Discussion · Government Orders
Tamara Kronis Conservative
“I agree that we must protect kids from harm online. But this bill is too vague. It leaves too many big decisions and definitions up to the government and a new commission instead of spelling them out. We do not know how age checks will work, what counts as safe, or which apps will be covered. Banning kids under 16 from having accounts could also cut off youth from good support groups, while still letting them browse harmful content without an account. The committee needs to hear from young people and make this bill much clearer before it passes.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a society, we absolutely have to do something about the harm being done to our kids online. Parents are struggling. Teachers are struggling. Schools are struggling. Our youth are left navigating a world where the adults have not figured out how to adult on this one yet. I think we can all agree that the kids are not all right. Parliament’s constitutional authority over communications that cross provincial and international borders gives this chamber its mandate. A school board cannot regulate a multinational platform, and parents cannot demand design changes to apps, but having the authority to act, which we have here, does not make the problems any easier to solve. We do not know yet whether this bill can deliver the protection that parents and others expect, or whether it will inevitably result in the overreach its critics fear. Too many concepts in this bill remain ambiguous, and too many of the ultimate rules depend on decisions Parliament is being asked to authorize and delegate before Canadians can know what those decisions will be. I have held multiple well-attended town halls on child and teen use of social media in my communities. I have spoken with lawyers practising across multiple disciplines. I have consulted with experts, teachers, parents and school board officials. There are a lot of opinions out there. People are just as emphatic that this bill must pass as others are that it will be a disaster if it does. The disagreements are passionate, and there are plenty of misconceptions and misperceptions as to what will happen and what things will mean. The way this bill is currently drafted makes it impossible to validate, course correct or reassure any side. Supporters see children being sexually exploited and online feeds pushing harmful material at vulnerable kids. They want companies held responsible for products designed to keep children engaged, and they are tired of being told to supervise their kids more closely when they cannot control what a platform does. They put forward a compelling case for online safety measures and regulations. Critics fear that enforcing the age restriction would mean collecting more information about everyone, including adults. They fear the regulator would have excessive control over lawful expression or that the information they provide online in proving their age would be used for other things. Here in this place, where we are ultimately responsible for the unintended consequences of sloppy drafting, we do not get to just dismiss concerns like these, even for legislation with a worthy purpose. The Canadian Mental Health Association has recognized one of the paradoxes of the blanket age provisions in this bill. While supporting the bill, the association recognizes the inherent value of an online community, particularly for rural young people or those from marginalized communities. The reality is that the same service that can expose a youth to harm can also connect them to people who can help. A blanket account restriction leaves them without both, and it does not tell us where a youth may go next. If they move to a less regulated service, parents might find it harder to supervise. The government needs evidence that its approach will reduce harm overall, including for children and youth who work around the rules. There is nothing in the under-16 restriction that would prevent a youth from browsing without an account, where harmful recommendations can still reach them. It also excludes private messaging features from the duties on social media platforms. The bill does not expressly require government identification to be used as proof of age. Parents need to understand these limits, just as critics need to distinguish what the bill says from what they fear it might become. The legislation would fix the age for access at 16 while leaving many of the actual safety requirements undefined. Cabinet may decide which services are covered and which face account restrictions. A new digital safety commission would have the power to prescribe mandatory design features and additional requirements for age checks. These decisions are the ones that would determine the extent to which youth are actually protected and how much information adults must disclose. The government points to exemptions as reassurance, but not everyone is reassured by them. Others do not think there should be any exemptions. A service could admit youth under 16 if the commission accepts that it has put “adequate safeguards” in place. I do not know what that means because the detailed test remains unwritten. What adequate safeguards are at this point is anyone’s guess, and I can assure everyone that if we got a group of people together to discuss what adequate safeguards are, there would be a wide range of opinions. I cannot reassure anyone at this point as to what the criteria might be or whether the criteria would be objective. A permissive test could undermine the protection that supporters of this bill expect. An onerous or delayed process could exclude children and youth from services that could safely accommodate them. There is no automatic expiry for restrictions described as temporary and no timelines for decision-making, and the bill would not guarantee that the exemption process will even be operating when restrictions begin. Age checks are similarly unclear. If provisions can be easily evaded, this bill gives parents false reassurance. On the other hand, a system that misclassifies an adult as a youth can shut that person out of an app that they may be perfectly entitled to use. Limits on appeals and hard-to-navigate customer service processes on social media do not help. The bill would require personal identification to be protected and deleted after age verification or estimation, but we still need to know which methods would meet the standard and how mistakes would be corrected. The bottom line is that Canadians should not have to choose between the most reassuring interpretation of this bill and the most frightening one. The government has made an already divisive debate worse in this case by leaving central definitions and central decisions unresolved. Those who trust government may assume the regulations would deliver the protection they want. Someone who distrusts it may fear the same powers would be used against them. Unclear drafting and unresolved processes turn a debate about a law into a test of confidence in whoever administers it. Young people should be invited to testify at committee from all perspectives so we can hear from them what they need and what they are afraid of. This bill also needs measurable safety requirements and a workable exemption process before restrictions begin. Age checks need independent testing and accessible correction when they get someone’s age wrong. Victims need a clear route to urgent help when a platform fails them, while people whose lawful material is wrongfully restricted need prompt review. Parliament should require evidence showing where harm actually falls, with a firm reporting deadline so the promised review cannot drift. What I meant by that is that we should have evidence of where there is actual harm. That should be reviewable and measured, and we should be taking appropriate action to correct it. Conservatives are willing to help. I want to be able to explain this law to the people in my communities with confidence that the outcome will match the explanation. Social media companies and others governed by this bill need to know what success looks like and what the cost of failure would be. Contrary to the remarks of my colleague, not every social media platform or app would necessarily be governed by this bill. Every social media platform may have to review the bill to determine whether it is governed by it, but it is unclear at this point whether every app would be governed. As the bill is written right now, too much information is either fuzzy or still to come. The government ought to bring those answers to committee and either reassure Canadians or accept recommended amendments. This is about our kids, which means that it is about nothing less than the future of our country. Let us get this right.”
Mr. Speaker, as a society, we absolutely have to do something about the harm being done to our kids online. Parents are struggling. Teachers are struggling. Schools are struggling. Our youth are left navigating a world where the adults have not figured out how to adult on this one yet. I think we can all agree that the kids are not all right. Parliament’s constitutional authority over communications that cross provincial and international borders gives this chamber its mandate. A school board cannot regulate a multinational platform, and parents cannot demand design changes to apps, but having the authority to act, which we have here, does not make the problems any easier to solve. We do not know yet whether this bill can deliver the protection that parents and others expect, or whether it will inevitably result in the overreach its critics fear. Too many concepts in this bill remain ambiguous, and too many of the ultimate rules depend on decisions Parliament is being asked to authorize and delegate before Canadians can know what those decisions will be. I have held multiple well-attended town halls on child and teen use of social media in my communities. I have spoken with lawyers practising across multiple disciplines. I have consulted with experts, teachers, parents and school board officials. There are a lot of opinions out there. People are just as emphatic that this bill must pass as others are that it will be a disaster if it does. The disagreements are passionate, and there are plenty of misconceptions and misperceptions as to what will happen and what things will mean. The way this bill is currently drafted makes it impossible to validate, course correct or reassure any side. Supporters see children being sexually exploited and online feeds pushing harmful material at vulnerable kids. They want companies held responsible for products designed to keep children engaged, and they are tired of being told to supervise their kids more closely when they cannot control what a platform does. They put forward a compelling case for online safety measures and regulations. Critics fear that enforcing the age restriction would mean collecting more information about everyone, including adults. They fear the regulator would have excessive control over lawful expression or that the information they provide online in proving their age would be used for other things. Here in this place, where we are ultimately responsible for the unintended consequences of sloppy drafting, we do not get to just dismiss concerns like these, even for legislation with a worthy purpose. The Canadian Mental Health Association has recognized one of the paradoxes of the blanket age provisions in this bill. While supporting the bill, the association recognizes the inherent value of an online community, particularly for rural young people or those from marginalized communities. The reality is that the same service that can expose a youth to harm can also connect them to people who can help. A blanket account restriction leaves them without both, and it does not tell us where a youth may go next. If they move to a less regulated service, parents might find it harder to supervise. The government needs evidence that its approach will reduce harm overall, including for children and youth who work around the rules. There is nothing in the under-16 restriction that would prevent a youth from browsing without an account, where harmful recommendations can still reach them. It also excludes private messaging features from the duties on social media platforms. The bill does not expressly require government identification to be used as proof of age. Parents need to understand these limits, just as critics need to distinguish what the bill says from what they fear it might become. The legislation would fix the age for access at 16 while leaving many of the actual safety requirements undefined. Cabinet may decide which services are covered and which face account restrictions. A new digital safety commission would have the power to prescribe mandatory design features and additional requirements for age checks. These decisions are the ones that would determine the extent to which youth are actually protected and how much information adults must disclose. The government points to exemptions as reassurance, but not everyone is reassured by them. Others do not think there should be any exemptions. A service could admit youth under 16 if the commission accepts that it has put “adequate safeguards” in place. I do not know what that means because the detailed test remains unwritten. What adequate safeguards are at this point is anyone’s guess, and I can assure everyone that if we got a group of people together to discuss what adequate safeguards are, there would be a wide range of opinions. I cannot reassure anyone at this point as to what the criteria might be or whether the criteria would be objective. A permissive test could undermine the protection that supporters of this bill expect. An onerous or delayed process could exclude children and youth from services that could safely accommodate them. There is no automatic expiry for restrictions described as temporary and no timelines for decision-making, and the bill would not guarantee that the exemption process will even be operating when restrictions begin. Age checks are similarly unclear. If provisions can be easily evaded, this bill gives parents false reassurance. On the other hand, a system that misclassifies an adult as a youth can shut that person out of an app that they may be perfectly entitled to use. Limits on appeals and hard-to-navigate customer service processes on social media do not help. The bill would require personal identification to be protected and deleted after age verification or estimation, but we still need to know which methods would meet the standard and how mistakes would be corrected. The bottom line is that Canadians should not have to choose between the most reassuring interpretation of this bill and the most frightening one. The government has made an already divisive debate worse in this case by leaving central definitions and central decisions unresolved. Those who trust government may assume the regulations would deliver the protection they want. Someone who distrusts it may fear the same powers would be used against them. Unclear drafting and unresolved processes turn a debate about a law into a test of confidence in whoever administers it. Young people should be invited to testify at committee from all perspectives so we can hear from them what they need and what they are afraid of. This bill also needs measurable safety requirements and a workable exemption process before restrictions begin. Age checks need independent testing and accessible correction when they get someone’s age wrong. Victims need a clear route to urgent help when a platform fails them, while people whose lawful material is wrongfully restricted need prompt review. Parliament should require evidence showing where harm actually falls, with a firm reporting deadline so the promised review cannot drift. What I meant by that is that we should have evidence of where there is actual harm. That should be reviewable and measured, and we should be taking appropriate action to correct it. Conservatives are willing to help. I want to be able to explain this law to the people in my communities with confidence that the outcome will match the explanation. Social media companies and others governed by this bill need to know what success looks like and what the cost of failure would be. Contrary to the remarks of my colleague, not every social media platform or app would necessarily be governed by this bill. Every social media platform may have to review the bill to determine whether it is governed by it, but it is unclear at this point whether every app would be governed. As the bill is written right now, too much information is either fuzzy or still to come. The government ought to bring those answers to committee and either reassure Canadians or accept recommended amendments. This is about our kids, which means that it is about nothing less than the future of our country. Let us get this right.