Kevin Lamoureux

“Madam Speaker, over the past decade, we have seen an alarming rise in rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm and other mental health challenges among young people. Many parents, educators and health professionals have raised concerns about the role social media may be playing in this trend. Social media has fundamentally changed childhood. While these platforms can help young people connect with friends, learn new things and access information, they can also contribute to sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, loneliness, social comparison and addictive behaviours. The reality is that many social media platforms are designed to maximize the amount of time users spend online. When platforms offer services for free, it is often because the users themselves have become the product. Their attention is a valuable commodity that companies compete to capture and sell to advertisers. The longer users remain engaged, the more profitable those platforms become. As a result, companies are often competing against one another for our attention and, in some cases, the attention of our children. Too often, the incentives in the marketplace reward engagement rather than well-being. That is why many Canadians are asking whether more should be done to encourage safer online environments for young people. Children should be protected from products that are intentionally designed to be addictive. I believe social media companies should recognize their responsibility to design services that put the best interests of children first. However, given current business practices and market incentives, many believe legislation may be necessary to encourage different behaviours and different design choices. Governments have a role to play in creating those incentives and in providing parents with the tools they need to make informed decisions about how their children engage with the online world. This brings me to Bill C-34, the safe social media act, which is before us today. The legislation would establish new responsibilities for organizations that operate social media platforms, AI-powered chatbots and other online services. For example, regulated social media services would be required to provide users with tools to block and report harmful content as well as with access to support resources. In addition, the legislation would create a new regulator responsible for overseeing compliance and enforcing these requirements. The bill is built around two key obligations. First, there is a duty to protect children. This includes safety-by-design requirements, age-appropriate design features and measures intended to limit children’s exposure to harmful and pornographic content. Second, there is a duty to be transparent. Platforms would be required to maintain records demonstrating compliance and publish a digital safety plan in a clear and accessible format. The legislation would apply to three categories of regulated services: social media services, including livestreaming and adult content platforms; AI-powered chatbot services, which are treated as a distinct category with their own obligations; and certain other online services, including websites and applications that allow users to interact with them. In short, Bill C-34 seeks to establish a framework for digital safety, transparency and accountability in online spaces. While I will be supporting the bill to be sent to committee, I have some apprehensions with the legislation. While I will always support the right of parents to control what their children see online and believe they should be given the tools to do so, I take issue with the creation of a new federal bureaucratic department to act as the Internet police. We must be careful that in our effort to make the Internet safer, we do not create a system that places excessive power in the hands of government regulators or imposes burdensome requirements on platforms without delivering meaningful results for Canadian families. As legislators, we must exercise caution whenever we grant government new powers over what Canadians can see, share or access online. Protecting children is an important objective, but it must not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms. We must ensure that this legislation contains clear safeguards and accountability measures so that it cannot be used to expand government control over online speech or set a precedent for future censorship. This is something Conservatives will continue to champion as this bill moves through the legislation process. It is also important that we examine real-world examples of similar legislation. In December 2025, Australia implemented a ban on social media access for children under the age of 16. Rather than placing responsibility on parents or young people, the Australian approach focuses on holding social media platforms accountable for enforcing the rules. Oversight is provided by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which issues guidance on the measures platforms must take to prevent underage access and has the authority to impose significant financial penalties on companies that fail to comply. As Parliament studies Bill C-34, we should carefully examine the results of the Australian model. What has been the outcome in Australia and has it been effective? Early evidence suggests there is reason for caution. In March 2026, the Molly Rose Foundation conducted the first large-scale survey of Australians aged 12 to 15 following the introduction of the social media ban. The survey found that 61% of young people who previously had accounts on restricted platforms continued to have access to at least one active account. More than half of those who had used platforms such as TikTok, YouTube and Instagram remained able to use those services, while 70% of children who continued to access restricted platforms said it was easy to circumvent the ban. The survey also found that 51% of respondents believed the ban had made no difference to their online safety, while 14% reported feeling less safe online. Although some children reported spending less time online, the overall impact on well-being was mixed. These findings suggest that while the objective of protecting children online is laudable, legislation alone may not be sufficient if young people can easily bypass the restrictions and continue accessing social media platforms. The Australian experience shows how difficult it is to keep children safe online. In many ways, it is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Technologies move quickly and young people often find ways around restrictions that governments and platforms put in place. This is why Parliament must take the time to thoroughly study Bill C-34 at committee. We should hear from a broad range of witnesses, including parents, teachers, child advocates, civil liberties advocates, legal experts and those working in the technology sector. We all agree that children should be protected online, but good intentions alone do not make good policy. Before moving forward, Parliament must ensure the measures proposed are active, effective and practical and that they strike the right balance between protecting children and preserving the rights and freedoms of Canadians.”