bills have the same goal, and I hope the work done in committee will result in a consistent set of clear rules on age verification, rather than trying to impose two parallel systems on the same platforms. There is a way to do just that. Some have said that too many details are being left to the regulations. That is a valid criticism, but as we know, technology evolves faster than we legislate. That is why it makes sense to enshrine the principles, obligations and penalties in law and to entrust the technical details to an expert body that can adapt as needed. There will be an opportunity at the committee stage to clarify what needs to be in the legislation itself. Lastly, efforts are also under way elsewhere. The National Assembly of Quebec examined the effects of screen time on young people and focused on the role of schools and on support for families. Our bill addresses this issue by seeking to regulate global platforms. This is where the federal Parliament has a role to play. Platforms have a duty toward the children who use them, and that duty must be enshrined in law. I sincerely believe that the safety of our children is non-negotiable, as the minister said earlier. The survivors have issued a call to us: If this bill is intended to build a safer digital future, then let it be built together with them. I urge all my colleagues to heed this call.”
Statement grade
A+
Average 98 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Thanks 8%Claims 92%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 8 wordsI thank my colleague for his interesting speech.Thanks Claims · 93 wordsIn its charter statement, the Department of Justice recognizes that the bill engages freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) and the right to equality guaranteed under section 15 because it makes a distinction based on age, 1as well as the right to privacy under section 8 because the age verification or age estimation measures may require the collection of personal information.2 What strikes me is that the charter statement is based on guidelines that will be developed later by the commission, on future regulations, 3and on an exemption for services that provide—

Analysed on