Mark Miller Visibly Angry After Being Fact Checked Live By Vassy Kapelos

In the best case scenario, it takes six months because the House is going to rise, right?And you're not going to come back until September.The legislation has to be debated.Yes, you have a majority.You'll get it through.Then you've got another 18 months.

Like that's still an additional two years.This was originally promised in 2019, with all due respect.

I love that Mark Miller is sitting there seething.The Liberal government is concerned about the children again.

Of course.

They're always concerned about the children, allegedly.

We need that substance mean.Think of the children.

Yeah.Well, I'm thinking Game of Thrones.

And the children, even the little children.

So they've introduced this social media ban out of basically nowhere.I think Wap Kanu had mentioned it and then they said, hey, that sounds something liberal.Let's do that.

Well, I think Australia did it as well, if I'm not mistaken.

Now, don't get me wrong.From an objective point of view, as an IT guy, and a lot of the IT guys can probably say the same, we don't know what the impact of social media is actually going to have on young minds.We don't have enough time and data yet to actually see whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.

So - Right, because I mean, Facebook was brand new the year I turned 18, and you had to have a university or a college email address in order to join.

Initially, yeah.

Yeah.

You know, we'll, we'll, we will see.But you know, when it comes to our son, even if he didn't have any challenges, I wouldn't be letting him have a social media account until probably, you know, mid teens, just because I, I don't want him being bullied.I don't want him being made fun of or anything like that.that he had posted prior to that.But when it comes to Mark Miller and the Liberals, I can never take their intention seriously.But the interesting thing is he was on with Vashi Kapelos and Vashi Kapelos didn't really let him get away with a lot, especially when it came to the negotiations with Kuzma and the effect of the CRTC tax.

that they were going to levy on the big tech companies.And the fact that not even three weeks ago, the Liberals were denying that they could even do anything.So there's a lot to get through.So let's take a look.

Appreciate it.What evidence do you have that a ban will work?

Well, we have experience in countries such as Australia that a ban, one, sends a signal that we're serious about making sure that platforms are being responsible.And two, the science that says that the more people are exposed, kids are exposed at a young age, the worse it is for their brains.I'm not pretending in sitting here that this is perfect.And the efficiency and efficacy of the bill is super important, but we pass lots of laws in Parliament that people don't necessarily comply with, which is why we need a compliance regime.And more importantly, a part of this bill that is crucial to reducing the harms that kids in particular, but everyone is exposed to.So this bill does two things.

It does put in effect a moratorium for kids getting social media accounts under 16.But importantly, it puts platforms on notice that they have to act responsibly, which they haven't been doing.up to now to take off harmful content within 24 hours.Secondly, to protect kids and to act responsibly, plus comply with our disclosure regime, which will force them to tell us what they're doing online, what their safety guidelines are.So we have platforms that are safe by design.

So there's a lot to unpack there.I do want to start on the first part, though.The question I had about why it works or not, and I understandyou've said frequently like the goal isn't to be perfect, don't make it the enemy of progress.I understand that but I do think it's important to figure out like If you think, if you're telling parents it's going to be effective to even any degree, what degree is that?And when you point to the case of Australia, actually their own commission shows that a vast, the vast majority of kids under 16 remain on at least one social media platform, even after the ban, what came into effect.

So again, like, are you sure?Do you have any evidence to show beyond the Australian case, which I don't think shows that, that this will work and actually keep kids safer?

Well, I think given the state of social media platforms, we owe it to parents in Canada.We owe it to kids that we have to try.

Right here, ladies and gentlemen, this is what the liberals do.

Well, it's about the kids.

No, well, it's about the fear -mongering.Well, we owe it.Think of what happens if we, if, okay.That's not how you justify legislation.You don't, you don't counter, well, there's no evidence that what you're going to do is actually going to work.You don't counter that with, well.

But think of the children.We owe it to them.We owe it to them.what do you you owe something that works that's what you owe you don't owe something that is on a wing and a prayer that's not what this is about but this is how they scare people into legislation and this is how they scare people into voting well just think about what would happen if if Mark Carney wasn't at the helm and Donald Trump came up here this is what they do right and it's disgusting to me The evidence coming out of Australia certainly shows, at best, 50 -50, even less effective.

That's preliminary evidence.At the same time, it is preliminary.It's data that they started their moratorium in December, and the data dates, I believe, from April or May.So preliminary, and they have a commission that is working on perfecting this.This is not a perfect science, but we know that we have to try, and we know we have to send a signal to platforms that they need to comply with safety by design features, which will make kids' experience in Australia, in this case, in Europe, has made their experiences better, and will make kids' experience online better.Should kids get around the ban, and heaven knows, got cigarettes when they were prohibited when I was young.

But it wasn't a reason not to put warning labels and prevent kids from getting them.So too with this.We have to make sure that people are, and platforms are on notice, and parents feel that they have the support of the federal government to tell their kids and have those conversations with their kids about their use of social media platforms, which is extremely important.

Okay.Wow.So number one, so I guess, so social media equals cigarettes.Got it.I know he was using it as an example, but that was, pretty weird example to use.And number two, I don't know if I'm going to offend anybody or not, but please parent your kids.

And well, that's that's it.Full stop.You should as a parent, you should have the say whether or not you want to permit your kid on social media.

And like some parents get their kids phones at like six, seven years old.I don't understand it.That's their choice.I don't understand it.You're basically asking them to to do whatever they want on the Internet at that point.I didn't need a phone until I was in university.

Many other people didn't need and now they excuse it.Well, Janie has a phone.That's great.I'm glad Janie has a phone.Janie probably has a four -wheeler too.We don't have a four -wheeler.

So this is the the challenge when it comes toAnd the liberals, they want to be the parents of your kids.

Yeah, they really do.That's a really good way to put it.And I think that in this case, particularly, if the government was going to do something about social media usage because they were actually concerned about young people, legislation's not the answer, if you ask me. I think the answer is like a public health campaign.

What I would do is if I were them, I would do both.I would, I would legislate parental tools.That's what I would be doing.I would, because it still allows the kids to use them.And you could, you could sell this very easily to the social media providers by saying, listen, sure they can be on social media, put in tools that the parents can use.So the parents get to decide what their kids can and cannot do.

That's enable parenting.Don't disable parenting.

Well, and the other thing.perhaps is that they should be looking at the platforms instead and saying, okay, well, if this is your terms of service, then you need to make sure you're enforcing that because I mean, look at what happened to us this past week.

Right.And it was even mentioned, I think, by Mark Miller.Oh, they're taking too long to take harmful stuff down.Duh.

Yeah, they are.And according to our research, Facebook was the worst.

Yeah.

Do you think that this legislation, as it exists right now, does put those platforms on notice?And I ask because a lot of what you just described is left to the regulatory period and left to the regulatory body itself after the legislation passes.So you say that it's going to have, let's say, age verification or safety standards.We don't actually know at this point what those safety standards are or how a regulator would enforce them.Did you leave too much up to regulation to actually put those companies on notice?

If you look in the Bill of Actually,there are some clear criteria that need to be set in certain instances.Making sure that safety design features are within the platform's architecture is key.We will need a commission to have a dialogue with industry to make sure that they are complying and are showing us their architecture, their design plans, and their safety plans, so that in some cases, we may exempt some platforms from the ban under 16.This is something that is evolving.Canada is catching up to countries that we consider to be our peers five to ten years.

In some cases, are we behind?And that's something that we have to realize as a country, be quite honest that we are catching up to things.But we know in the countries where we have had these design features into the system, social media platforms, the kids' experience is markedly better and that's what we're aiming for.

To be clear, the reason we're behind is because the liberal government you were a part of previously promised in 2019 to usher this through the legislative process and ultimately didn't.Now it's taken over a year to actually introduce this bill and my understanding is and there was confusion actually when you announced it that the ban won't even take effect immediately after the bill gets royal assent.So when it comes to parents who are watching right now in wondering like is this government gonna come through for me and make things safer for my kids can you assure them that you will given that history?

So two things we fully expect the moratorium to come in to force when the law comes into force, with a number of social media platforms that are the obvious suspects in this case.And when it comes to making sure that this is effective, that we can get the commission up and running in time, the Prime Minister and I had this conversation about making sure that we could get this up and running within 18 months, and that's what we'll expect to happen.

That's still two years away.Let's say in the best case scenario it takes six months because the house is going to rise, right?And you're not going to come back until September.The legislation has to be debated.Yes, you have a majority.You'll get it through.

Then you've got another 18 months.Like that's still an additional two years.This was originally promised in 2019, with all due respect.

I love that Mark Miller is sitting there seething.He looks pretty uncomfortable.When you heard him at the end, that wasn't me sighing.That was Mark Miller.You heard.That was Mark Miller sighing in that fashion because she's like, well, she's right.

You can't argue with facts, right?

No.And this is the issue.And this is what swing voters need to see.It's all BS with this government.They talk a good game.Don't get me wrong.

The liberal government, great at marketing.That's how they won the last election.But they don't do anything.And when they do do is terrible.And this is what these swing voters, the 43 % that were uninformed, ended up putting into power.

And the ban would come into effect whether the commission is fully set up or not.But it can't be enforced?

What is a ban without enforcement at that point?

Well, you would absolutely be breaching the law and I would be a dangerous game of chicken to play for platforms to say the commission is not set up therefore they can't fine us.I wouldn't encourage anyone to do that and it will be a phased approach.It wouldn't be everything starts at month 18 and with respect to banned entities, fully expect them to happen at month 18.coming into force.As to the delay, there's plenty of blame to go around.As you know, Parliament was sclerotic for a number of years in our minority.

We did also in some iterations of the bill get some elements wrong.I would say humbly that we overshot in some cases and we're trying to solve for too many things.This is a much more tightly surgically drafted bill and it deals with making sure that theare responsible for the content that they disseminate with respect to seven categories of blatantly obvious stuff that they should have been filtering in the first place.

You've been on the receiving end as I listened to the press conference around this of a lot of questions about whether or not if you get pushback from the Trump administration since they have push back on so many things involving big tech, you know, would this be something that you could trade away?And you were pretty insistent that, you know, kids' safety and stuff to do with that is not something that your government would consider trading away.There is evidence, though, that you have traded other stuff away in this space, like what's happening with the CRTC ruling on big streamers, like what happened with the DST.Why should we believe in this case your government will do something differently?

Look, kids just aren't on the bargaining table.hard stop.I would say the same thing for the U .S.If you look at the way the U .S.

administration is dealing with a number of pieces of legislation that is going through their houses, they too, I would humbly suggest, do care absolutely about American kids who are suffering much of the same damage that Canadian kids are suffering.So I am hopeful, but I am entirely assured that we will be focusing on kids.The issues in and around some of the other matters that we were discussing are ones that I won't be discussing publicly, but clearly there's a difference between how money is distributed within an industry, and the desire to protect kids.And I would also say that platforms, not to put words in their mouth, are taking a different approach to this.We are getting assurances that this is, their approach to this, they want to study the law, but it is neutral to some positive.

So, fair point, you know, we reached out to all the platforms and certainly the reaction isn't what it was a number of years ago during the first iteration of the bill.When you said, though, that you wouldn't comment on the other stuff, I mean, you are the lead when it comes to the decision from the CRTC and the direction that the Global Mail has reported that you have given them to basically back off what the Online Streaming Act mandated them to do.I think it's fair to ask, like, why your government has capitulated on something thatcreated, like, sort of an environment where you seem to be okay with advantaging American companies over what's required of Canadian companies at a time where you're also telling Canadians you're going to do everything to defend their interests against a power that, you know, we have been too dependent on and that in fact was a weakness of ours.

Well, look, people can draw their own conclusions on what they think is good or bad or anywhere in between about the CRTC and the regulations that it puts out.Regardless of any of the laws that we've passed, the CRTC is not the final arbiter of these issues.Pardon moi.

I seem to remember him saying something different recently.

The CRTC is not the final arbiter.Really?Really?So the government is?Wait a minute.Wait a minute.

That doesn't make any sense.Why?Let's go to the Wayback Machine, not so Wayback, on May 28th of 2026.

of the Broadcasting Act, the Liberals actually have the power to reject this levy and stand up for Canadians.So will they commit today to going to bat on behalf of Canadian consumers and making life more affordable for them by scrapping— The Honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Let's be clear, out of the gate, this is not a tax.This is an imaginary tax.Since day one, we have been relentlessly focused on affordability.That's why we cut taxes for...million Canadians.

This is about equity for creators.This is about fair competition.But mostly, it's about supporting Canadian storytellers, Canadian creators, Canadian artists.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member can just provide a fact with respect to the motion itself.It concludes by saying the House call on the Liberal cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject CRTC, which is arm's length from government.Where in the Broadcasting Act does it say that the cabinet actually has the authority to do what it is the Conservatives believe that it can do?They're calling on the cabinet to do it.Well, Madam Speaker, the cabinet does not have the authority to do what it is that the Conservative Party is asking the cabinet to do.

How did Mark accomplish such a feat?Magic?If Mark doesn't have the power to do so, what wizardry is this, Kevin Lamoureux?This is the question I pose back to the parliamentary secretary who has the same barber as Mark Miller.This is what I say to him.Come on.

This is this is hilarious because The Conservatives came out, called BS on this and said, come on, let's go guys.Let's just, you know, quick and dirty.Let's reverse this.We don't know what you mean.This is imaginary.Oh, cabinet doesn't have the ability.

A couple of days later, CRTC is directed by the cabinet.And he goes on to say, well, you know, I just haven't written that directive yet.Oh, wait a minute.I thought this was an independent arm's length organization.Apparently not.

I don't feel that it necessarily got it right.I will be issuing directives in the coming months to have a second shot at this.The reality is that the funds that we would have deployed into the industries that need it are frozen in court cases, and we need to get that actually into the hands of those companies that do create great profits.Canadian content.So the announcement of $600 million per year reflects a realism that I respect, and my job is to get that out into the industry in the coming months, including independent journalism that needs the support of the Canadian government so that Canadians can get good information that's reliable.

But that isn't a permanent solution.And again, I understand your framing of this is kind of technical, but it's something bigger than that.I don't know, and never has your government said, we're going to decide to do what the Americans wanted on this when it comes to the DST or when it comes to this, and here's what we're getting in return.In fact, all we see is the president say, three days after we learned in the Globe and Mail that that directive will be issued, that he doesn't want to renew CUSMA.So what are we getting in return for, again, something that goes against everything that your government has said you're going to do on behalf half of Canadians?

our interests.I think we have to do it in a disciplined way and that's what I'm doing.

But what does that mean?Like again, I'm not asking you to tell me everything about what's happening with the negotiations.That's fine, I'm not going to tell you.But we can objectively ascertain that your government has taken a decision that definitely advantages American companies over Canadian companies.That's what's happening right now.That's what the Quebec culture industry has said.

Your government was criticizing conservatives for raising this issue just a few weeks ago.Why are you taking this position?Why can't you be clear with us about that?I'm not asking you to tell me what's happening at the negotiating table.

I mean, look, the Quebec culture industry has had a nuanced approach.I won't sugarcoat it, but it has been nuanced.It hasn't been categorical in its response to this.I think they realize also that there is a very practical approach this government is taking.There's a difference between the principle, which is supporting cultural content and Canadian content, making sure we're getting good Canadian shows and supporting them.But there's also a difference of who is doing what.

funds that.There is also a question in respect to C11.Why shouldn't American companies operating here?They should and they will, but the question is whether that should be the number that the CRTC fixed.And I understand for listeners that there is information that they don't have because I haven't written the actual order or directive that I have to give to the CRTC.

What now?

So maybe Kevin Lammer isn't at the same table that you are, Mark Miller, because a couple of weeks ago he was flopping up and down in the House, trying to say that the Conservatives are making all of this up, that they have their tinfoil hats on, and the Cabinet doesn't have the power that they say they do, that you're just executing right now and issuing this directive to the CRTC to do what the Conservatives asked you to do three weeks ago that you were trying to say was impossible.