“I agree that social media companies must be held responsible for the content young people see. I want to know how far the member thinks that responsibility should go, and if companies should have to share their algorithms and safety reports.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate my colleague from Lethbridge on her speech. I was moved when she mentioned Amanda Todd and the tragedy in Tumbler Ridge. I found those events very upsetting. I fully support her statement that platforms that host content, whatever it may be, must be held accountable for the content that is made available to everyone, but especially to young people and vulnerable youth. I agree that platforms must be held accountable. However, my colleague and I may not agree on how to do that. Does she think that platforms should be more transparent, for example when they are asked, for obvious reasons, to disclose their algorithms or the reports they have carried out on measures implemented to ensure user safety? I would like to know how far my colleague thinks platforms’ accountability should extend.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 41 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 →

“I support this bill to make social media safer for children, but we still need to work together to improve it. The government waited far too long to act. Kids spend hours every day online, often without supervision. Social media companies use algorithms that trap young people and expose them to toxic content. We must hold these platforms accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who spoke before me on this bill, which I consider to be one of the most important bills before this Parliament. It is extremely important, but also extremely overdue. This comes as no surprise, because with this government, everything happens a little too late, everything happens a little too hastily, and everything is handled rather clumsily at times. I must say that Bill C-34 has several positive aspects, but above all, it raises a number of points for discussion. I really appreciated the minister’s openness at the outset, when he introduced this bill in the House in June. His first instinct after introducing it was to reach out and say that he would love to talk about it, to discuss it, because he would like to know where we stand on the issue, what our position is, and how we could work together to improve the bill. I presume he took the same approach with colleagues from other parties in the House. It is that spirit of openness that leads to well-crafted legislation that takes into account different perspectives and beliefs. It also enables us, as parliamentarians, to make our voices heard and to represent our constituents by consulting them, as my colleague from Lethbridge said earlier. She mentioned that she had met with constituents over the summer and discussed the issues addressed by this bill. Many parents have expressed concerns, often feeling overwhelmed by technologies that literally captivate our children and can take them places we dare not imagine. In fact, parents are often unaware of what their children are exposed to until it is too late. The government should not wait for tragedy to strike before taking action on the toxic content found online. The government should not wait for such events to occur before introducing legislation. Despite the truly shocking and tragic incidents that have occurred over the last few years, the government still dragged its feet. It waited until 2026 to bring forward legislation aimed at addressing online content that is harmful to young social media users in particular. I would remind members that, in the previous Parliament, we had Bill C-63, an omnibus bill that we tried to split up. We tried to split the bill so that we could quickly pass part 1, which was basically in the same spirit as Bill C-34. Most members of the House thought that we could come to an agreement on that part, so we said, let us split the bill, take care of the part that can be dealt with quickly and work together like adults. I think we all feel this issue transcends party lines. After all, we are talking about young people’s safety, our children’s future, and how to keep them safe as they navigate an environment that we do not even fully understand ourselves. It was high time that we addressed this issue, so I welcome the introduction of Bill C-34, even though there are still a lot of things that need to be discussed. The Bloc Québécois is open to this legislation. As I just said, and I think it is rather clear, we agree with the principle of the bill. Obviously, like everyone here, and especially as parents, we care a lot about these issues and are deeply concerned about them. I have teenagers who spend far too much time on screens, especially on their phones and on platforms like Snapchat, Instagram and obviously TikTok, which I am not happy about. They are exposed to content over which I have little or no control. That troubles me as a parent. Where do we draw the line? How do we supervise our children without stopping them from participating in activities that are part of their social life these days? Whether we like it or not, whether we think it is a good idea or not, a big part of their life happens on these platforms. It is their social network, unfortunately. The name says it all. That damned name says it all. It is a social network that we, as parents and legislators, have a duty to supervise, but we also have a duty to do more to hold the platforms accountable. I will come back to that. I would like to share a few figures and statistics that illustrate the extent to which screens and social media have become a part of our lives, particularly among young people. Some 50% of children aged seven to 11 have access to a mobile device and use it on a daily basis. Again, that is one in two children aged seven to 11. Some 83% of children from grade 4 to the end of high school have a mobile device, which is pretty much everyone, and 100% of young people aged 15 and over use the Internet. Kids spend an average of three to five hours a day in front of a screen for entertainment, and most of that time is without parental supervision. That means they are free to go pretty much anywhere the social media platform or website they are using allows them. I think these figures should give any parent cause for concern, worry and even alarm. Why do we need legislation? Why do we have to legislate on this issue? First, as I said a moment ago, we have a role to play as legislators because this is not only a societal issue, but a health issue as well. We must not overlook a single tool. In this case, our tool is our ability to draft and vote on laws and work as hard as possible to ensure that our laws are minimally imperfect and meet our objective as much as possible. As the saying goes, “It takes a village to raise a child”. Imagine social media as a supercity; it takes everyone to navigate it and regulate it safely. There is an important reality that we need to understand, one that I have explored in some depth through discussions with stakeholders in this sector. The Bloc Québécois has met with a number of them, as have my colleagues. In fact, the critics from the various parties have met with many of the same people. What has become clear to me is the extent to which social media is designed to captivate, to literally capture people’s attention and keep it for as long as possible. That is their business model. That is how these platforms generate revenue. It is similar to television, where they try to get the best viewing numbers. Social media operates on the same principle. They use algorithms as a tool to attract young people and keep them engaged. Algorithms are a trap. They act like a tunnel, guiding users to destinations they could never have anticipated when they first set off down that path. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of noise. Might I ask that you put a stop—”

“I want us to pass this bill to committee. Social media companies use algorithms that get young people addicted to harmful content. We need rules that hold these platforms responsible for protecting kids. I am still open to discussing age limits, even though teens often find ways around bans. Parents are overwhelmed and need our help.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is my fan club. I cannot control them. I am really sorry. I want to come back to the idea of social media platforms and the algorithms they use to attract not just young people, but adults as well. We are talking about young people and saying that they are vulnerable, but often adults are too. Let us face it. Sometimes we fall asleep with our phone in our hand after spending too long watching silly videos, although we do also watch intelligent content. That said, the platforms use these algorithms to get young people addicted to their content. I want to say it again. Sometimes the content is very low quality, completely inane. It is not going to help our young people become doctors or great researchers. I think it is important for this law to be enacted and it is important to hold the platforms accountable. It is also important for parents to understand their role. Parents have good intentions. I never question parents’ good intentions in raising their children, but I do think that parents are quite literally overwhelmed. I can see this. These tools, the social media and the platforms specifically designed for young people, are not necessarily from the parents’ generation. They also feel a bit overwhelmed by them. That is also why Parliament needs to step in and tell parents that it is going to create a framework and that everyone is going to play a role. There will be legislation. The representatives of these platforms will be held accountable for the content they host and make accessible to young people. The government needs to hold them accountable for any harmful content that ends up on their platforms. They will need to be accountable for their content. They need to understand that however much money they invest in developing tools to attract young people, they should be investing at least as much, if not more, in protecting their users from this extremely dangerous content. There is the matter of age. I know that can be a sensitive subject. We have seen what is being done in other places like Australia. We have talked about it. Earlier, I heard my colleagues talking in their speeches about what is being done in Australia. We are also looking at what is being done in Europe. The idea of banning social media is one of the concerns that I raised from the very beginning in the conversations that I had with all of the stakeholders I met with. I told them right away that I disagreed with banning it. I disagree with a ban because when a young person is banned from doing something, it basically turns into forbidden fruit. They will definitely find a way around the restrictions. If members do not believe me, just ask my parents. My parents will tell them that when a young person is banned from doing something, they will find a way to do it anyway. It is true. I am kidding around, but anyone who has teenagers or who remembers being a teenager knows that when teens are banned from doing something, their first reaction is not to quietly accept the decision and agree that they are not allowed to do it. Their first reaction is to find a way to do it anyway, because they feel like going on social media. If we choose to ban young people from using social media, we are just going to end up dealing with the problem of them getting around the ban. We will also lose an opportunity to teach, train, warn and protect them, because we will simply be turning a blind eye and saying that social media has been banned and is no longer a problem. We risk losing control. That was my position before we began these extensive consultations. I must admit that I still have not reached a definitive conclusion about what solution we should adopt when it comes to restricting or prohibiting access to these platforms. I am much more open-minded today than I was at the outset, largely because I have heard perspectives that I found both compelling and relevant. With respect to a ban, my esteemed colleague from Lethbridge spoke earlier about what Australia did. She rightly pointed out that restricting access to social media for youth under 16 has not been as effective as some had hoped. Many young people have kept their accounts, while others have found ways around the restrictions by using VPNs or providing false information when creating accounts. However, there has still been a significant reduction in the number of young users on these platforms in Australia. My understanding is that the numbers have fallen by 30% or 35%. I do not have the exact figures here, but it is somewhere around there. This measure was implemented in December 2025. It has not even been in place for a full year, yet the number of people under 16 who are active on social media has dropped by about 35%. Some might say it was not a success, that it failed, but we could also look at it from a different angle and point out that there are now 30% fewer young people online. Maybe they replaced their screen time with something else, like playing outside, participating in activities, reading a book or socializing. Whatever alternative they chose, their time was not spent on social media, because they had no access to it. While it may not have been the resounding success that was hoped for, the minister is no Harry Potter. There is no magic involved. I do not think that we should look on it as a failure. As a measure, it can be adjusted based on the progress or observations made over time. In my opinion, a measure implemented in 2025 that has achieved a 30% success rate should not be dismissed out of hand. All of this brings me to a conversation that really took me by surprise. I was in my riding last week, and I met some exceptional individuals in a confidential setting. I am sorry, but I cannot discuss the details, regardless of parliamentary privilege. One of those exceptional individuals was a physician, Dr. Caroline Bissonnette-Roy, to whom I extend my regards. She works in the community, specifically at the Centre de pédiatrie sociale en communauté Les Petits bonheurs, a pediatric care centre in Drummondville. As everyone knows, these kinds of centres work miracles. The staff there are fantastic. In a conversation with this doctor, we spoke specifically about young people in vulnerable situations. Obviously, the parents of these young people often do not have much education and do not have a lot of time to devote to this part of their kids’ lives. She told me about her day-to-day work, about the children she saw who were psychologically affected by excessive screen time. Often, in certain situations, parents prefer to leave their kids to fend for themselves, for various reasons. I am not judging, obviously. There are all sorts of circumstances, all sorts of contexts. She is seeing this in her own community, in her practice. She is seeing the damage caused by excessive screen time for these kids. We also discussed the situation in Australia. An article had just been published that discussed the relatively questionable success rate of this measure. She told me she was in favour of a total ban, based on what she was seeing, of course. She sees some very difficult cases. She told me that we should ban social media entirely for anyone under the age of 16 or 18. We need to teach young people to go play outside, as I was saying earlier. We need to teach them to go out, go to the park, play hockey in the street, and do activities just like we used to when we were that age. We managed to get by just fine without cellphones. She told me that, as far as she was concerned, if we could get children away from screens and social media, that would be a victory, regardless of how many children we save. Whether we save 20%, 30% or 40% of them does not matter. It is going to be a victory because, according to her, we are literally going to save these young people. Their brains will develop normally, without being stunted by excessive screen time and exposure to the kind of content found on TikTok and other platforms that young people use. I thought that was an interesting perspective. I think we need to take advantage of the minister’s open-mindedness and the government’s willingness to reach out. Let us hope that this will also be the case when the bill is studied in committee. The government seems to be willing to reach out and listen to various perspectives and perhaps to adjust certain positions that may be too strict according to some or too soft according to others. I think we are going to end up with something that truly measures up to expectations. I feel strange saying this, but the whole world is watching. I said the same thing when we were talking about Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. The whole world was watching us then too. Somebody needed to start regulating online streaming platforms. So far, not many countries have taken the lead, shown some backbone and decided to legislate on these issues. I think we owe it to our young people to do this. We also need to do it for the benefit of the entire world. That may sound a bit hyperbolic, but I think it is true. Suffice it to say that we need to adopt robust, binding measures for the digital companies that control these algorithms, which we now know are so harmful to the development of our young people. We need to show that we will not back down and that we are going to set up a system that will hold the right people accountable. When I say that, I am not just talking about the platforms. I am also talking about parents, because we need to give them the best tools we can. As legislators, we absolutely must stand up and do something to try to reverse these negative side effects that are literally destroying an entire generation. I think this is a topic we feel passionately about. We will also be able to discuss video games, which are another place where young people get exposed to all kinds of content through video game chat platforms. We are going to have to address a lot of different issues. I am really looking forward to studying this bill in committee. Bill C-34 is an extremely important bill. It places a heavy responsibility on our shoulders, and we must carry out this work as responsibly as possible.”

“Our biggest challenge in committee will be pleasing everyone. People already have strong opinions on this bill. We need to work together respectfully, listen to each other, and be willing to change our minds so we can agree on the final bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was for you. That was my understanding. No? Then I will answer. That is an excellent question, and I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for asking it. I think we are going to run into a number of challenges. The biggest challenge we may face is pleasing everyone. Based on the correspondence that we have received regarding Bill C-34, some people’s opinions already seem rather entrenched. I think we need to create an environment conducive to open and respectful dialogue, where we listen to opinions that require us to adjust our positions on different aspects of the bill. In my opinion, the challenge lies in coming up with a bill we can all agree on, a bill that offers something for everyone so the final result suits everyone’s needs. It will be a challenge, which is why I say it will need to be a collaborative undertaking that is carried out responsibly and in a spirit of co-operation.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Protecting young people is the job of Quebec and the provinces. I want my colleague to speak more about making rules that fit local realities.”

“Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, my colleague took part in a study on the impact of influencers and social media. As part of its study, the committee made recommendations to the government, including a recommendation to take a more flexible approach. As everyone knows, youth protection is very much the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about this, specifically about adopting an approach that is much more focused on the realities on the ground in every area where this phenomenon may occur. These are the issues we want to tackle today.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 29 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill must not cross into areas run by Quebec and the provinces, like education and health care. The committee studying it needs to hear from provincial governments to make sure we respect their powers.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point that I was unfortunately unable to address as I only had 20 minutes for my speech. Yes, the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces will have to be respected. One aspect of Bill C-34, or the approach we feel will have to be taken, is education. As members know, education falls within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It will therefore be important for the committee, as part of its study, to hear from all the provincial legislatures and the National Assembly to ensure that there is no encroachment. We must ensure that any recommendations that we end up implementing respect the constitutional division of powers, if they relate to education, health care or community-based services, for example. He makes an excellent point. There are issues of potential encroachment on provincial powers. We will need to take this into account and exercise caution.”

“It is too early to change this bill. We should talk more first. We should also listen to the video game industry, because it is already good at catching predators.”

“Mr. Speaker, at this stage, I do not see anything that needs amending. I cannot think of any amendments off the top of my head. I think there will be a lot of discussion before we get to the point of drafting amendments. There is one thing that might be worth taking a closer look at: video games, the video game industry. There is a lot of discussion going on, and it is an industry that has regulated itself effectively and is well-equipped to detect potential predatory behaviour. These are people who may not traditionally be heard in this context, and I think it will be helpful to include them in the discussion. Other questions will certainly arise along the way. It is a little too early for me to think about amendments.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 95 of 100

  Of this reply, 93% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I support creating this commission, but it depends on how it is set up. It must be independent from the government, without ministers interfering. It also needs real power to punish rule-breakers and do its job.”

“Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. There is a positive element to it, but much will depend on the powers ultimately granted to the commission in question. I believe it is important to have an independent body somewhat along the lines of what we see with a quasi-judicial tribunal such as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. The CRTC has its flaws, but no one can say that we would be better off without it and with the government acting as the sole regulator. The role of this commission will need to be defined. We would also need to ensure that it is independent from the government and that the minister is not constantly intervening in its decisions or proceedings. I think that is important. It is also important for the commission to have teeth, that it be able to take enforcement action, identify offenders and be given the tools it needs to do its job properly. If the commission is structured in such a way as to be effective and as independent as possible from political power, since it can never be 100% independent, I do think that a commission is necessary in such a context.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I am open to talking about which group should enforce this bill. Using our broadcast regulator might work in theory, but it is already too slow and behind on its work. Whatever group we choose must be open and transparent with the public.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge for her very relevant question. I find it interesting to hear her talk about the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, as the organization that could take on those powers, considering that it is not every day that I hear her praise the work of the CRTC. That said, we are completely open to this type of conversation. Personally, when it comes to the CRTC, I agree in principle. However, we are willing to discuss any more efficient and cost-effective solutions that are presented. I have my doubts with regard to the CRTC, since it is already having a hard time hearing all of the cases on its docket. There is a big backlog. It took nearly three years to just to come up with regulations on levies for streaming platforms, so I would be surprised if adding this task to the CRTC’s workload would be more efficient and cost-effective than creating a commission. That said, I completely agree with my colleague that there is a difference between keeping an arm’s length from political influence and operating without transparency. All bodies must be transparent. That is what we expect, and we would expect the same from this commission.”