MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Karina Gould

Follow by RSS

Gould presses for tariff relief for Burlington-area steel, auto and small manufacturers, defending a $500-million envelope for regional development agencies to help affected businesses, and champions online harms legislation to protect children. She argues through stories, opening with what she read or saw — “When I was preparing for this speech last night, I stumbled across an article in the New York Times” — and often frames commitments broadly: “we will get it done.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
84 / 100 over 12 statements
Signal 78 / 100
Relevance 82 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 89 / 100
Averaged over the 12 of 15 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Statements 15

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

In response to a question from Gabriel Hardy

“We cannot predict how technology will change in the future, just like no one predicted Meta 20 years ago. That is why this bill gives the commission the flexibility to make its own decisions, while still following the clear goals we set for it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there will always be factors that we cannot foresee, and I believe it is important to allow the commission to exercise its judgment. As I noted, 20 years ago, no one could have predicted what Meta would become. Likewise, we cannot know what platforms and technologies will look like in five, 10 or 20 years. For that reason, I believe it is important to provide the commission with a degree of flexibility. That said, the principles and objectives that will guide its work have now been clearly established, and that is what matters most.

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“We can learn from other countries like Australia to make this bill better. I worry about checking people's ages online. We need to talk to experts so we can protect people's privacy and personal information.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think we have the advantage of being able to learn from Australia’s experience. We have introduced this bill, but we will also have the opportunity to observe what is happening elsewhere and make improvements. Personally, I have some concerns about age verification technology. Showing a piece of ID is something we have to do in many everyday situations, but we do not do it online. I think we need to talk about it, but we also need to listen to the experts to ensure that privacy and personal information are protected.

In response to a question from Karim Bardeesy

“Technology changes faster than laws can keep up, and we cannot predict every future harm. We need a digital safety commission so we can respond quickly when new online harms appear.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly as I said in my speech. We do not really know what is coming next. We did not predict 20 years ago so many of the harms we are seeing happen right now, and we do not have the laws in place to deal with them. If we are constantly trying to keep up with technology, we are always going to fall behind. Technology is always going to be ahead of what we are legislating, so having a digital safety commission would enable us to have the flexibility and the agility to respond, hopefully in real time, but if not, hopefully quickly enough to actually deal with these harms as they emerge.

“I want the House to pass this bill. Big tech companies choose profits over safety and cannot be trusted to fix themselves. This bill creates a commission to fine companies that do not protect users, and it sets age limits on social media to keep children safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-34 today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. This bill is long overdue. This is not the first time this House has tried to legislate to protect children in particular from online harms, but hopefully this time we will get it done. Based on the speeches I have heard from colleagues across parties in the House, it seems like there is finally consensus to protect our children online. When I was preparing for this speech last night, I stumbled across an article in the New York Times. It gave me pause and crystallized for me why it is so crucial that we put this legislation forward and get it right. The article was about a young woman living in the United States who had epilepsy and decided to talk about her medication with ChatGPT. What ended up happening is that ChatGPT counselled her on how to reduce her epilepsy medication and hide it from her doctor, which ultimately led to her death. Bill C-34 deals with chatbots. It deals with AI. We need to ensure that there are protections in place. There are vulnerable people and children using these tools in a way that is harmful to them. This woman’s story is an absolute tragedy and is something that I think all of us want to ensure does not happen again. What it crystallizes for me is that, left to their own devices, these companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. We have only to look at the whistle-blowers from Meta, Frances Haugen and Arturo Béjar, who both testified in front of Congress in the United States and said that Facebook and Meta have knowingly not put forward safety mechanisms because they want increased profits. We have heard that when it comes to protecting children, there are studies at Meta showing that young women are particularly vulnerable when it comes to bullying, body image issues and eating disorders, yet consistently they choose profits over safety. We have all heard stories from constituents and people across this country whose children have experienced online harms. Unfortunately, there are cases like that of Amanda Todd, who was so severely cyber-bullied that she ended up taking her own life. We have a responsibility to act in this House. I had the opportunity to meet with her mom, Carol, who has met with many of us in this place over the years and has been asking all of us, as members of Parliament, to act responsibly. Bill C-34 would do just that. It is there to protect our children from online harms and would come forward with a digital safety commission that would make sure the big tech companies are putting in safety by design as their principle. It would have real teeth and a real ability to fine companies that do not uphold their obligations to protect our children. If these things were happening in a playground, it would be unacceptable and the police would be called. There is no reason for these harms to be allowed online. The companies and people who perpetuate them need to be held to account. What I like about the digital safety commission is that it is based on principles, values, laws and protecting our children, but it is flexible for the future. When I hear colleagues say that we need to write these laws right now, I challenge them on it: Do we know what those harms are going to be five, 10 or 15 years from now? I am going to date myself a bit, because my first year of university was the first year that Facebook came out. In 2006, nobody knew that Facebook would become Meta. Nobody knew that Meta would effectively become the Internet in some parts of the world and have the kind of reach and control it does now. We do not know what the next thing is going to be. We do not know exactly how ChatGPT, Claude or any of these AI companies are going to transform our experiences and what existing or new harms they could potentially cause. I am not saying there is nothing good about any of these things. There certainly are. There are ways people connect that are great, but we have an obligation as members of Parliament, as legislators, as citizens, some of us as parents, to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect our children, the children of this country and people in this country from those potential harms. What would be good about the digital safety commission is that, for the first time, we would not just be legislating in the rear-view mirror; it would actually be forward-thinking and would give Canadians the tools to ensure that we can protect against some of these harms. Bill C-34 would also impose an age limit when it comes to social media. In her testimony to Congress, Frances Haugen suggested that, in fact, platforms like Instagram should raise their minimum age from 13 to 16, or even to 18. I think this is a really good step. We know there are age limits for a number of things in this country, whether it is drinking, voting, driving, or being able to buy cigarettes or cannabis. There are always people who are going to get around those age limits, but that does not mean it is not the right thing to do. It gives parents the tools to also help protect their children. A journal for the Canadian Medical Association talks about the fact that when children have constant access to online content, their levels of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation increase. Just reducing that from three hours a day to one hour a day has incredible benefits for their mental health. It is why the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, organizations like Unplugged and Raise the Age, Children First Canada and a wide range of pediatricians, etc. support Bill C-34, as it is about providing opportunities for healthy and safe lives for our kids. AI is changing the way in which we interact, just as social media has done over the past 20 years. We need to ensure that, as Canadians, we can take control of what is happening in the online world and have the tools to enforce protections for our children. This is important work that would build off legislation like Bill C-16, which already made it illegal to share content like deepfakes, revenge porn, etc. We need to make sure we are protecting everyone from an image that can go around the world in seconds. As a mom of two young kids who are not quite at the age where they would be engaged in social media, I cannot say how much I want this to pass right now. I talk to young people who tell me about their anxiety, their depression, the challenges and the bullying. They cannot turn social media off. When I was younger, maybe some of these things existed in magazines and we had these kinds of images, but I could put that down. I could put that away, and I could walk outside. When we are connected all the time, there is no escape. Bill C-34 would not solve all the problems. There are always going to be challenges, but this is such an important piece of legislation at this moment in time to do what we can to protect our children, protect future generations and make social media and the Internet a safer place for everyone.

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“I want to thank my colleague and wish him the best in the future. We do not always agree, but he works hard for the people he represents.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to salute my colleague. It has been a pleasure working with him over the past few years, and I want to extend my best wishes to him. I wish him all the best for the future. We will miss him, even though we have differences of opinion about our country. However, over the past few years I have seen that he has worked hard and has always been there to support Quebec, Quebeckers and his constituents. It is always a pleasure to work with someone who is professional and does their homework. I wish him all the best for the future.

Statements by Members ·

Road Safety

“Twenty years ago, a driver killed police officer Greg Stobbart while he was riding his bike. His wife, Eleanor McMahon, then helped pass an Ontario law that protects cyclists. I am honouring his memory and the work being done to make roads safer.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Saturday marked 20 years since the death of OPP sergeant Greg Stobbart, a beloved Burlington resident who was killed by a careless motorist while on a training ride on his bike. He was a dedicated officer with 25 years of experience, a committed athlete and a deeply loved family man and friend. In the face of unimaginable loss, Greg’s wife, Eleanor McMahon, chose courage. She founded the Share the Road Cycling Coalition, which has since become one of the most influential road safety organizations in Canada. Eleanor’s advocacy resulted in “Greg’s law”, Ontario’s one-metre safe passage law, strengthening penalties for drivers who injure or kill vulnerable road users. From grief to purpose, she transformed road safety in Ontario and saved lives. With the 20th-anniversary Share the Road Gran Fondo in Milton and the annual Ontario Bike Summit, we remember Sergeant Stobbart, honour his legacy and together continue the work.

Statements by Members ·

Forced Adoptions

“From 1945 to the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of unmarried mothers in Canada were forced to give up their babies for adoption. Other countries have already admitted this was wrong. The women who survived this are now elderly, and Canada needs to admit this was wrong too.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, between 1945 and the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of unmarried mothers in Canada were coerced into surrendering their babies for adoption. This occurred under intense pressure from religious organizations, social workers and the medical community, particularly in maternity homes and hospitals. I first learned about this shameful part of Canadian history from a 2018 Senate report, led by the Hon. Art Eggleton, entitled “The Shame is Ours”. I got to know the courageous Valerie Andrews, a survivor of this cruel practice and tireless advocate with Origins Canada for the mothers whose babies were taken from them. I read Heather Marshall’s profound book, Looking for Jane, which sheds light on the treatment of unwed mothers in Canada in the post-war years. Australia, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all had similar practices and all have acknowledged the historic wrongs these women and their children were subjected to. These women, those who are still alive today, are elderly, and they deserve to know that what happened to them was wrong.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Can the member talk more about how the people in his riding are affected and how important it is for small and medium businesses to keep their workers?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As he mentioned, we work very well together at the Standing Committee on Finance. I very much appreciate everything he said. I want to ask him to tell us a bit more about how his constituents are affected and how important it is for them to get the support that they need. I liked when he talked about SMEs and the importance of retaining workers. Does the hon. member have anything more to say on that subject?

In response to a question from Élisabeth Brière

“Our government is supporting industries like steel and auto manufacturing. We are doing this to protect the jobs of the people who work in them and keep our economy strong.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 37 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we are trying to do as a government is build a strong and resilient economy. We know it is extremely important that we support our industries so that we support our workers. When I talk about the steel sector, and when I talk about the automotive sector, it is not about the plant; it is about the people who work in those plants. I had the opportunity to visit Dofasco with the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago. We spoke to the employees. I met a third-generation steel worker at Dofasco. The whole reason we are doing this is that we want to ensure that she continues to have that job, that she continues to be able to make a good living and that she has that respectable job that we can continue to have in this country. All of these measures are about supporting those workers. They make up our community and they make up our economy. The strength of Canada’s economy is in our people.

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“The U.S. President made this decision, not Canada. Most of our trade with the U.S. is still protected under our trade deal, and the government is supporting Canadian businesses. We must work to get these American tariffs removed to protect our economy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is not something that the Canadian government wants. I do not think any Canadian wants this. I think most people realize that this is a decision of the U.S. President. We need to do what we can to support Canadian industries. That is exactly what the government is doing. It continues to be an evolving process. As I mentioned, 85% of exports from Canada to the United States are still covered under CUSMA. We need to protect that. We need to ensure that this continues. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the section 232 tariffs are removed across the board, so that we can protect the vital industries that are so important to our economy.

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“I worry about small and medium businesses in my riding. We announced $500 million yesterday to help businesses hurt by these tariffs. We will see if that is enough money.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the future of small- and medium-sized businesses in my riding. I have spoken about the big businesses next door to my riding. In my riding, however, small and medium-sized businesses are the ones that need this help. Yesterday, we announced an envelope of $500 million dollars for regional development agencies. The goal is precisely to support SMEs affected by section 232 tariffs. Will that be enough? We shall see. We will see how long this lasts, and how we will need to support SMEs.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“We must stand together against the unfair American tariffs on our steel, aluminum, and auto sectors. These taxes break our trade deal and hurt thousands of workers, especially in Ontario and Quebec. The government is giving $1 billion to help affected businesses, and we must help our companies find new markets so we rely less on the United States.”
  • A repeated line

    “That is exactly what this government wants to do.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 1.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our Bloc Québécois colleagues for moving this motion today. It is important that we stand together as a nation at this point in time to address the unjustified tariffs imposed by the United States, so I would like to thank them for that. I come from Burlington, Ontario. When I look to the west and the south from my constituency office, I see the steel mills in Hamilton. When I look to the east, I see the Ford Motor Company assembly plant in Oakville. In between and all around me, there are small and medium-sized manufacturers in the steel and automotive business that are major exporters to the United States and employ tens of thousands of people in my community and surrounding areas. This conversation today is so important because the section 232 tariffs are in direct violation of CUSMA, the agreement we signed with the United States. The tariffs are a challenge to the businesses, but, most importantly, to the people in my community who are looking for certainty and stability and hoping this issue will be resolved soon with the United States. I have spent so much time over the last year talking to business owners and employees in my community about what these tariffs mean for them. When they were first applied at 25% on the steel, aluminum, auto and softwood lumber industries, and now copper, they had a major impact, but when they were increased to 50%, it was devastating for our economy. I am really glad that the federal government and the Prime Minister recognize that and are acting swiftly to support these businesses. In fact, just yesterday, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Artificial Intelligence announced a $1‑billion additional fund to support businesses and tariff-affected sectors. I have heard from so many businesses in my community that this relief is so important. We need to ensure as a government that we are supporting these businesses in weathering this storm. We know we have some of the most innovative businesses, some of the best manufacturers and most highly skilled workers in the world in southern Ontario and around the country, but we need to support them in getting through this time, and support them to retool, re-skill and find new export markets to make sure they can continue to thrive and be successful. I had the pleasure of touring some of these amazing plants. I was at a company on Saturday evening in my riding, the Thomson-Gordon Group and Thordon Bearings. They make these incredible ship bearings that do not use oil. They are eco-friendly and export around the world. This is an opportunity for us to showcase that Canadian talent, Canadian skills and Canadian products and use this opportunity to double our exports around the world, to make sure we are bringing this Canadian ingenuity, skill and talent right around the globe. I do not want to minimize the importance of the relationship with the United States. Eighty per cent of Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the U.S. border. When I talk to manufacturers in southern Ontario, I hear that often 50% to 70% of their exports currently go to the United States. It is so important for us to get a good deal with the Americans, and that is exactly what this government is aiming to do. However, in the meantime, we also have to make our economy more resilient and less dependent on the United States so that we can weather these shocks. I was in Washington, D.C., a couple of weeks ago and talked to some American colleagues there. One of the key things we have to understand is that we have a lot of friends in the United States. We have a lot of allies in the United States who want to do business with Canada and continue to support what has made both of our countries prosperous, the cross-border trade, the North American economy that we have developed that is so integrated over the last few decades, but we also need to demonstrate to them that we are an important partner and they have to be able to show us that we can trust them into the future. When the Prime Minister talks about the fact that our relationship has irrevocably changed, what he is talking about is whether Canadians and Canadian businesses can trust that, moving into the future, the agreements that we sign with our American partners are going to be honoured and respected. As Canadians, we value the relationship we have with the United States. We value that cross-border relationship when it comes to our economy, our friendship and our Armed Forces, which have served side by side in conflict after conflict. We are friends, allies and business partners and we want that to continue. However, Canadians need assurances that when the Americans sign those agreements they are going to honour them into the future. When it comes to the section 232 tariffs, this latest change that we saw on April 6 is going to be really difficult for Canadian companies. That is why yesterday’s announcement by the government that we continue to support our Canadian companies is so important. There was a report that came out of the University of Calgary a couple of weeks ago that looked at the impact of the section 232 tariffs on the overall economy. While it is true that upward of 85% of Canada’s exports to the United States are still covered under CUSMA, and we need to do everything we can to protect that and ensure that continues, the sectors that are affected by the 232 tariffs are disproportionately in Ontario and Quebec because it is steel, aluminum and auto manufacturing that are most impacted. When we look at Ontario and Quebec, we see that the percentage of our U.S. exports that are hit by the 232 tariffs in Ontario is 60%, and in Quebec it is almost 55%. This is our manufacturing heartland and something we need to protect, nourish and support moving into the future. If we are going to move forward, as we are planning to, with the defence industrial strategy, building Canada and ensuring we have the infrastructure we need, we need to have a strong and vibrant steel and aluminum sector. That is why we are providing supports to the steel sector. It is why we have imposed import duties on non-free trade partners when it comes to steel in Canada. It is why the buy Canadian strategy when it comes to steel in our infrastructure is so important. These are the industries we rely on to build our country. I will conclude by saying that today’s motion and debate are really important, because we need to be unified. We need to be team Canada. We need to protect the businesses, employees and people who make our country strong and make it run.

Statements by Members ·

Online Harm

“Children and parents are here today to ask us to protect kids from online harm. I want the government to introduce a bill to keep kids safe online, and I want the House to pass it quickly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today we welcome to Parliament Hill children and youth from across Canada, including members of the Young Canadians’ Parliament, who are here to deliver a simple and urgent message, that time is up on online harms. They are joined by parents whose lived experience gives this call for action profound urgency and who are standing up to protect other children from similar harm. Together, they are part of the growing Countdown for Kids movement led by Children First Canada, reminding us that children have waited years for online safety legislation at the cost of real and preventable harm. As a parent and as someone who has fought hard for children’s rights in Canada, I look forward to the government presenting legislation on online harms and to the House finally putting the safety of our kids first and passing it quickly. These children are asking for us to act now, to put their safety first, to work together and to show that protecting children is never optional.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders

“The Conservatives are exaggerating. We are not taking away members' rights. We are acting as a majority because we have a majority. If the Conservatives ever win a majority government, I want to know if they would promise not to take majority control of committees.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 34 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for over 10 years and I have seen a lot of theatrics in this place, but the drama coming from that last speech was a bit much even for that hon. member and the Conservatives. Speaking as if we are taking away members’ rights and their opportunities to be representatives is over the top. In fact, every member in this House has an important role to play. What the government is doing is acting on the fact that we now have a majority. I will put this to him because I did not actually get an answer from his House leader when I asked. If the Conservatives should ever, and we will see if that ever happens, find themselves in a situation where they have a majority government, will he commit right now to ensuring that the Conservatives do not hold a majority on committee?

“We have a majority government now, so we get to have a majority on parliamentary committees. Canadians just voted for Liberal members in three byelections. If the Conservatives ever win a majority, will the member promise not to take a majority on committees?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my hon. colleague’s faux-righteous indignation. As much as I enjoy that, I think we need to put some facts on the table. The fact of the matter is that there is now a majority government here in Ottawa. With that comes the ability to have a majority on parliamentary committees. In those three by-elections that we had just last week, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for Liberal candidates. In fact, Conservative votes went down, incredibly. I have a very simple question for my hon. colleague. I think he should be able to answer it. I would like to know, if ever the Conservatives have a majority in Parliament, given their argument right now, will he commit and will he promise to Canadians that Conservatives will not have a majority on committee?