“This bill delays 50 key decisions instead of answering them now. It leaves 19 decisions to a minister and 31 to a group that does not exist yet. Protecting young people online is too important to leave to maybes. We should answer these questions now before passing the bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, the bill appears to put off 50 decisions until later. Of those 50 decisions, 19 will be delegated to a minister, and 31 will be referred to a commission that does not exist yet. Given that this bill is so important and so eagerly awaited by Canadians, should we not ensure that these questions already have answers, rather than postponing them and relying on “maybes”, especially when it comes to something as important as protecting our young people online?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 40 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 want this bill sent to a committee to be changed. We must protect children online, but this bill gives the government too much power and leaves too many decisions for later. Banning social media for kids under 16 will not work on its own, and it leaves out video games. We need rules that help parents make the final decisions, protect people's privacy, and hold the government accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Cambridge. Every parent in Montmorency—Charlevoix and, I suspect, across all of Quebec and Canada has gone through the same experience. It is 10 p.m. and our teenager’s bedroom door is closed. We see a faint blue light under the door. Sometimes we hear them laughing to themselves, or we hear strange noises from a video. When that happens, every parent starts wondering the same thing. What are they watching? Who are they talking to? We wonder how long they have been online. We also want to know who is on the other side of the screen. I think that is a completely reasonable question to ask. Today, we have to be clear. Phones are not the enemy, but they come with problems and challenges that we have rarely encountered in our lifetimes. In fact, our generation may have no experience with that kind of thing at all, and the generation before us has even less. Few of us here have lived in the kind of world our children are growing up in. This is what Bill C‑34 addresses. We have to be clear from the outset. From the start, we have to be clear about the fact that protecting our children online is non-negotiable. It is not a partisan issue. We all agree on that, and so we should. However, we are not going to give the government carte blanche when it asks for powers in the name of protecting our children. More power for a good reason is how these things always start. Our role as opposition members is to challenge the government, ask questions, seek out the little details hidden in the legislation and make them public knowledge. Two things can be true at once: We have to protect our young people, but we must not close our eyes and hand over unrestricted power. I think we understand that, and parents, of all people, understand that the best. Why is this discussion important right now? It is because things are changing at a pace we have rarely seen before, and the numbers are really heading in the wrong direction. In 2024, the police reported 17,000 cases of online child sexual exploitation. That is four times as many as in 2014. In the span of a decade, there was an exponential increase. Behind each of these cases, there is a child, but there is also a parent who never saw it coming. Let us read this bill the way a parent would read it, and I am going to talk about it the way a parent would, focusing on two questions. Will this really protect my children? For me, that is the first question I ask myself. We can certainly pass laws, but will they really protect children? The second question is this: Who will get to decide? The most prominent provision in Bill C-34 is the proposal to prohibit young people under the age of 16 from having social media accounts. This is what has been highlighted in the media, namely that this is a major initiative to protect young people and that social media is being banned for those under 16. Many parents see this minimum age as the right age to regulate access. In fact, an Angus Reid poll found that three in four Canadians support the measure. That is 75% of the population. However, the poll reveals another very important fact, and that is that 72% of Canadians believe that parents, not the government, are primarily responsible for what teenagers look at on social media and how they use those platforms. Canadians want both. They want something that protects their children, but they also want to have the final say at home. They want clear guidelines, but they want to remain in control. Now let us look at what happened in Australia. My colleagues talked about this earlier today in the House. Australia banned social media for children under the age of 16. This happened last December, so it is a very recent thing. Three months later, Australia’s own online safety regulator found that eight in 10 children were still using at least one platform that had been banned or age-restricted, and more than half of those who had kept their accounts said that no one had checked their age. That does not mean that we should do away with this, but clearly we can look at what other places are doing, draw inspiration from their approach and try to improve on it. If we have a ban that does not work, that does not protect anyone. It just creates a false sense of security. That is what we need to stop doing. We need to stop making laws that only create more bureaucracy. Then there are video games. If we ask a 10-year-old where they meet up with their friends after school, the answer is often online, playing a video game with a live chat feature. That is where the young people talk to one another. However, video game platforms are not covered by this bill. If we lock the door but leave the window open, are we really protecting young people? My second question is one that requires us to really look at the details: Who gets to decide? If we are going to prevent young people under 16 from accessing social media, we will need a way to verify everyone’s age. That means asking everyone for proof of age: me, my grandmother, my grandfather, my parents. We will have to ask all of them how old they are. How exactly will that work? Will people be expected to upload their driver’s licence and send it to companies they have never heard of? Will they have to submit to facial analysis software? This raises questions once again. The bill does not provide the answers. Instead, it says regulations will be made later. We have not yet seen the regulations. What I just talked about is not an isolated example. Under the bill, 50 major decisions will be put off until later, with 19 reserved for the minister responsible and 31 referred to a commission that does not exist yet. Which platforms are covered by the ban? Cabinet will decide that. Moreover, the bill does not currently identify any criteria for that. Which platforms could be exempt? The commission will decide that upon request. The 24-hour deadline for taking down content can be changed by cabinet. That way, a minister can personally choose the time frame. We are told that the ban is temporary, but that is not indicated anywhere in the bill. This commission would draft rules, conduct investigations, hold hearings and impose fines. That is absolute power, and it is not bound by any rule of evidence. Once again, it is total control. This is the kind of detail that is important to raise in bills that have a nice catchy title. Until the other members are appointed, the chair of the commission will make all decisions on their own. Again, there is a problem here. That is not all. Five days after introducing Bill C‑34, the government introduced Bill C‑36, which makes that same commission a super-regulator of personal data, taking that power away from the Privacy Commissioner. Oops. The privacy protection being sold to us in Bill C‑34 is already changing hands in Bill C‑36. This is the kind of detail that deserves to be pointed out in the House, but it does not come up in the speeches touting the bill’s virtues. These details are never mentioned in the big announcements, but they really change things. My questions are not meant to be partisan. I am not saying that this is the Conservative perspective. Other people have raised these same questions. Exactly what powers will the new commission have? That is important to know. When a government asks for more powers in the name of protecting our children, we have every right to read each line of its proposal twice and to ensure the intent really is to protect our children. In this case, I believe the Liberal government has a questionable track record. Now, to be honest, some things in this bill are good. Because I can see the good, I feel entitled to say that I see other things that are not good at all. The bill addresses deepfakes, fake intimate images generated by artificial intelligence. This is something we really do need to take action on. It forces the platforms to identify AI content. Again, that is very good. It does not touch private messaging. That is good. It requires chatbots to intervene when a person is in crisis. That is a must. In her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that infinite scroll is a design choice. She was right. The platforms have the ability to make better choices. I think it is up to us to steer them in that direction. Bill C-34 has that to its credit. Ultimately, this is not about platforms or commissions. It is about families. People do not need a commissioner to make decisions for them. Our families, our parents, need tools. They need information. Above all, they need to have the final say. Parents must continue to be responsible for their children. The final decision cannot always be made in an office in Ottawa like the Liberals do. On the contrary, the final decision must be made at kitchen tables in the homes of families in Quebec and Canada. What should we be looking at and working on in committee? I think that is what all parents want to see us do. First, we want to put parents first. We need to work on simple tools and safer default settings. We need to give parents the final say. That is what we should be working on. Second, Parliament is the one that sets the rules. How age is verified and how long the ban lasts are things that should be included in the act, not in regulations that will be voted on later. Third, we need a commission with checks and balances. We want clear limits, transparency and a right of appeal. Fourth, we need to protect our children where they actually are: video games, chatbots and app stores. Our position can be summed up in a few words. We say “yes” to protecting children. That is obvious. We say “no” to placing blind trust in the government. We say “yes” to platforms that are accountable. We say “no” to a commission that is accountable to no one. We say “yes” to security. We say “no” to mass surveillance. We say “yes” to a government that supports parents. We say “no” to a government that wants to take their place. It is important that this bill be referred to committee. We need to hear from parents, doctors, police officers and experts. We need to hear from our young people. We need to be able to invite them before the committee and ask them about their experiences, because that is important. We must get this bill right. Our children deserve a bill that will work for them, and our parents deserve to be trusted.”

“This bill must focus on protecting children. Most Canadians support laws to keep kids safe online, but they also want parents to stay in control. We need to give parents the tools to supervise their children.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is such a good question that I already answered it in my speech. When I say that children must be the priority in this bill, I mean it. We are doing all this for them. I also pointed out that, according to the Angus Reid poll, 75% of people agree that legislation should be passed to protect our children online, but 72% of people, so roughly the same number, said they want to retain control. We agree with that. We need to give parents the tools to better understand the reality young people are facing. We cannot ask young people what they want, because they are the ones we are trying to protect. We need to ensure that our young people, who are at the heart of our decisions, are protected and that parents have the tools they need to exercise vigilant, effective and judicious supervision in line with the current situation.”

“I worry about what children are exposed to on social media when their parents cannot see. I want to ask my colleague what advice he has for the government to help parents handle this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying how much I appreciated the remarks made by my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix earlier in his speech. He touched on an important social challenge that concerns all of us. I have always said that we enter politics because of our parents and that we serve because of our children. The member captured the issue particularly well when he described teenagers coming home at 10 o’clock at night and heading straight to their rooms. Parents can see the light under the door, but they do not really know what is happening on the other side. I am no longer at the stage of life where I am raising children, but I am the grandfather of two little girls, aged four and six. I can honestly say that, throughout this debate, I have been thinking about them. What advice would my colleague offer the government on how to better equip parents to deal with the challenges posed by social media in the 21st century?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 15 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 →

“Children use electronics well, but they do not know the harm it can do to their mental health. Adults need to protect them. The government should give parents the information they need to protect their children, instead of making choices for them.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is the new reality. Four-, six-, seven- or eight-year-old children are sometimes more adept with electronics than adults. Sometimes parents and grandparents do not know how to help young people. It is not about controlling them. It is about helping them. The child does not know that he or she is going down a road that is going to hurt them in the long run, that will put their mental health at risk. It is up to us to take responsibility for them. How do we do that? We do it by equipping parents, by having informed parents, by keeping parents in the equation, not taking parents out of the equation by saying that the government will make the decisions. We see that here all the time. The Liberals rise in the House and say how proud they are to intervene in everything and that more and more people need Liberal subsidies to get by. We want people to be free to make their own choices. It is important for parents to have access to information so they can make the right decisions for their children.”

“I should not decide these solutions on my own. A committee should study this bill. We need to hear from experts, tech companies, and young people to make a law that actually helps.”

“Mr. Speaker, once again, I do not think that it is up to me, as some great thinker, to start telling people what they should do. I think that is what committees are for. We can bring in experts and make sure we listen to them. At the end of the day, it is not ideology that is important. It is results and what ordinary people are facing. What should we do? We can set up a committee, invite experts, listen to what they have to say, present ideas to them and ask what they think about the tools. We can talk to digital platforms, talk to our young people about how they actually use the Internet and work together to develop a law that helps them.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want to send this bill to a committee so we can fix its weak points. I want to protect children from big tech companies. But right now, this bill has too many holes. Kids can easily get around age checks or use other apps, and their private data could be stolen. Too many important choices are being left for later. We need to study this bill carefully and fix it before we pass it.”

“Mr. Speaker, no security system is judged by its strongest lock, but instead by how easily someone gets through its weakest point. The same idea applies to Bill C-34. We need to discuss whether its proposed measures for a safer Internet would actually work when children and platforms test them. I share the goal of the bill before us. The most important thing is to protect our children. Parents cannot take on some of the largest technology companies in the world by themselves. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure those companies are held accountable for the risks their products create for children and families. However, good intentions alone are not enough. The question before us is whether the mechanisms in the bill would deliver the protections families are expecting. I have heard from so many parents in Cambridge and North Dumfries who are being asked to protect their children against some of the most sophisticated companies on earth. They want peace of mind. They want to ensure privacy and security for their kids. Most of all, they want them to be safe, but we have to ask: Will the law promising these things actually work when it meets a 14-year-old with a phone or a trillion-dollar, multinational social media giant? Parliament is being asked to approve the framework today, while many of the important details that would actually protect our children are to be determined later. Under Bill C-34, regulated social media platforms would have to stop children under 16 from holding accounts, but a platform can apply to the new commission for an exemption by showing it has adequate safeguards. What constitutes adequate? Parliament does not know, because that standard has not yet been established. The bill does not name a single platform. Whether it covers TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Roblox or Discord will be decided by cabinet after Parliament has voted. Law professor Michael Geist counted 50 key decisions in the bill left to cabinet and a commission that does not yet exist. That makes careful scrutiny of the bill even more important. There are other lessons from around the world we could take to inform our conversation here today. For instance, Australia’s under-16 ban took effect on December 10, 2025, across 10 major platforms. Four months in, surveys found many Australian children who had accounts before the ban still retained access. Most of those who stayed reported that getting around the restrictions was easy. A larger study found that account use among children fell after the ban took effect, but significant numbers remained on the very platforms the law was written to keep them off. For most of those children, staying on took no effort at all. Many reported that existing accounts were never removed, while others got through age checks, created new accounts or relied on someone else to set one up for them. The regulator found platforms letting new users simply declare they were 16 or older, and allowing children to retry the same age check until they were eventually let through. One app was reported to allow 24 attempts a day. Some teens beat the face scans by drawing on facial hair. When accounts did close, children moved. Many reported spending more time on gaming platforms and messaging apps, and some said they felt less safe online than before. Apps left outside the ban, like WhatsApp, surged in popularity. One Australian research compared the regulator’s job to a game of whack-a-mole, chasing each new app after children had already found it. Gaming is one of the areas of greatest concern. Roblox and Discord were not among the services covered by Australia’s initial ban, yet they offer friend lists, private chats, voice channels, group servers and strangers who can reach a child directly. Roblox now uses age-based controls to limit who can communicate with whom, but neither platform was required to keep a 14-year-old off the service entirely. Indonesia and Malaysia saw the same risk and included Roblox inside their bans. If gaming and messaging services fall outside the bill’s scope, children will simply do their socializing there instead. Platforms usually decide which country’s law applies based on the Internet address the phone connects through and a VPN routes that connection through a server somewhere else. A teenager in Cambridge can appear to be in Kentucky, Kenya or Korea, all places where Canadian law does not reach. Many free VPNs make their money by collecting and selling what their users do online, and so a child using one may be handing their browsing history to a company nobody can identify. Australia’s regulator now expects platforms to try to stop under-sixteens from using VPNs, but new servers appear faster than old ones can be blocked, which is another game of whack-a-mole. Here is another weak point. Facial age estimation is quick and inexpensive, but even one of the industry’s leading providers reports an average error of approximately one year for teenagers, yet this bill draws a hard line at a single birthday. An error of a year in either direction lets some 15-year-olds through and locks out some 17-year-olds, and children have already shown they will keep trying until the camera says yes. Government ID is more accurate, but it means handing a child’s identity to a private company, and that information is valuable to criminals and hostile foreign actors alike. To its credit, this bill says that information can only be used for age checks and must be destroyed once the check is done, but a rule on paper is not the same as a secure system. Every database containing sensitive information will eventually become a target. Just last month, IDScan.net confirmed a breach involving more than 150 million drivers’ licences and identity records. The challenge is only growing as AI accelerates the discovery of software vulnerabilities and the speed at which attackers can exploit them. Before coming to this House, I worked in systems architecture and database management. One thing this experience taught me is that data scheduled for deletion is still data until the moment it is actually deleted. Every additional database creates another target, another vulnerability and another risk that must be managed. Canadians need to know who will hold that information, where it will be stored, who owns the companies holding it, how long it will be retained and whether Canadians will be notified if a breach occurs. There is also a gap that no age check closes because the bill restricts holding an account, not viewing content. The government’s own charter statement confirms that young people would still be able to browse without an account. A child without an account can often still watch videos and scroll public feeds while logged out, where none of the teen safety settings or parental controls apply. Parents are still the first line of defence for their children online. The question for Parliament is whether this bill gives parents meaningful tools to help protect their children or whether those tools and safeguards are more effective on paper than in real life. Many countries are still adjusting their own approaches. France’s constitutional council struck down the country’s proposed social media ban before it could take effect, citing concerns about privacy safeguards and freedom of expression. All around the world, governments are trying to answer many of the same questions that Parliament is grappling with today. Australia has also had to go back and strengthen its own law. It doubled the maximum penalty and gave its regulator the power to compel internal company documents. That should give us pause about enforcement here. Australia’s regulator is well established, with experienced staff and existing powers, and it still needed months to open investigations into five platforms and has yet to issue a fine. This bill would create a brand new commission of three to five members that would be starting from nothing while facing the same companies. Officials have said it could take 18 months to set up. However, the minister has said that platforms would have to act as soon as this law comes into effect. Much of what decides whether this law works has been left to regulations that Parliament has not seen. That does not mean the bill is wrong, but it does mean that Parliament is being asked to place considerable trust in decisions that have not yet been made. Those are not arguments against protecting children online. They are questions Parliament should answer before concluding that this framework will work as intended. How will enforcement work in practice, and will it be based on a user’s age or their apparent location? What age verification and safe design regulations will ultimately be adopted, and what opportunity will Parliament have to review them? How will children’s age verification data be collected, stored, protected and deleted, and what happens if that information is breached? Will the bill follow children to where they actually spend their time online, including gaming platforms, messaging services and content viewed while logged out? How will Parliament and Canadians know whether the law is achieving its goals and whether circumvention remains widespread? What standards will a platform have to meet in order to be exempt from the age restriction, and how transparent will those decisions be? I opened by saying that a security system is judged by its weakest point. Here, that weakest point could be a teenager with a VPN, a flawed age verification process, inconsistent and unenforceable rules, unanswered questions from a bureaucratic commission, rival platforms not covered by legislation, data security questions or other unintended consequences that we have not yet identified. A bill like this, with such important goals and significant consequences, deserves careful study. We need a law that holds up when it is tested. Let us send this bill to committee. Let us find and fix those weak points. Let us get it right to protect our children.”

“Online harms, scams, and extortion are getting worse, and I feel for the parents dealing with them. We need to study this bill in committee. As technology grows, we must look at the whole picture to protect children and families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I completely sympathize with parents who have gone through things like coercion, extortion, and online harms and scams. We are seeing this happen and it is escalating. It is something that needs to be discussed at committee. We need to find a way to protect not only our children but families. As technology is growing, we need to move in a way that looks at everything.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Parents cannot take on giant tech companies by themselves. They cannot control the computer systems that push harmful content to their kids. The government must make these companies take responsibility. I want to make sure this bill gives parents real, useful tools, not just rules that look good on paper.”

“Mr. Speaker, parents cannot take on some of the largest technology companies in the world by themselves. Parents can set boundaries, talk with their children and monitor device use, but they cannot control recommendation algorithms, platform design or how harmful content is promoted. Platforms must be accountable for the risks they create, and government has an important role to play. My concern is simply ensuring that Bill C-34 gives parents meaningful support and meaningful tools, rather than creating systems that are more effective on paper than in practice.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We all agree children need protection online. But we must study this bill carefully to make sure it will actually work.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this House agrees that online harms are real and that children need better protection. The question is not whether action is needed. The question is whether the specific measures before us would deliver the results that families are expecting. If a law can be bypassed easily, if children can simply migrate to other platforms or if key details are left to future regulations, those are issues Parliament has a responsibility to examine carefully. We can act urgently while still making sure we get this right.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We need rules to keep kids safe online. But research shows social media can help rural teens and LGBTQ youth find support they cannot get in person. If our rules take these resources away, what is the government doing to replace them?”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite mentioned rural and remote communities. We know we need these safeguards to keep kids safe online, but there has actually been comprehensive research that shows that with the right and appropriate safeguards, particularly for teens who are more in the 15 to 16 years old age range, some forms of social media might actually provide benefits, particularly in rural communities and particularly for young sexual minority groups. These young adults may depend on online platforms for peer support, cultural connection and access to resources unavailable in their off-line environments. Systemic academic reviews confirm these facts. I am not saying there should not be online safeguards for kids, because there have to be, but if the government is going to apply these safeguards, there is also a risk that these resources could be removed. What is she doing to replace them?”

“The member did not answer my question. Young LGBTQ people in rural areas use social media to find support and community. In Australia, a law like this pushed kids off safe sites and onto the dark web. This bill does not explain how to stop that, and it leaves out gaming platforms where a lot of abuse happens. I want real answers on these problems.”

“Madam Speaker, again, I just want to point out that my colleague opposite actually did not answer the question. She did not talk about what resources would be available to young sexual minorities in rural communities who might use, with appropriate safeguards, certain types of social media to find resources and find community. She did not answer that question and that is a concern in her riding that she failed to be accountable for. We know from Australia what has happened with its very similar legislation is that this has actually pushed kids off safe spaces and into the dark web. The bill is silent on how the government would handle that. In fact, it is asking Parliament to devolve a lot of power into regulation without answering some of these key questions. Also, the bill does not include some of the most pernicious places that have a lack of online safety, like gaming platforms. Why would my colleague be silent on the types of resources that would be removed from young sexual minorities in her riding? Why would she be silent and not provide more details or scrutiny on the fact that certain types of platforms where we know this type of abuse happens, like gaming platforms, are not included in this bill?”

“Children face real dangers online, but this bill is not the right way to protect them. It leaves major choices to cabinet and unelected officials instead of Parliament. It does not explain how people will prove their age, how privacy will be protected, or if kids will just move to darker corners of the internet. My own bill is a better choice to keep kids safe while protecting people's privacy.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Brampton West. Our need to provide better safeguards to protect children online is real. In fact, just to illustrate this point, one in four Canadian youth aged 12 to 17 has experienced some sort of online harm. Police reported online sexual exploitation reached 16,905 incidents in 2024, and this rate has risen under the Liberal government 347% in the last decade. Parents are trying to provide some safeguards for their kids online, but they are also asking for our help. Any approach that we take to provide these safeguards should support parents while also protecting both their rights and their children’s rights, and parents’ right to determine how their child becomes a digital citizen while ensuring that environment is safe and also looking at the privacy and speech rights for Canadians. The question that we should be looking at in this House is not whether we should act, but how and whether this bill is sufficient or if it is asking us to undertake measures that devolve powers that we as parliamentarians have, for vague assurances that really deserve answers from the government. I have a lot of questions with this bill, and I am going to start with the matter that we were just debating in the previous section, which is the ban on social media accounts. My first question relates to the best practice that we have already seen as Australia has rolled out similar provisions. We have seen that most kids at the age of 16 still had accounts months later. Harm complaints did not meaningfully decline. In fact, teens turned to VPNs, shared family log-ins or simply lied about their age. The ban did not actually do anything. With regard to this aspect of Bill C-34, the questions I would have are the following. If a teenager is pushed off a large platform that has a well-established trust, safety team and system, where do they go, because they are going to go somewhere, and has the government been seized with this question, particularly knowing that other jurisdictions have already had this experience? Are they going to smaller, unmoderated corners of the Internet where their parents cannot see them and has the government thought about whether this measure may push vulnerable kids somewhere darker on the Internet? How will the government measure to know whether this is working? The government has been silent on these issues. This deserves much more scrutiny because of how the bill proposes that the ban would work. A platform could apply to the new commission that is proposed in the bill for an “exemption” if it shows “adequate safeguards”. Adequate by what standard, set by whom and when? The bill is silent on these things. If the largest platforms could win exemptions, is this a ban or is it a negotiation between a regulator, not elected officials, and big tech held outside of this chamber? I have a problem with that. If safeguards exist that are good enough to earn an exemption, why not write them in law for every platform today? These are questions the government has not answered, and I suspect that it is facing internal questions within its caucus on this issue as well. Bill C-34 sets out the general types of services it would cover, social media, livestreaming, adult content platforms and AI chatbots, but the exact test for which specific services count as a regulated social media service is left to regulations to be written later. Parliament is being asked to pass a bill before knowing where that line falls. That decision would be made by cabinet, not by this House, so we are being asked to devolve that power. In fact, the ban itself would not be automatic through this law. It would only apply to the platforms that cabinet later chooses to name in regulation. We should probably be having that debate in Parliament. Additionally, many types of the severe dangers children face online, like grooming and sextortion, happen on gaming platforms and chat services. Would those be covered under this bill? It does not seem like it. The government may say that cabinet can add new categories of services, but why is that being left to regulation? Why are we not having that debate now? I would like to know why the government is silent on this and if it is being silent for a reason. Is it because of lobbying or is it because existing safeguards are good enough or it does not think that it can make privacy work or because the bill is not technology agnostic? Those are all questions that the government should be able to answer. The bill is also quiet on how age verification would be done. Those details would also be left to regulations, and that raises big questions for me. Will Canadians be asked, for example, to provide a driver’s license to access social media? Australia’s law specifically says that no one can be forced to hand over a government ID to prove their age, yet the bill is silent on that matter. Bill C-34 is also silent on the use of third party vendors, which platforms often hire to run age verification checks. How would the government make sure that those vendors do not reuse that data, and how would an operator destroy that data while also keeping the records the bill requires to prove it complied? Protecting kids should never, ever require every adult to hand over their identity to the government, and the bill is silent on these matters. Much scrutiny needs to be paid to the amount of regulatory power that the bill would hand over to a body that does not yet exist. Independent analysts have counted roughly 50 major decisions left to cabinet and the new commission after Parliament votes on the bill. Questions like which services are covered, what age verification is adequate, what counts as safe design, how complaints are judged and who gets an exemption remain unanswered. These questions deserve answers, because these make up the substance of the law. When Parliament passes this frame but leaves the substance of what could amount to limitations on speech and privacy to regulation, we are opening the door to a process where well-resourced tech lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats would have a seat at the table and parliamentarians who are elected to make these decisions would not, and these are not minor decisions. The commission outlined in the bill would be the rule-maker, investigator, enforcer and judge. It would have a wide variety of powers that it could use to compel information, and its members would be appointed by cabinet, so these would essentially be political appointees. Also, until enough are appointed, the chairperson alone could make these decisions, and that deserves further scrutiny and debate as well. Would these regulations come back to the House or a committee before they take effect? I do not think they would. I think that deserves scrutiny. The only review in the bill would be done by the minister, not by a committee of the House, and not until three years after it would take effect. There are so many other questions. Where would a small operator go if it is fined? Why should unelected bureaucrats, rather than members accountable to Canadians, set the boundaries of online safety? There are ways that we could be having that discussion here today, but the government has again chosen to try to get us to devolve powers to regulators without answering some pretty fundamental questions around efficacy, like whether this would actually work and keep kids safe online and whether it would protect speech. I have tried to stand in this place like Cassandra, for years, saying that we have a problem, and the government has been slow to act. As an individual member, I have spent years writing legislation. I tabled a revised bill, Bill C-216, which had a prescribed legislative duty of care for online operators. It is more tech-agnostic and also more clear in terms of what the powers are. It would also give more options to parents on how they curate their children’s digital experience as they become digital citizens. Also, Bill C-216 is designed to keep pace with technologies like artificial intelligence, and I have questions about whether Bill C-34 can do that. The last thing I will say is that my bill would clearly protect privacy. It would require operators to use age detection technology that they already use to target ads, with further privacy safeguards, rather than collecting IDs, and it would expressly prohibit using a digital ID. I am wondering why the government took this approach, which has failed in previous legislation, and once again listened to bureaucrats. We know that parents need these safeguards, but given that the government has presented a bill that deserves so much scrutiny, I worry that it is going to lead to constitutional challenges down the road from regulations that perhaps have not been fully scrutinized here. The government has a lot of explaining to do. There is a lot of detail that needs to be filled in by the government to ensure that kids are kept safe online and that Canadians’ privacy and speech are protected.”

“The government delayed action on online safety for years and ignored my bill, which already had the answers. Now it brings forward bills with no details that Canadians oppose. Canadians want their kids safe online. The government must answer whether this bill will actually work, and whether it will protect Canadians' privacy and free speech.”

“Madam Speaker, I will counter my colleague with this: Why did the government not use my bill, which I wrote as a private member, in spite of it having 800,000 bureaucrats who could have done the job for it years ago? Why is the government so insistent on putting detail-free bills in the House of Commons? Why does the government presuppose that, in order to protect kids online, Canadians have to go forward without answers to questions? I put forward a bill almost three years ago that answered the questions I asked today. The government could have stolen that bill. I had hoped it would. I have said that many times. The reality is that the government did not, and we are sitting here today because it has put forward bad iterations of legislation that Canadians have opposed. Canadians want their kids kept safe online. They know that the government has dragged its feet in putting forward legislation that does that. I think it is incumbent upon the government to answer questions on whether or not this bill will actually work and whether it will keep Canadians’ speech and privacy safe online.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The member is wrong about what I said. My past bill was short and clearly explained the rules for online companies. The government could have written a clear bill with answers in it. Instead, they want unelected officials to make these decisions with tech giants. I want the government to answer my questions before this bill moves forward.”

“I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but I sure do not like it when a man tells me what I said when I did not say it. I am sure you would sympathize with that. What I have said in the past is that my bill was a starting point three years ago, and it is not 1,500 pages; it is about 30 pages. It clearly outlines the duty of care that online operators would have. What the Liberals and the minister are saying is that all of the hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats we have could not possibly have written a bill that tells Canadians exactly what the bill would do. They could not possibly have done that. They are asking Parliament to devolve the power we have to unelected bureaucrats who would be making these decisions at the table with tech giants. That is what they are asking for, and I am saying no. The residents of Calgary Nose Hill want answers. I am asking these questions because it was entirely possible for the government to have a bill that had answers in it. The member is wrong and he knows it. He has been around long enough. I will not have that man try to say that I said something that I did not. That is preposterous. However, I will demand answers on behalf of my constituents, because this matters and we have to get it right. If we do not answer these questions, we will not.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 94 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The member is wrong and he knows it.”.

  See full analysis →

“This bill creates a commission with too much power and not enough accountability. It would make rules, investigate, enforce, prosecute, and hold secret hearings. The government needs to explain this better, and we need to look closely at these powers.”

“Madam Speaker, I am just going to look at the bill. The proposed commission would have sweeping powers with little accountability. It would serve as a super-regulator. It would act as rule-maker, investigator, enforcer and prosecutor, and have hearings in secret. I want to know what that means, and it deserves a lot of scrutiny. The government should have put that in the bill.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Children face real dangers online, including bullying and sexual abuse. I want to protect kids, but we need to study this bill carefully first. We do not know how it will check users' ages, how it will protect private data, or how it will keep watch over government regulators. Parents must still have the main say in raising their kids.”

“Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the people of Brampton West to speak to Bill C-34, the safe social media act. We all know that our children are our future. They are our greatest responsibility. They are counting on us to guide them, protect them and give them the tools to succeed, not just in our classrooms or in our communities, but in the digital world as well. Protecting our children online is not optional; it is our responsibility. As Conservatives, we believe that protecting children and respecting fundamental freedoms must go hand in hand. That is why Bill C-34 deserves serious, thoughtful examination, not political slogans or another layer of bureaucracy, but real answers, real accountability and, most importantly, real protection for Canadian children. Let me ask a simple question: Who is protecting our children when they go online? Is it parents? Is it technology companies? Is it the government? Are we leaving our children to navigate a digital world that even adults struggle to understand? These are the questions being asked by families in Brampton West and across Canada, as well as by teachers in our schools and grandparents worried about their grandchildren. Their concerns are legitimate because families want their children to grow up safe, healthy and confident. Today, as we debate Bill C-34, I believe we must keep one principle at the centre of our discussion: Children deserve protection, parents deserve a meaningful voice and powerful technology companies must answer serious questions about the safety of their platforms. The evidence of the dangers our children face online raises serious concerns. According to Statistics Canada, approximately one in four Canadian youth aged 12 to 17 has experienced cyber-bullying. In 2024, police reported 16,905 incidents of online child sexual exploitation. That represents an increase of 347% compared to 2014. Behind every statistic is a child: a son, a daughter or a student. Behind many of these children are parents who are worried, overwhelmed and searching for answers. Technology has changed and childhood has changed, but our responsibility to protect children remains intact. We all recognize the benefits of technology. It supports education. It creates opportunity. It allows young Canadians to learn, innovate and succeed. However, what happens when the same technology becomes a source of exploitation, intimidation or emotional harm? What happens when a child becomes the target of cyber-bullying? What happens when an AI chatbot encourages harmful behaviour instead of directing a child toward help? Who takes responsibility when something goes terribly wrong? Canadians remember the heartbreaking story of Amanda Todd, a young life lost after experiences of sextortion and cyber-bullying. Her story reminds us that what happens online can have devastating consequences in the real world. We owe it to children like Amanda to ask difficult questions and demand meaningful answers. There is another serious concern: the way these digital platforms are designed. Autoplay videos, constant notifications and algorithms that recommend more and more content are features designed to keep users engaged, but are they designed with children’s well-being in mind? When a teenager watches one troubling video, should an algorithm be allowed to recommend dozens more? When a child is struggling emotionally, should a platform prioritize engagement over safety? When companies have the technology to identify dangerous patterns, what responsibility should they have to intervene? Should the safety of children ever come second to corporate profits? These are questions Parliament must examine, and big tech companies must be prepared to answer them. I also want to speak directly about parents. Parents are doing their best. They set rules, monitor devices and encourage responsible behaviour, but parents are facing a digital environment that changes almost every day, with new applications, new algorithms and new AI systems. How can a parent control an algorithm they cannot see? How can a parent stop a stranger from contacting their child through a platform they do not operate? How can parents protect their children when companies control the technology, the data and the design? Parents should never be left fighting billion-dollar technology companies on their own, but neither should government replace parents as the primary decision-makers for their children. This is an important distinction. A recent survey found that 75% of Canadians support banning social media for children under age 16, yet 72% believe that parents should hold primary responsibility for regulating their children’s social media use. What does that tell us? Canadians want stronger safeguards, but they also want parental authority respected. They want government to establish reasonable protections. They want technology companies to be held accountable. The question is whether Bill C-34 would provide the right mechanisms to deliver on Canadians’ demands. For example, the bill proposes age verification or age examination requirements, but how would those systems work? Would Canadians be required to upload government-issued ID? Would companies collect sensitive biometric information? Who would store the information, and where? Who would have access to it, and what would happen if that information is stolen? There is also the question of effectiveness. Bill C-34 proposes restrictions on social media accounts for children under the age of 16, but what would happen if teenagers find ways around those restrictions? What would happen if they use VPNs? What would happen if they move to smaller, less regulated platforms? Could well-intentioned restrictions unintentionally push vulnerable children toward more dangerous environments? How would the government measure success? Would success means fewer accounts or fewer children being bullied, exploited and harmed? We must also examine the role of AI. AI chatbots are becoming part of everyday life. Young people use them for homework, for information and sometimes for personal advice, but what safeguards exist when a vulnerable child turns to a chatbot during an emotional crisis? How would companies identify risk? How quickly would they have to respond? How would Parliament ensure that these protections keep pace with rapidly changing technology? These questions deserve clear answers. Another issue is government accountability. Bill C-34 proposes a digital safety commission with significant regulatory and enforcement powers. How would its powers be limited? Who would oversee its decisions? What safeguards would prevent regulatory overreach? What opportunities would Canadians have to challenge decisions? How would Parliament ensure that unelected regulators remain accountable to the people? Effective legislation requires clear rules, clear responsibilities and meaningful oversight. As we examine Bill C-34, I want to leave the House with a few final questions. Would we be putting the safety and well-being of children at the centre of our decisions? Would we be giving parents a meaningful role and practical tools to protect their families? Would we be asking the right questions of powerful technology companies about the risks created by their platforms? Would we be protecting the privacy, rights and freedoms of Canadians while addressing genuine online dangers? Last, would these measures being considered actually make children safer? These questions deserve careful study. They deserve evidence. They deserve input from parents, educators, experts and young people. Let me conclude with this. Our children deserve more than promises, and Canadians deserve more than another government announcement. They deserve answers, accountability and results. Our responsibility is clear: Our children deserve safety, and our parents deserve a voice. It is time to protect our children, empower our parents, hold big tech accountable and respect Canadians’ freedoms.”

“We need to study these proposals very carefully. Every child matters, and we must pass laws that protect Canadians and hold criminals accountable.”

“Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, these are the concerns we need to consider very carefully, and we need to consider a full examination of the things we are going to put forward, because we know and understand that every child matters. It is very important for us, as Canadians and as parliamentarians, to bring forward laws that are going to help Canadians and to hold people accountable for such crimes.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not cover gaming sites like Roblox, where a lot of online harms happen to kids. Conservatives proposed a bill that covered more. I want to know why the government brought forward a bill with so few details, and why it lets rich tech lobbyists decide the rules instead of Parliament.”

“Madam Speaker, the minister asked my colleague a question about keeping kids safe online, yet we know there are platforms where a big bulk of the stats she mentioned occurred and that would not be covered under this bill, such as Roblox, for example, and other online gaming platforms. Conservatives delivered a bill that would have had much more robust coverage and be technology agnostic. I wonder if my colleague understands why the government has put forward such a detail-free bill if it wants to keep kids safe online. Why would it leave all these regulations to be negotiated by rich tech company lobbyists and not by parliamentarians?”

“Parliament needs to ask tough questions about big tech companies. These companies use their platforms to make huge profits, so they should also use their resources to keep children safe. We must make sure kids are properly protected online.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague’s questions are wonderful, because that is exactly what Parliament must examine. Technology companies have enormous resources. They control algorithms, platforms and user data, but are they investing enough in protecting children? If big tech companies can design algorithms to maximize profit, should they not be expected to design safeguards that prioritize children’s safety? That is the question Canadians deserve to have answered. That is what we have to provide to all Canadian families and all children so we can better protect our children in the future.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →