“Raising kids is harder today because of cell phones and online platforms. Parents are still in charge of their children, but the government should support them. I want to ask my colleague if she agrees.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which I really appreciated. She has two kids. I have four kids and three grandkids. We will be hearing about kids and grandkids all evening. I talk about this a lot because I am proud of it. I am 51 years old, and I had my first son when I was 20. That kind of thing is life-changing. My son is now 31 and has three children of his own, but things are different these days. The world has changed. When I was 20, we did not have tablets or cell phones. We did our best. When I look at him now with his three boys, I wonder how he handles all this, given everything that is currently happening on digital platforms. I have a question for my colleague. Does she believe that the government should help parents by supporting them, not by replacing them? At the end of the day, parents are the ones responsible for taking care of their children and making decisions about them every day. However, a responsible government can certainly support parents in raising their children. I would like to know: Does my colleague think the government should help parents?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 26 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 →

“Kids in middle school are sharing fake videos and photos of each other. The government and other groups need to work together to teach people about this harm and keep kids safe online.”

“Madam Speaker, today I actually received an email from my children’s school that said there has been some sharing of deepfakes circulating in grade 7 and grade 8. We have a role, everyone, including the government, and there is a piece of work around education and promotion that is really critical. That is work we are taking on as a government, and we need to do this in partnership with stakeholders to get this right. There is a lot of hard work ahead.”

“We need this bill to stop serious online harm. It targets bullying, hate, violence, terrorism, child abuse, and sharing private photos without permission. A new commission would enforce these rules.”

“Madam Speaker, I wanted to reaffirm the targets set out in the bill for harmful content: non-consensual intimate content, child sexual victimization, content inducing a child to self-harm, child bullying, hate, incitement to violence, and terrorism or violent extremism content. It is important that we are establishing that a great deal of hurt is there, and it is the primary reason this legislation is necessary, which would be enforced by having the commission put in place.”

“I support this bill and will vote for it. It protects children online by banning kids under 16 from social media accounts unless the app proves it is safe. It also sets up a commission to oversee these companies and forces them to remove harmful content, like shared private photos, within hours.”

“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-34, an act to enact the digital safety act and the digital safety commission of Canada act. I want residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming to know why I will be voting for this bill, so I will explain. I will start with a question. It will show my age, but the question is simple. Do members remember when keeping a child safe meant knowing where they were and who they were with? Many parents and grandparents will remember those days. The rule was simple: Be home before dark. Today, a child can be sitting beside a parent in the living room and talking to someone online who the parent knows nothing about. The child is home, and the parent feels reassured, but the risks on the screen may be hidden. The front door may be locked, but the phone is still connected. A cruel message can arrive at any hour, a humiliating image can spread in seconds, and bullying can follow a child home from school. Childhood has changed. Parenting, as my colleague described previously, has become more complicated. Living in a peaceful northern Ontario community does not shield a child from online harm. We protect children at school and on our roads. They deserve the same protection online. Parents, schools and governments all have a role to play, and so do the companies behind TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, others that may be out there and others that will come. I think it is very important to note that all these companies provide so many benefits. They bring benefits to our lives. In northern Ontario, where distances are part of our daily life, online platforms help young people stay close to friends and family, including their grandparents. They help them learn, create and connect. Those connections matter, and there are many more benefits we could talk about. Our task is to preserve those benefits while reducing the risks. The evidence shows that action is needed. According to Statistics Canada, one in four young Canadians aged 12 to 17 reported experiencing cyber-bullying in the previous year. Among young people who have a hard time making friends, that number is even higher, at one in three. Let us think about that. These are young people who struggle to make connections, who go online and are subjected to cyber-bullying. Behind these figures lie children, families and very real suffering. What would Bill C-34 do? I will highlight the three major changes. First, it would provide stronger protection for children under 16. The bill would prevent children under 16 from having accounts on social media services. However, a platform could receive an exemption if it demonstrated adequate safeguards for children. That gives companies an incentive to act and an incentive to make their services safer. Second, the bill would create a digital safety commission. It would review companies’ safety plans and oversee whether they are meeting their duties. If a company is earning money supplying services to Canadians, it only makes sense that it should explain how it is managing those risks. Someone should be there to check whether its measures are adequate. That would be the role of the digital safety commission. Third, the bill would require action on some of the most harmful material online. This includes content that sexually victimizes a child and intimate images shared without consent. The proposed framework would require these types of content to be made inaccessible within hours of being either identified by the service provider or flagged by a user. Members can imagine a young person discovering that an intimate image of them is being shared. We can imagine their fear and a parent trying to find a way to deal with the issue. In those moments, time matters. The bill would also address risks from artificial intelligence and, specifically, chatbots. Regulated chatbot services would have to take steps to reduce harmful behaviour and direct users toward crisis support in certain serious situations. Now, some parents will say, “I know my child. I know what’s best. I should decide.” I respect that view. Parents know their children in ways that governments never will, but parents do not design the systems that decide which video appears next to a video that they approved. They cannot control how quickly an image can spread or check every account that comes into contact with their child. In this environment, how much can a family truly manage? We can think of a parent who is working shift work, a caregiver who has several children, a grandparent who knows little about the app. Online safety should not depend entirely on a family’s spare time or technical knowledge. We already accept that children need different rules as they grow. We set minimum driving ages, require safety features in vehicles and teach young drivers how to use the road. While social media certainly is different from driving, the principle is useful. Education, family guidance and safety standards can work together. Just as there are underage drivers, there will also be some who will try to get around the rules. That is why the bill would require covered platforms to use effective age checks with oversight from the digital safety commission. Companies that fail to meet their duties could face corrective orders and substantial financial penalties. A measure does not have to prevent every incident to serve a purpose. Seat belts are an excellent example of that. They do not, unfortunately, prevent every injury. We still require them because reducing harm matters. The test should be clear. Do these measures work, and are they proportionate to the risks? Some key questions also need to be answered. How can age be verified without compromising privacy? Who will have access to the information collected? How long will it be kept? Those are all great questions. The bill provides for safeguards regarding the information used during the age verification process, including its protection and destruction once the verification is complete. It also restricts the collection and use for the purposes of the verification. Protecting children also means protecting their personal information. The two go hand in hand. It is important to note that Canadians want us to act. In a March 2026 Angus Reid poll of 4,000 people, 75% of respondents supported a ban on social media for those under the age of 16. People in Nipissing—Timiskaming are also calling on us to better protect children online. There are certainly things that should give us pause. Certain details will be difficult to sort out, but doing nothing also has consequences. For a child being bullied tonight, the harm is already happening. For a family trying to stop an intimate image from spreading, the need is immediate. We cannot promise a world without risk, but we can take reasonable steps to make it safer. As Parliament studies this bill, young people themselves must have a voice. I encourage young people from Nipissing—Timiskaming to contact my office and tell us what helps them online, what concerns them and what would make their experience safer. We need to hear from them. I conclude by saying that, ultimately, whether we are young, old, parents or young people, we all share a responsibility to help ensure that all children are prepared for the world they are entering. We have a responsibility to ensure that it is a world that is safe for them. Children deserve a safe world.”

“I want this bill to pass. People in my rural riding strongly support it because they worry about children 16 and under using social media. Social media has benefits, but it also needs rules.”

“Madam Speaker, yes, certainly I am from what we would define as a northern rural community. Actually, in the past month or so, we have been making many calls to residents in our riding. There is very strong support for this particular bill, and there is concern around social media exposure for kids 16 and under. I do recognize all the benefits she pointed out, and I do not disagree with what she said. At the same time, there is a world out there that is also in need of some regulation, and that is what this bill is proposing.”

• 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 →

“A parent in my riding is worried about social media. Car seats, medicine, and toys must meet safety standards to protect children, but phone apps do not. I want to know what the member thinks about this.”

“Madam Speaker, Miriam from my riding has said that becoming a new parent recently has made her so scared of how quickly social media is changing. She hopes her son grows in a world with a safer Internet space. She can only protect him so much. Every other product a child uses had to meet a safety standard before it reaches them. There are car seats. There are medicines and there are toys. When he grows older and would like a phone, she is scared of how much access he will get to an unregulated online world. When it comes to kids’ safety, the apps on phones are the one exception not required to meet a safety standard. I just wanted to ask the member for her thoughts on what Miriam said.”

“Countries like Australia and the United Kingdom are taking action on online safety for the reasons the member mentioned. Canada needs to take action now too.”

“Madam Speaker, I would simply like to respond by saying that there is a reason democracies around the world, from Australia to the United Kingdom, are taking action on this issue. It is exactly for the reason the member described, and this is why it is timely for us to take action as a country.”

“This bill should go to committee. Questions like this should be studied and discussed there.”

“Madam Speaker, that is a fairly long question that has been posed and that is why I am proposing that this bill go to committee. It should be studied and discussed. I think that is exactly the type of question that is very valid and should be brought up at the committee level.”

“I want this bill to pass. Asking questions over and over delays action and keeps things the way they are. Parents are worried about how much things have changed, and they want the government to act to help them.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important speech on this bill, which is also important. I listened carefully to her speech and I noticed that she repeated “why” a lot. I do not know how many times she repeated that word. That immediately made me think of the status quo. People often ask why we are not doing this or why we are not doing that. Some parents are saying that enough is enough with the status quo and that we need to move forward. Parents watching at home, who, like me, have seen how much things have changed in recent years, are concerned. They want the government to make decisions and move forward. Often, when we ask “why” too much, years go by and nothing gets done. Does my colleague agree that the government should be able to help parents? Does she agree that this bill needs to move forward so we can develop guidelines to help parents properly raise their children?”

“We all agree we need to act on online safety. Today we are voting on the main idea of this bill, not every detail. A committee can work out the details later. I want to know if the member supports the idea of having a commission.”

“Madam Speaker, I understand the member believes that her private member’s bill is perfect legislation, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and that it should have received royal assent by now. Having said that, I think it is a universally held belief among all members of Parliament of all political stripes that there is a need to take some action. Yes, the bill does not provide all the details the member talked about in her comments, but today we are dealing with the principle of the legislation. Many of the questions she has posed will be answered once the bill gets to the committee stage. We are not going to incorporate all the things the member has put on the record in a piece of legislation and then present it. It would be a 1,500-page bill if we listened to the member’s comments. Does the member support the principle of having a commission?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 72 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “I understand the member believes that her private member's bill is perfect legislation, that there is absolutely…”.

  See full analysis →

“I want to know if the member supports having a commission that can fine internet companies and hold them accountable to protect Canadian children.”

“Madam Speaker, does the member, in principle, support the need to have a commission that would be able to ensure there are fines and that there is a higher sense of accountability on the Internet to protect the children of Canada?”

“One in 10 children in Canada is a victim of sexual abuse before turning 18. This is an urgent problem. This bill creates rules and a commission to hold online platforms accountable. I want the member to share his thoughts on this.”

“Madam Speaker, Daughter Project Canada is “working to end the sexual exploitation of children and youth through awareness, prevention and advocacy.” Its website states that one in 10 children in Canada is sexually victimized before they turn 18 years old. This is an urgent situation. The member talks about how the platforms should be held accountable. Through this legislation, we would be standing up the digital safety act, and then of course the digital safety commission of Canada act, which would ensure that we are able to regulate these services. I would like the member to share his thoughts on that.”

“Parents need help right now to keep their children safe online. I am asking my colleague to vote for this bill so we can act quickly to help them.”

“Madam Speaker, many people are living in the past, but parents today are dealing with these issues in the present, and they need help now. What I heard from my colleague is that he has genuine concerns and legitimate questions about how to protect children and help parents do just that. Will my colleague vote in favour of the bill so that we can move forward, address these issues, act swiftly and as soon as possible, and provide support to parents as they raise their children?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Unregulated social media harms children's mental health and exposes them to predators and bullying. This bill holds tech companies responsible, bans social media for kids under 16 until platforms prove they are safe, and quickly takes down harmful material.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Toronto—St. Paul’s. It is a privilege to rise this evening to participate in this important debate about Bill C-34, the safe social media act. As a member of Parliament representing an urban riding where social media has had a profound impact on every aspect of city life, as the mother of a teenager who lived through the isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic just as she should have been building her in-person community, and as a family doctor who cared for people whose lives were changed both for the better and for the worse by digital tools, I support this bill and want to thank the minister for the extensive and thoughtful work that has gone into its development. The use of social media has completely transformed all our lives, and many platforms have played and will continue to play positive roles in our communities. For a person trying to connect with others affected by the same rare disease they struggle with, for a community seeking to organize in support of a charitable cause, or for a friend group trying to gather to discuss its next favourite book, social media platforms have offered ways for people to connect with one another and to build community. However, we also all know that to leave platforms unregulated is to put our kids in harm’s way. The activity on these platforms can teach young people to hate others. It can teach them to hate themselves. Platforms can offer a window for predators engaging in human trafficking and violence, and they can stunt the development of the very skill they are ostensibly designed to support: the skill of socializing with other human beings. Leaving these platforms unregulated amounts to putting our children at risk. We owe it to our communities and to our children to demand better from platforms that enable harmful activities and use algorithms that jeopardize mental health. In communities across the country, parents are concerned about the impact of social media on their children’s health and well-being. They are asking us to take action, and we have a responsibility to listen to them. At its core, the purpose of Bill C-34 is to protect Canadians in online spaces. It would ensure that social media services and AI chatbots are safe by design. The major pieces proposed in the bill include a ban on social media for people under the age of 16 until a service can prove that it is safe, a new digital safety commission that would ensure that these platforms are held accountable and are working for Canadians, and the ability to remove harmful or victimizing content quickly. While everyone came to the conversation with their own experiences and perspectives about what getting it right looks like, just as we are hearing in the House tonight, there were some very clear messages that I took home with me. First, we need to make sure that platforms are held accountable for the harms they enable. Second, we need research and evidence in order to understand whether our protections are working, and the generation of that evidence must be ongoing. Third, we need to make sure that, in protecting children, we do not take away access to the safe spaces and communities our young people depend on. I want to touch briefly on each of these. With respect to harms, it is clear that social media platforms as currently used have negative impacts on the health, mental health and well-being of our children and youth, and there is a very wide range of evidence to support this statement. We have heard some of it in the debate today already. The Media Technology Monitor research report of 2023 reported that one in five teens has experienced bullying or harassment online. StatsCan, in 2023, found that anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation increase with more frequent use of online platforms. As many parliamentarians have, I have really engaged with my community on the subject of making the online space safer for our kids. People feel very strongly about it, and they want to make their voices are heard. As part of that engagement process, over the summer, I held a round table on the proposed bill in my community of University—Rosedale, along with my colleague, the member for Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park. Participants in that round table included the leadership of organizations such as Kids Help Phone, experts from SickKids Hospital, academics, parents, local community organizations, and importantly, youth. We heard from dedicated professionals who work directly with children, from experts studying the impacts of social media and AI chatbots, and from people who understand how these platforms are designed and how they are operated. The feedback was clear: Canadians support this bill, and they want to make sure it is done right. There are negative impacts on girls and women in particular from the unregulated use of deepfakes and sexual violence online. There is proof that these apps are enabling human trafficking and targeting vulnerable people. Social media apps are being used to track and target youth and kids for the purpose of committing violence and for the purpose of social exclusion. I think we have all heard these stories, and the experts at our round table spoke compellingly to these harms. The bill would establish the mechanisms for holding these services accountable. As outlined in the bill, we would have three core duties for social media services. The duty to act responsibly would require regulated services to assess and mitigate risks linked to harmful content. The duty to protect children would require services to build age-appropriate safeguards into the design and operation of their products. The duty to make certain content inaccessible would require faster removal and action on the most serious victimizing content, such as child sexual exploitation material and intimate content that is communicated or posted without consent. Further to that, because I know we have heard this evening that we need to have detail, we would have the ability to instruct services to regularly identify and assess certain risks, to mandate transparency in chatbot services and to require services to transparently inform the new digital safety commission of their policies for referring conversations to the RCMP and to emergency services in case of threats to seriously harm others. As a health care provider, that is one I feel particularly strongly about. There would be an obligation on the part of the services to publish a digital safety plan. If these services can prove that they are safe spaces, we can have a conversation. We can work together. One of the things we need to recognize is that these harms do not always come from what we or our kids believe to be safe and innocent spaces. The online world is constantly changing, and this is one of the reasons why having a regulator is so important. We cannot legislate for every possible future. A platform that might look like a new place to have fun, play games or share pictures can suddenly become a place where young people are exposed to harmful content, contacted by strangers or targeted by people who want to take advantage of them. During our round table, we heard concerns about platforms that may not be traditionally thought of as social media, including gaming platforms, where some of these same risks can exist. We need to look at how these platforms actually function, how they are used and what risks they create for children and youth. We cannot rely only on what a platform says it is designed to do. We need to look at what is actually happening to the people who use it when they are on these apps or these sites, and we need to be continuously keeping up with that technology, which is why passing legislation is only one part of this work. We also need to understand whether the protections we put in place are actually making a difference. This was the second take-home from our round table, that we must invest in research to monitor the impacts of these measures and the ongoing identification of the gaps. We need to study what young people are experiencing online, ongoingly, and learn from other countries. In other words, our policies must be informed by evidence. We must contribute to that growing body of evidence in this field, which is quite new to the human experience. This brings me to the last lesson I learned at our round table, which is, at its core, about not overcorrecting. I heard from Kids Help Phone that the online universe can, at times, be the only safe space for many kids and youth who have nowhere else to go. For a young person who has questions they cannot safely ask the adults in their life, for a child who is not safe in their own home, we need to be thoughtful about ensuring that we do not close the doors a child may knock on to ask for help. Our aim must be to make digital spaces safer, without depriving vulnerable young people of the connections and resources they need. Bill C-34 has emerged from the grassroots of our communities. As a government, it is our job to listen to parents, youth and experts, and to hold accountable powerful companies who have not seen it as their job to protect our kids. Bill C-34 is Canada’s response to that reality, and I am proud to support it.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The duty to make certain content inaccessible would require faster removal action on the most serious victimizing content: child sexual exploitation material and intimate content posted without consent.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 28.

  Every time it was said →

“Parents have the main duty to protect their children, but they cannot do it alone against big tech companies. We need to regulate these companies and hold them accountable. We also need to teach adults how to spot when a child is in trouble online or in real life.”

“Madam Speaker, of course parents have primary responsibility for their children. We also know that parents are no match for these tech giants whose strategies are evolving every day. It is important that we have regulation of those companies and that we hold them accountable. There needs to be ongoing public education for children and youth, parents, teachers and caregivers, as well as the people who are coaching our kids in sports and beyond in our communities, so that we all know how to recognize the signs that a kid is in trouble, whether it is in the digital world or in the real life world, as we say.”

“Health workers told me this bill is needed because social media hurts young people's mental health. I want the member to say more about that.”

“Madam Speaker, I also held a couple of round tables on the safe social media act. Some of the people who participated in my round tables were public health medical professionals. I know that the member has a similar background. What they really zeroed in on was the mental health weight on young people today. They are seeing this play out in communities. Perhaps the member would take a moment to expound on that a bit more. I know she touched on it already in her speech.”

• 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 →

“We need this bill to protect children's mental health. Social media feeds kids content that makes them hate others and hate themselves. At the same time, some kids need the internet to find safe spaces and good information. We need an expert regulator to balance both needs.”

“Madam Speaker, indeed, mental health is one of the major reasons this bill is so critical at this time. We certainly saw a massive spike in mental illness and distress among young people coming out of the pandemic and since then as social media has infiltrated people’s lives. As I mentioned in my speech, many of these algorithms are feeding information to our kids that makes them hate others and, very worryingly, hate themselves. This is an area where we really need clear intervention. I will also say, as I learned at our round table, it is important to recognize that there are circumstances in which the ability to have online access to good information and safe spaces can be life-saving for kids who are not safe at home. It is important that we have a balanced approach, which is why an expert regulator would be so critical in us getting this right as a country.”

“Many Canadian parents are angry, and tech companies must be held accountable when bad things happen. But we do not need to go as far as calling for the death of their leaders.”

“Madam Speaker, I think the member’s enraged state reflects how many parents in this country feel. Of course we want to see tech giants held accountable. Particularly where catastrophic outcomes occur, there have to be appropriate consequences. I do not know if we need to necessarily go as far as that, as killing the CEO, or whatever the member said, but the purpose of any regulation is—”

“We all want corporations held accountable. The goal of these rules is to make companies follow the law so our kids can be safe online.”

“Madam Speaker, I understand. All jest aside at this late hour of the evening, I think we all understood that the purpose of the member’s question was to see corporations held accountable. That is what we all want. The purpose of regulation is compliance. We have to be in a situation where companies are held to account and brought into compliance so that our kids can be safe online.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 43 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 →
• 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 the House to pass this bill. Social media is harming children's mental and physical health. This bill makes social media companies legally responsible for protecting kids online, stops children under 16 from having accounts on unsafe platforms, and creates fines for companies that break the rules.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from University—Rosedale for splitting her time with me. A little less than a year ago, in December 2025, I visited the Hospital for Sick Children, or SickKids, as we know it in Toronto and across Canada. It has been called the world’s best children’s health care centre. It is 150 years old. That day last December, I met with seven researchers and pediatricians on staff. They are working as part of a new child health policy accelerator. It is an encounter that has stuck with me ever since. They told me what their number one concern for children’s health was, which was not what I had expected standing in the wing of a children’s hospital. They sat me down and said their number one concern today was social media and the harms they were witnessing every day in the digital space. They were proverbially ringing the alarm on something they were witnessing with nearly every child, family and condition that came through their doors, whether it was childhood eating disorders, mental health, substance abuse, self-harm, cyber-bullying, cyber-hate, anxiety, sleep disorders or developmental impacts. This was the reality they described in having to open a dedicated clinic, the Lotus Health Clinic, to respond to the harms they were seeing from online child trafficking and grooming. As a mother of three kids, I find that hard to hear. These are people who care for children through some of the most difficult moments of their lives. When they raise an alarm like that, we need to listen. Like any parent, I want all of our children to be healthy and happy. I want them to grow up feeling comfortable in themselves, have good friends and know they can find help when something is wrong. However, parents cannot see everything happening on a child’s screen, and we cannot be expected to understand every algorithm deciding what appears there next. In my work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, I have met with youth organizations across the country and made young people’s well-being a priority. I bring that responsibility and my perspective as a parent to this debate. The evidence that SickKids shared is clear. Its report cites a Canadian study in which 57% of children aged six to 10 had frequent exposure to social media. That is ages six to 10. We are talking about children in elementary school. The consequences go beyond time spent on a device. SickKids points to survey findings that one in five teens has experienced bullying or harassment online, and 47% of young people aged 15 to 19 report negative experiences from social media use. Behind those numbers are children losing sleep, feeling anxious or carrying something frightening that they have not told anyone about. A few days ago, SickKids and a group of organizations, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, launched a campaign for safer online spaces called Six Clicks. The campaign draws attention to how platforms are designed with features that push kids toward extreme or harmful content in six clicks or less. This is not accidental or serendipitous. It is deliberate. It is designed to capture attention. It is not about choice. It is about addiction and monetization. Infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications, unsafe defaults, weak and hard-to-find safeguards, manipulative gaming and commercial features are the tactics that in almost any other consumer space, we would scrutinize and regulate. This is the reality our government is responding to with Bill C-34, the safe social media act. Its starting point is straightforward: The global companies profiting from these services must take responsibility for the risks and the social harms that their products create. Canadian families and children cannot be left to carry that responsibility alone. That is what a duties-based approach means. It looks beyond an individual post to the systems that recommend it, amplify it and keep putting similar material in front of a child. The companies design those systems. They control how they work. They have the technical expertise and the resources to make them safer. This bill would give them a legal obligation, a duty, to do so. We already expect safety to be part of the design of the products that children use or the advertising that they see. That expectation should extend to the digital environments where they spend so much of their lives. This bill would establish three core duties supported by transparency requirements. First is a duty to act responsibly. Regulated social media services would have to reduce the risk of exposure to seven categories of harmful content, including bullying, sexual exploitation and content encouraging children to harm themselves. AI chatbot services would also have obligations tailored to their risks. When someone expresses suicidal thoughts, for example, a chatbot would have to interrupt the conversation and direct them to immediate human support. Second is a duty to protect children with safeguards built into services and age-related protections. I will return to that in a moment. Third is a duty to make certain content inaccessible. Child sexual abuse material and intimate content shared without consent would have to be made inaccessible in Canada within 24 hours of being identified or flagged, subject to the bill’s review process. Companies would also have to publish digital safety plans explaining what they are doing and whether their measures are working. I want to focus on the duty to protect children, because this is where the bill speaks most directly to families. It would require certain social media services to prevent children under 16 from having accounts. A service could receive an exemption only if the independent commission was satisfied that it provides adequate safeguards for children. If a platform cannot make itself safe for children, it should not have children as customers. That is a clear expectation, and it is the company’s responsibility to meet it. Companies cannot be left to decide for themselves whether they have done enough. That has not worked, and it will not work. That is why this bill would establish an independent digital safety commission with the expertise to examine these systems and the authority to enforce the rules, review safety plans, investigate compliance and require companies to address failures. Significant financial penalties would give those obligations real consequences. For Canadians, that means having a public regulator working in their interests, able to demand answers from companies whose decisions affect their families and their children’s health. That expertise matters, because technology does not stand still. A framework built only around today’s platforms could be out of date before families feel its benefits. The commission would help develop safety standards as risks evolve. The legislation also provides a process to extend child protection duties to additional categories of online services that pose significant risk to children. It is a modern response to a problem that countries around the world are confronting. It would give Canada the capacity to keep learning, to strengthen protections and to hold companies to their responsibilities as technology changes. I keep coming back to that conversation with SickKids. When the people treating our children tell us that the digital environment is affecting their health, we have a responsibility to respond. We should be doing everything we can to prevent those harms before a child needs treatment. Parents will keep having the difficult conversations, teachers will keep supporting their students and doctors will keep caring for children who need help, but they do need us to do our part, and the companies creating these risks must be required to do theirs. For too long, they have ignored this problem and they have shied away from the obligations that are so obviously theirs. Our children deserve time to grow, confidence in who they are and a childhood that puts their well-being first. This bill is necessary and it is urgent, and I urge all members in the House to support Bill C-34.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “First is a duty to act responsibly.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since October 21.

  Every time it was said →