Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, like many members of Parliament this past summer, I consciously spent some time speaking with residents in my riding about this proposal, which was introduced before the summer recess. The reviews were mixed, I have to say. Some were in favour of it, some opposed, and I will get into some of the reasons for that. I met with one specific group that stood out to me, and I want to give them a bit of a shout-out. It was a young moms’ book club in Uxbridge. There was one very brave dad who also attended this book club, and he was a good sport throughout the entire meeting. I want to thank these young moms from Uxbridge, and one young dad, for taking the time to discuss this issue with me and, in fact, for proactively reaching out to me in the summer to have a discussion. In fact, they got a bit of special treatment because during the book club meeting where we were discussing this Liberal proposal, the leader of the official opposition called me on my cell phone. Naturally, when the boss calls, I answer. I spoke to him about the issue he was calling me about, and then I said, “I’m here with a group of moms talking about this proposal, Bill C-34. Would you take a minute, on speakerphone, to talk to them and hear what they have to say?” He very kindly agreed to do that. They had a great interaction for about five or 10 minutes with the Leader of the Opposition. They were surprised and quite happy to have the opportunity to advocate their position to the Leader of the Opposition. I think that is a great story about Canadian democracy and how accessible all members of Parliament really try to be. One thing I think we agree on, moms, dads and Conservative members of Parliament, is that children do seem to be facing challenges online, being exposed to inappropriate content and potentially being exposed to exploitation. Parents, equally, are facing challenges online by trying to parent in a rapidly changing technological environment where children often are better equipped than parents themselves. I only have a one-year-old, but she already picks up my phone and tries to scroll because she sees what we are doing. I am a little worried she has already picked up the bug. Lastly, I think moms, dads and Conservative MPs agree that technology companies need to do better in responding to these potential dangers. One of the overarching principles in this debate, which I will express now and throughout this debate, whether here or in committee as the bill progresses, is that we need to seek to empower parents, not replace them. We want to put power in the hands of parents, not in the hands of technology companies, and certainly not in the hands of government. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, from a common-sense point of view, parents know their children better than anyone else. Parents must and do have primary authority and guardianship over their children, and that makes sense because parents love their children and want the best for them. It also makes sense because, increasingly, Canadians do not trust the government. It is not too hard to see why. Canadians do not trust the Liberals with these issues because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Previous Bill C-63, the online harms act, was a failure. Previous Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, is a failure. Bill C-9, the so-called Combatting Hate Act, is another failure. It is not clear to me that the proposals the government brings forward really empower parents in any of these situations. They certainly empower a new regulator, but I see more support for that than for empowering the people who are raising children. I want to point out a few of the flaws that I see in this bill that I hope can be addressed. The first, of course, is this idea of a ban itself. The government has touted a social media ban, but really, when we peel back the pages of this proposal, it is a temporary ban. It is a temporary ban, but one that would impose permanent infringements on Canadians’ privacy. The government has said it would move quickly to bring the ban into force, without waiting for the new regulatory body to become fully operational. By the government’s own estimates, it would likely take between 12 and 18 months, or more, for the regulatory body to be appointed, pass regulations, make orders or provide guidance. Imposing the ban before all of that is ready would have serious consequences. There would be no standards for age verification, no privacy review, no exemptions and likely no or little enforcement. Perhaps most obviously to me, it would mean that millions of Canadians would be required to verify their age immediately, even though regulated platforms may later be exempt from age verification. That makes little sense to me. It is also odd because it is the opposite of the approach taken by the Australian government, which Canada’s government has touted as an example for itself. Australia passed its law, and it did not take effect for over a year, so the very things I am talking about, like the establishment of a regulator and the passing of regulation and guidance, could be done before any sort of ban took effect. This means that services likely to qualify for an exemption, something like YouTube Kids, which provides parents with parental controls, content limits, etc., would not get an exemption for many months or years, if at all, but it would likely be entitled to one anyway. Moreover, it is not clear to me that this approach would even address the harms it sets out to address, because as I read the bill, it would only prevent the creation of a social media account. It would not prevent access to social media content or the browsing of it. This is an admission the government makes, even in the charter statement. Underage users would still be able to access content that the government says is harmful. Lastly, a flaw that I see is that the bill is premised on subjecting platforms to regulation based on their number of users. With too small a number of users, we would catch everyone, and with too large a number of users, we may miss people. There is no answer provided by the government to that question. I also want to talk about one question that has not received enough attention in second reading. In fact, I reviewed the minister’s speech and the parliamentary secretary’s opening speech, and they did not mention this issue at all. It is the question of whether the proposals in the bill, age verification and a temporary ban, are consistent with the Constitution and are consistent with the charter. The charter statement, which was submitted late by the government, correctly noted a few charter rights that would be engaged by the bill. The requirement, for example, in the bill to control how and when content is accessible to users obviously engages section 2(b), which guarantees the freedom of expression. I do not think there is any serious argument there that, on its face, the bill would infringe that expression. The question is whether it may be saved or not. Another issue flagged in the charter statement, correctly, if even limited in its treatment, would be the ability to close a hearing to the public. Obviously, that engages free expression and the open court principle. Age verification and the collecting of personal information engages section 8 of the charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The commission’s proposed ability to compel the production of papers, summon people and enter premises engages sections 7 and 8 also. These questions have not been answered, and I want to dig into this a little in the remaining time I have. First, as I noted above, the temporary ban would come first. Exemptions and rules would come second. The charter statement does not even address this issue at all. Is it constitutional to subject millions of people to temporary age verification? There is no answer. Moreover, the charter statement really only considers one side of the issue of expression. It rightly points out that the harmful expression identified in the proposal, things like subjecting people to sexually explicit material, falls far from the core guarantee of freedom of expression. There is no argument from me on that, but it utterly fails to address the inevitable likelihood that other content would be subject to complaints to the regulator and ultimately censorship. Perhaps most fatally, even if the so-called safeguards, like privacy protections in the bill and exemptions for platforms in the future, would make this bill constitutional, the problem remains that none of those protections would be operational when the bill is passed. That is a fundamental question that the bill does not answer, and the government has not provided an answer either, so I hope we get one. In closing, I want to give a short message to the moms and to the kids. Social media is not always real life. Someone is not defined by how many likes their Facebook post receives. They are not defined by how awesome the world they built in Minecraft really is, nor are they defined by one mistake they may make on social media. I think that is a lesson that all members of Parliament can take too.
