Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“We consulted across Canada and used scientific studies to write this bill. Regulating big global tech companies is a federal public safety issue. All young people in Canada deserve this protection, no matter which province they live in. We will still listen to the provinces when a committee studies this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, consultations were conducted across the country. In developing this bill, the government drew on scientific articles and studies. Consultations were held in Quebec, the Maritime provinces, western Canada and Ontario. A considerable amount of groundwork has gone into the preparation of this legislation. There will also be work carried out in committee, where we will be able to hear other perspectives. I have heard several questions from the Bloc Québécois regarding jurisdiction. However, when it comes to these platforms, we are talking about regulating web giants and access to international digital platforms in Canada. This is a public safety matter. I believe that protecting young people on social media is just as important whether the young person lives in Charlo, on my side of Chaleur Bay, or in Bonaventure, on my colleague’s side. As the federal government, I believe we have a responsibility to act and to provide a national framework that helps ensure our young people are safe online, while, of course, listening carefully to what the provinces have to say.”

In response to a question from Steven Bonk

“This bill clearly defines harmful content, like encouraging violence, sharing private pictures without permission, and bullying. It sets up an independent group of experts to study online harms and protect young people. This group will report to Parliament every year.”

“Mr. Speaker, the bill sets out very clearly defined categories of harmful content. These include incitement to violence, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, incitement to bullying, and other forms. It is important to note that an independent digital safety commission will be established. Experts will serve on this commission. They will be able to examine what constitutes harmful content and explore ways to protect young people from exposure to such content. In terms of accountability, the commission will be required to submit an annual report to the minister, which will then be submitted to Parliament.”

“I want the House to pass this bill to protect children online. Parents cannot watch their kids every minute. This bill stops children under 16 from opening accounts on platforms unless those platforms prove they are safe. It also requires tech companies to quickly remove intimate photos shared without consent, and it fines companies that break the rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a very important bill aimed at protecting our children. I have no children of my own, but I am an uncle and a godfather. I know these children will grow up in a world that is quite different from the one I grew up in, even though I am not that old. The digital world has become omnipresent in our lives and in the lives of young people. Obviously, social media is everywhere, and artificial intelligence is on the rise. This opens up a number of possibilities. These new technologies can be very useful to young people, but they also come with risks, new threats and new dangers that previous generations may not have had to deal with in the same way. As a legislator, I think it is important to pay attention to these changes and adapt our legislative framework to keep kids safe. For example, when parents send their kids to school, to activities run by community organizations or to other institutions, they expect their kids to be safe in those environments. The same should be true in the virtual spaces that are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in modern life. As a result, big tech and social media platforms should have certain obligations to keep kids safe online. Parents certainly have a role to play, but they cannot monitor their kids 24 hours a day. I believe that, as parliamentarians, we must give parents the tools they need and help them keep their kids safe online. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-34. We are implementing an appropriate framework to protect children from being exposed to harmful content while using chatbots and social media. This bill is in keeping with the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, because one of the articles of that convention talks about measures that should be taken to protect children from material or information that could be injurious to their well-being. As members know, children can be exposed to a lot of such content online. With Bill C‑34, we are proposing a better regulatory framework governing how children under the age of 16 use social media. This is an important issue because, when we look at the data, it is clear that young people are experiencing mental health problems. A number of indicators are quite worrisome, all things considered. The excessive and addictive use of social media can have an impact on mental health. This has been documented. Research also shows that the adverse effects social media can have on mental health are even more pronounced among preteens and teens. We also know that there is harmful content out there that young people can be exposed to. We have a responsibility to protect young people from that kind of content. Our approach with Bill C-34 is to ban people under the age of 16 from having accounts on platforms that have not proven that their services are safe. An important distinction needs to be made here. This is not an outright ban. We are not banning all social media for people under 16. We are preventing them from creating accounts on platforms that do not submit a safety plan. Bill C‑34 sets out a specific procedure. Platforms that want to allow young people under 16 to create an account will have to apply to the new digital safety commission for an exemption and prove that their products are safe for children. They will have to show how they protect children from harmful content, like content that could incite violence or bullying, content that involves sexual exploitation or intimate images shared without consent, or content that could encourage young people to harm themselves or others. That kind of content should not be available to our youth online. Unfortunately, as they are currently designed, the algorithms sometimes expose young people to content like that much too early in life, and it can affect their mental health. If the digital platforms want young people to have accounts, they will have to implement safety measures and revise their algorithms. I am no technology expert, but there are ways to prevent young people from being exposed to this type of content. The platforms will have to prove their measures work. If not, they will have to implement age verification. Several age verification tools are available. There are models in Australia and the United Kingdom. We did not identify a specific model in the bill because we know that technology evolves. The model that is ultimately adopted will need to be approved by the new digital safety commission, which will bring together experts in the field. There must be a degree of flexibility in determining the most effective methods of verifying people’s age online while also respecting their privacy. This is an important point. Where age verification is required, there will also be obligations regarding privacy protection and the prompt deletion of supporting documents. In this way, the platforms can effectively verify age while also ensuring that this data is not retained, thereby protecting privacy. We know that artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the world as we know it. It is therefore important to address the issue of our young people’s safety when they use various AI-powered tools, particularly chatbots. The aim of Bill C-34 is to require certain safeguards to be built into these tools from the design stage onward. We are taking proactive measures through prevention. When algorithms are used, how does the system work? How can we set guidelines to ensure that these services are safe for young people to use? These services must embed age-appropriate safeguards into the design and operation of their products. We have an obligation to act responsibly and to mitigate the risk of harmful behaviour that could be incited by these chatbots. Here is a concrete example. Unfortunately, young people may experience mental health challenges. If somebody uses a chatbot to ask about self-harm or say they are contemplating suicide, certain mechanisms should be set in motion. There would be requirements in this respect. If a young person asks a chatbot a question about these types of issues, they would automatically be referred to the appropriate resources. There would also be measures in place if somebody talks about harming others. In what context should the company that owns the chatbot refer a matter to the RCMP? There will be clearer guidelines and procedures to ensure that these tools are safer to use. The chatbots will have to be transparent. Companies will also have to submit a safety plan to the commission. Simply making an effort will not be good enough. They will have to explain how they plan to implement these safety measures. The bill also requires a faster process for removing harmful content. We know how harmful it can be for someone to have their intimate images shared without their consent. This also includes deepfakes. In the age of AI, it is possible to create images that appear very real, featuring someone’s face, but that are in fact fake images depicting situations that are sometimes intimate. The sharing of this kind of image is extremely harmful. Incidentally, we legislated on this issue by passing Bill C-16. Bill C‑34 goes one step further. It imposes a duty on the platforms to quickly suppress this kind of content. If non-consensual intimate content is posted on online platforms or social media, the companies will have a duty to ensure that it is quickly taken down. If they do not, the digital safety commission will have the authority to levy fines. We need to take action and take this issue very seriously, because it has a real impact on the victims. Lastly, Bill C‑34 will also create the new digital safety commission of Canada. This commission will bring together experts in the field and report annually to Parliament. Its report will be submitted to the minister and tabled in Parliament to ensure accountability. This commission and these experts will examine the digital safety plans prepared and published by social media platforms and chatbot services to verify whether they meet the required standards. Do they sufficiently meet the standards to allow people under the age of 16 to use them? This commission will also help ensure transparency by requiring platforms to submit their safety plans to it. The commission will also be responsible for imposing fines. I think imposing fines is important because we need to ensure a certain level of accountability. If platforms fail to meet their obligations, there need to be real consequences. In the event of non-compliance, there could be a fine of up to 3% of global revenue, so these amounts could be very significant. This is essential.”

“Children face new dangers today from social media and artificial intelligence. How can Parliament make sure our laws keep up with these fast technological changes?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, for her speech. As legislators, we have a responsibility to adapt to the issues of the day. As we know, kids today do not face the same threats as kids from previous generations. Virtual spaces and social media are ubiquitous, and AI use is on the rise. What are my colleague’s thoughts on our responsibility as parliamentarians to acknowledge these technological changes? How can we ensure that the legislative framework keeps pace with these changes?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill would let social media platforms skip age verification if they have a strong safety plan, instead of facing a ban. I want to know what the member thinks of that approach.”

“Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that she hoped her colleagues were listening attentively. We certainly were, because right after, she talked about how it is important to protect the younger generation. In that spirit, under the framework of the bill, instead of an outright ban on social media, it would allow certain platforms to be exempt from the age verification obligations if they can show that they have a robust safety plan in place. I want to know what my colleague thinks of this approach. Rather than being subject an outright ban, platforms would be given an opportunity to implement preventative measures. What does she think about that?”

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“My colleague wants to vote for this bill so committee can study it, but he says it needs work. If he supports the bill, he must think it does some good. What changes does he want to make to it?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the bill has room for improvement, but he also said that he wants it to be passed at second reading so it can go to committee. What worthwhile improvements does he see in the bill? If he intends to support it at second reading, then he must believe it contains positive measures.”

“We all want to protect children online. Since we agree on that goal, will the member vote to send this bill to committee?”

“Mr. Speaker, throughout the evening, we heard all of our colleagues talk about a common goal: We all want to better protect children online, on both sides of the House. Some members felt that some aspects of the bill could be improved, but I think we all agree on the objective of Bill C-34. If we agree on the objective, which is to better protect children online, I would like my colleague to tell us clearly whether he plans to vote in favour of Bill C-34 at second reading in order to refer it to committee.”

In response to a question from Michael Coteau

“People in my riding worry about what kids see online and want them protected. Can my colleague explain why we need to pass this social media safety bill right now?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague why it is important to act now. I think there was an expectation among the Canadian population to do that. When I speak with people in my riding, some are asking how we can better protect our children. There are some concerns about what they are seeing on social media, so I would like to hear his view on what he has heard in his riding and why it is important to act now with Bill C-34.”

“I want to hear from my colleague. Does this bill balance protecting children online with protecting people's privacy and free speech?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the importance of ensuring effective online protection for children, while also safeguarding data privacy and the freedom of expression. I would like to hear his thoughts on how this bill strikes the right balance between these concerns, while ensuring that children are adequately protected from online harms.”

“I want my colleague to give me a yes-or-no answer. Will she vote for this bill at second reading so a committee can study it, or will she vote against it?”

“Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is simple. If she supports the objective of this bill, will she support sending it to committee so that members of Parliament can thoroughly examine it, or will she oppose it at second reading? Will she support the bill at second reading, yes or no?”

“The member says she wants to protect children, but she criticized our bill that does that. The Conservatives have voted against past safety bills they claimed to support. I want to know if she will support sending this bill to committee for study or vote against it.”

“Mr. Speaker, in her introduction, my colleague mentioned the importance of protecting our children, yet she spent the next 10 minutes criticizing just about everything that we included in Bill C-34 to achieve that objective. This is hardly surprising, given her voting record. Members will recall Bill C-22, a bill that police forces had called for to make our communities safer, something that the official opposition claims it wants. When it was time for the vote, the official opposition’s position on the matter was unclear. As for Bill C-16, which was intended to improve protection for victims, the opposition said that was important, but when the vote was held, it voted against the bill. This time, my question is simple: Will my colleague support referring Bill C‑34 to committee for a detailed study, or will she oppose it, as we have come to expect since she was elected?”

“This bill lets social media companies ask for an exemption from the age ban if they can prove they are safe for children. I am asking my colleague if he agrees this is better than a full ban.”

“Mr. Speaker, platforms would be able to apply to the new digital safety commission for an exemption from the age ban if they can demonstrate that their projects are safe for children. I ask my colleague if he thinks this is the appropriate approach, rather than imposing a full ban, so that children can use social media if it can be demonstrated that it is safe to do so.”

“All parties need to work together to keep children safe online. I want the government and the Conservatives to vote for this bill so a committee can study it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his heartfelt speech. He spoke about the importance of Bill C-34, which seeks to keep children safe online. I think this is a good example of a bill where all political parties must work together. As parliamentarians, we all need to be mindful of this issue. Does my colleague think it is important for the government and the official opposition to vote in favour of the bill at second reading so that we can study it in committee?”

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I want my colleague to explain more about why creating the new digital safety commission is a good step forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, in answer to my question, my colleague began talking about the new digital safety commission of Canada that this bill will establish. I would like to give him the opportunity to elaborate on why he thinks setting up this commission is a positive step forward.”

“Children face online risks today that we never faced. We need rules to keep them safe online. I want my colleague to explain why we must act now and how this bill protects children.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not have any children of my own, but I am an uncle and a godfather. These children will grow up facing risks that we never had to confront as children. As legislators, we must understand that and implement a regulatory framework that ensures our children’s online safety. Could my colleague explain why it is important to act now and how Bill C-34 represents a significant step forward in protecting children in the digital world?”

“This bill creates an independent group to check social media safety plans and protect young people online. I want to know if my colleague thinks this group is a step forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, one important aspect of the bill is establishing an independent commission on online safety. This commission will be tasked with reviewing the platforms’ safety plans free from any political interference. It will therefore fulfill various roles to ensure that our young people are protected online. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. What does she think of the commission proposed in the bill? Does she see that as a step forward?”

“Social media, online bullying, and harmful content hurt young people's mental health. We all want to fix this. The member has concerns about this bill, but seems ready to vote to send it forward. I want her to explain why studying this bill in committee is important.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague’s speech. She talked about young people’s mental health. I think that all of us parliamentarians share this concern, or else we would not be here at this late hour debating Bill C-34. We know that excessive use of social media, the bullying that young people can suffer online and the risk that young people may be exposed to harmful content online are all factors that can affect mental health. I also believe that we must all work together to find ways to address this issue as much as possible. I heard my colleague mention the importance of this bill. However, she has some concerns and questions that she would like to see explored further. I gather that she is prepared to vote in favour of advancing the bill to the next stage. I would like her to talk about the importance of committee work for a bill like this. Why is it important to conduct a thorough study of the bill in committee?”

In response to a question from Michael Coteau

“My colleague said he spoke with people in his riding. What did parents tell him during those talks?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he spoke with constituents in his riding. Can he tell us more about the response from parents? What feedback did he receive in those discussions?”