“Politicians often misuse words like misinformation and disinformation to accuse their critics of lying. This bill tries to regulate those things online, but it leaves too many details to regulations instead of putting them directly in the law. That gives officials too much power and makes it easier for them to abuse it.”

“Madam Speaker, of course I agree there is a difference between those two words. My point was simply that those words get thrown around casually, often interchangeably, and admittedly in a way that is disconnected from the true meanings of them. Because it is against parliamentary rules for someone to accuse someone else of lying in this place, I think often people just say that something is misinformation, which is their way of trying to get underneath the rules of not being able to say someone is lying. The point, though, is that when we have the casual use of the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” thrown against political critics at the same time as there is legislation aiming to, through legal intervention and online regulation, prevent misinformation and disinformation, there is a bit of a problem: How do we prevent the misuse of terms that we see in political discourse from creeping into the misuse of terms in other places? I will pick up on what the member said as well. She highlighted the number of decisions that are left to regulation. That is a concern we have in general. The number of decisions in this framework that are ultimately left to regulation rather than established in legislation increases the risk and potential concern of abusive decisions later.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill has good parts, but good intentions are not enough. We must look at what the bill actually does. It does not stop kids under 16 from using social media. It also only covers pornography on social media, not on actual pornography websites. We need to study this bill carefully in committee to see what it really does and does not do.”

“Madam Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of every member who is talking about their aspirations to protect kids. I think that aspiration is widely shared. It is also important to underline that good intentions are not enough in legislation. What becomes law is not the good intentions of legislators. What becomes law is the text of the bill. That is the work we are doing now and that we will do at the committee. It is to discuss, as I did in my speech, the alignment between the intentions and the results as they would be created by the legislation. There are good things in this bill. It is important to acknowledge that there may have been some dissonance in the communication that there would not be an age ban. It would not actually prevent people under 16 from accessing social media. While there are important and positive provisions around pornographic content, it would not cover pornography websites; it would only covers social media. That is why Bill S-209 is important. The work that is going to happen at committee, the study, is very important. It is important to acknowledge what the bill would do and what it would not do. Again, it would not create an age ban. It does not address all issues of pornography. It only deals with pornography on some kinds of websites. However, there are important and positive aspirations that are expressed through it, and it is worthy of serious and thoughtful study.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not ban kids from social media. A committee can study the best way to design these rules. I am open to hearing ideas on it.”

“Madam Speaker, in the point I made, admittedly, I did not comment on that either way. I simply pointed out that the bill is not an age ban. What would the ideal architecture be? I think there will be lots of time to study that question at committee. I am open to the argument—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 50 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 11 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 →

“In Australia, young people found ways around these kinds of online rules. How will this bill stop that from happening here?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the number of hours we are online, and I, too, would be afraid to look at my hours online. Can the member expand on what he thinks would help to avoid some of the problems they had in Australia, where a lot of the youth are just going around this? How would Bill C-34 address any of the problems they had in Australia?”

“Hate speech and racism are wrong and should be punished. But how will this bill tell the difference between hate speech and free speech, and who gets to decide?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member raised how racism and hate speech are definitely deplorable and should be prevented and punished. That said, how does the member opposite see Bill C-34 determining what qualifies as free speech and hate speech? Who would be qualified to make those determinations going forward with Bill C-34?”

“I want the member to explain what an adequate safeguard means in this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks. I know they come from a place of really wanting to do right by our youth, and I know that is a goal we all share. I am wondering if the member can define what an adequate safeguard is.”

• 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 →

“I want to know how this bill will balance protecting children with free speech. Technology changes quickly, so I also want to know how this law will stay useful in the future.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am assuming the bill will go to committee. When it gets there, what does the member see as the division, the line, between, on the one side, what is going to help protect our children and, on the other, free speech? I am lucky that my daughters are both in their twenties now. I cannot really worry too much about them, but I do worry about the future, when I hopefully have grandchildren. Over 10 or 20 years, things are changing rapidly. How can this legislation be lasting and actually have a long-term future?”

“Young people grew up using social media and know it well. What ideas do they have to help make this bill better?”

“Mr. Speaker, as a gen X-er who has two daughters who are gen Z, I often found myself learning from my children how to navigate social media content. Maybe we should actually be listening to some of the gen Z who have gone through this transition with us. I am wondering what kinds of benefits or protections they can offer in their transition, because they have lived this through their life. Of course, they are not the ones we are aiming this for at this point in time, but maybe the member can give me some insight on what he thinks of their contribution.”

“I want to know how this bill will apply to small businesses and small online creators. It may work for the big social media platforms, but how will the smaller ones even know these rules apply to them?”

“Mr. Speaker, I admire the parenting the member has done. Abstinence from social media is virtually impossible these days for most parents. Even for mine, 15 years ago, it was a bit of a challenge. Going forward, how does the member opposite see Bill C-34 addressing the concerns with how it would apply to different social media? He said the bill would make them responsible, but how are they going to know that it applies to them if they are a small start-up or a small influencer? How are they going to know that they would be affected? We assume it is good for the big ones, but what about the other ones out there?”

“I want to know which platforms this bill will cover. How many will it apply to, and how will they know they are covered?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member just described the “what” and the “how”, but I am interested in the “who”. How many platforms will this bill apply to? Which platforms will it apply to? How will those platforms know that the bill is meant for them?”

“I agree that we must protect kids from harm online. But this bill is too vague. It leaves too many big decisions and definitions up to the government and a new commission instead of spelling them out. We do not know how age checks will work, what counts as safe, or which apps will be covered. Banning kids under 16 from having accounts could also cut off youth from good support groups, while still letting them browse harmful content without an account. The committee needs to hear from young people and make this bill much clearer before it passes.”

“Mr. Speaker, as a society, we absolutely have to do something about the harm being done to our kids online. Parents are struggling. Teachers are struggling. Schools are struggling. Our youth are left navigating a world where the adults have not figured out how to adult on this one yet. I think we can all agree that the kids are not all right. Parliament’s constitutional authority over communications that cross provincial and international borders gives this chamber its mandate. A school board cannot regulate a multinational platform, and parents cannot demand design changes to apps, but having the authority to act, which we have here, does not make the problems any easier to solve. We do not know yet whether this bill can deliver the protection that parents and others expect, or whether it will inevitably result in the overreach its critics fear. Too many concepts in this bill remain ambiguous, and too many of the ultimate rules depend on decisions Parliament is being asked to authorize and delegate before Canadians can know what those decisions will be. I have held multiple well-attended town halls on child and teen use of social media in my communities. I have spoken with lawyers practising across multiple disciplines. I have consulted with experts, teachers, parents and school board officials. There are a lot of opinions out there. People are just as emphatic that this bill must pass as others are that it will be a disaster if it does. The disagreements are passionate, and there are plenty of misconceptions and misperceptions as to what will happen and what things will mean. The way this bill is currently drafted makes it impossible to validate, course correct or reassure any side. Supporters see children being sexually exploited and online feeds pushing harmful material at vulnerable kids. They want companies held responsible for products designed to keep children engaged, and they are tired of being told to supervise their kids more closely when they cannot control what a platform does. They put forward a compelling case for online safety measures and regulations. Critics fear that enforcing the age restriction would mean collecting more information about everyone, including adults. They fear the regulator would have excessive control over lawful expression or that the information they provide online in proving their age would be used for other things. Here in this place, where we are ultimately responsible for the unintended consequences of sloppy drafting, we do not get to just dismiss concerns like these, even for legislation with a worthy purpose. The Canadian Mental Health Association has recognized one of the paradoxes of the blanket age provisions in this bill. While supporting the bill, the association recognizes the inherent value of an online community, particularly for rural young people or those from marginalized communities. The reality is that the same service that can expose a youth to harm can also connect them to people who can help. A blanket account restriction leaves them without both, and it does not tell us where a youth may go next. If they move to a less regulated service, parents might find it harder to supervise. The government needs evidence that its approach will reduce harm overall, including for children and youth who work around the rules. There is nothing in the under-16 restriction that would prevent a youth from browsing without an account, where harmful recommendations can still reach them. It also excludes private messaging features from the duties on social media platforms. The bill does not expressly require government identification to be used as proof of age. Parents need to understand these limits, just as critics need to distinguish what the bill says from what they fear it might become. The legislation would fix the age for access at 16 while leaving many of the actual safety requirements undefined. Cabinet may decide which services are covered and which face account restrictions. A new digital safety commission would have the power to prescribe mandatory design features and additional requirements for age checks. These decisions are the ones that would determine the extent to which youth are actually protected and how much information adults must disclose. The government points to exemptions as reassurance, but not everyone is reassured by them. Others do not think there should be any exemptions. A service could admit youth under 16 if the commission accepts that it has put “adequate safeguards” in place. I do not know what that means because the detailed test remains unwritten. What adequate safeguards are at this point is anyone’s guess, and I can assure everyone that if we got a group of people together to discuss what adequate safeguards are, there would be a wide range of opinions. I cannot reassure anyone at this point as to what the criteria might be or whether the criteria would be objective. A permissive test could undermine the protection that supporters of this bill expect. An onerous or delayed process could exclude children and youth from services that could safely accommodate them. There is no automatic expiry for restrictions described as temporary and no timelines for decision-making, and the bill would not guarantee that the exemption process will even be operating when restrictions begin. Age checks are similarly unclear. If provisions can be easily evaded, this bill gives parents false reassurance. On the other hand, a system that misclassifies an adult as a youth can shut that person out of an app that they may be perfectly entitled to use. Limits on appeals and hard-to-navigate customer service processes on social media do not help. The bill would require personal identification to be protected and deleted after age verification or estimation, but we still need to know which methods would meet the standard and how mistakes would be corrected. The bottom line is that Canadians should not have to choose between the most reassuring interpretation of this bill and the most frightening one. The government has made an already divisive debate worse in this case by leaving central definitions and central decisions unresolved. Those who trust government may assume the regulations would deliver the protection they want. Someone who distrusts it may fear the same powers would be used against them. Unclear drafting and unresolved processes turn a debate about a law into a test of confidence in whoever administers it. Young people should be invited to testify at committee from all perspectives so we can hear from them what they need and what they are afraid of. This bill also needs measurable safety requirements and a workable exemption process before restrictions begin. Age checks need independent testing and accessible correction when they get someone’s age wrong. Victims need a clear route to urgent help when a platform fails them, while people whose lawful material is wrongfully restricted need prompt review. Parliament should require evidence showing where harm actually falls, with a firm reporting deadline so the promised review cannot drift. What I meant by that is that we should have evidence of where there is actual harm. That should be reviewable and measured, and we should be taking appropriate action to correct it. Conservatives are willing to help. I want to be able to explain this law to the people in my communities with confidence that the outcome will match the explanation. Social media companies and others governed by this bill need to know what success looks like and what the cost of failure would be. Contrary to the remarks of my colleague, not every social media platform or app would necessarily be governed by this bill. Every social media platform may have to review the bill to determine whether it is governed by it, but it is unclear at this point whether every app would be governed. As the bill is written right now, too much information is either fuzzy or still to come. The government ought to bring those answers to committee and either reassure Canadians or accept recommended amendments. This is about our kids, which means that it is about nothing less than the future of our country. Let us get this right.”

“I want to protect children, but this bill is not clear. I am pointing out the parts that are confusing so the government can fix them and make the bill better.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure I understand my colleague’s question, or it is possible that he did not understand my speech. What I just did is what I try to do with all of the legislation that comes before us in the House. I tried to read it. I tried to understand it. Where there was a lack of clarity, I have pointed that out and invited the government to correct the record and improve the bill so we can realize the very worthy objective of it, which is to protect our kids.”

• 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 →

“I want the member to say more about how this bill lacks an appeal process. Someone could be falsely accused of hate speech and have to go through a long process just to get back online.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her eloquent speech. There were a lot of things in there that people need to consider. I am wondering about the implementation of some of this. It seems to me that we would be relying a lot on this online safety commission to make and implement the rules. One thing that came to mind during her speech was false accusations. She mentioned the appeal process. Can she speak further about how she sees that as a problem that is currently absent from Bill C-34? If somebody does not like something and reports it as hate speech or something when really it is not, then a person would have to go through the whole process to get put back onto the platform. Could the hon. member elaborate a little on that?”

“This bill is not clear enough about how it will work. Too many decisions are being left for later, where members of Parliament cannot see them. People in my community have real questions and concerns about this. The government needs to listen, answer our questions, and fix these problems in this room so the bill is better.”

“Mr. Speaker, I also have a lot of questions about the interpretation of how this bill would work. It has been really interesting because I have held town halls on this, and sat with groups in my community to discuss it, and we have had the chance in my community to think some of these things through. It is just unclear. A lot is being left to a process that would happen after the legislation. It is a process that parliamentarians do not typically have access to. If my community members’ concerns are to find their way into the bill, if the division and questions are to be resolved, then that is something that really has to happen in this chamber. I would invite the government to take these opportunities to listen to the questions being raised, to listen to what members of my community are saying, and to answer those questions and resolve those conflicts. It would result in better legislation.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support the goals of this bill, and everyone here wants to protect children online. But the bill is not clear enough. The committee needs to study it and hear from witnesses. The government should have consulted people and listened to their feedback before writing this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, the very first thing I said when I started my remarks this evening was that I support the goals of the bill. There is no one in this chamber from any party who does not support protecting kids or is not concerned about what is happening with kids online. The question here is whether or not the bill is clear enough. That is something that I expect would get debated at committee and something that witnesses would be able to provide information on. What is somewhat distressing to me is that the government did not do these consultations upfront or did not incorporate the feedback it got into the bill so that these questions did not have to be asked.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill sets goals, but it leaves all the details to a commission instead of having Parliament oversee them. I want the member to explain how the bill actually does what he claims it does.”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot in my hon. colleague’s speech. He said that the act would this and that, but from my understanding, it is the goal of the act to do those things while leaving a lot to the commission to figure out how to actually get there. Maybe the member can explain to me how he sees the bill doing these things, rather than setting goals for the commission to do them without parliamentary oversight once the legislation leaves here.”

“I want this bill sent to committee so we can study it closely. We need to protect children online, but this bill leaves too many important details out. I want to know how it will protect people's private data, how it will be enforced, and if it will actually keep kids safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-34, the safe social media act, and to how we can protect our children online while preserving the rights, freedoms and privacy of all Canadians. Before entering public life, I spent 26 years as an accountant. My work required me to examine details, identify risks and ensure that decisions were supported by sound evidence. In accounting, good intentions are important but they are not enough. If assumptions are wrong, controls are inadequate and accountability is missing, the results can be very different from what was intended. The same principle applies to this legislation. When it comes to protecting our children, we cannot afford to get the details wrong. As a member of Parliament for a rural riding, I regularly hear from parents and grandparents, educators and community members concerned about what children encounter online. These are real concerns raised around kitchen tables and in school hallways by families trying to do what is best for their children. Canadians want to know how they will protect their children from online predators and prevent harmful content from reaching them, and how technology companies can be held accountable. They also want to know how we can address these problems without creating new ones. Those are questions the House must consider as Bill C-34 moves through Parliament. The online environment has changed dramatically over the past generation. When I was growing up, a problem at school often stayed in the schoolyard. Today, an embarrassing picture, a cruel message or a video can be shared thousands of times in minutes. Cyber-bullying can follow a child home, strangers can contact young people directly and harmful content can appear without them ever searching for it. With the growing use of artificial intelligence, children are also interacting with chatbots without necessarily understanding the risks or consequences. These experiences have a devastating effect. Statistics Canada has reported that one in four Canadian youth aged 12 to 17 has experienced cyberbullying. The question is not whether children deserve protection; they absolutely do. The question is whether Bill C-34 would provide the protection effectively and proportionately while respecting Canadian rights. Parents can set rules and supervise device use and teach their children about online dangers but they cannot control the algorithms that determine what appears on screen, prevent every stranger from making contact or remove harmful content from platforms used by millions. Tech companies have responsibilities too. If a platform encourages endless scrolling, recommends increasingly disturbing content and fails to respond adequately when children are exposed, Canadians deserve answers. Companies should explain what they are doing, how quickly they respond and how their results are measured. Conservatives believe that technology companies must be held meaningfully accountable for the environments they create. Bill C-34 would propose requirements relating to safe design, age verification, harmful content complaints and transparency. It would also establish a digital safety commission of Canada to oversee and enforce those requirements. These are important objectives, but many practical details will depend on regulations developed after the legislation passes. What constitutes a safe design? How would effectiveness be measured? What evidence would demonstrate that children are actually safer rather than simply that the companies have changed their policies on paper? After 26 years in accounting, I know that accountability requires clear standards, reliable information and a way to verify results. Should we not expect the same from legislation intended to protect our children? We must also examine the proposed restrictions on social media accounts for those under 16. Australia’s experience with age-based restrictions raised important questions about compliance, workarounds and young users moving between platforms. How can the government demonstrate that Canada’s approach will produce better results? We must consider whether young people will use virtual private networks or other technologies to bypass restrictions. If the goal is to protect children, we need to know whether these measures would reduce exposure to harm or simply push it elsewhere. We must also consider the scope of the legislation. Children face online risks through gaming, messaging, livestreaming, and, increasingly, through artificial intelligence tools, not just traditional social media. Parents have raised concerns about online games where children can communicate with strangers. Would these environments be adequately addressed? How would the government determine which services fall within the rules? How would it prevent children from migrating to platforms with fewer safeguards? These questions deserve answers before we assume that the proposed framework would solve the problems. Protecting children and protecting privacy are not competing goals. We must be able to do both. If platforms would be required to verify users’ ages, what information would they collect? Would Canadians need to provide government identification, biometric data or other sensitive personal information? How would that be stored? How long would it be retained? What would prevent it from being used for other purposes? What would happen if it is exposed by a data breach? Canadians hear about data breaches and compromised data far too often, and a system designed to protect children must not expose children or adults to new privacy risks. We should explore age verification methods that minimize the collection and storage of personal information with strong safeguards and independent verification. My professional background taught me that protecting sensitive information requires clear controls and accountability. Those safeguards are essential to public confidence. The same principles apply to the proposed digital safety commission. The commission would have significant authority to develop guidelines, investigate complaints, conduct inspections, issue compliance orders and impose monetary penalties. That is considerable regulatory power, and it would need to be accompanied by strong checks and balances. How would Canadians challenge decisions they believe are unfair? What independent review would be available? How would procedural fairness be guaranteed? How would Parliament maintain actual oversight? These are not just technical questions. They concern how authority works within a free and democratic society. We need to be particularly careful when decisions about online content could affect legal expression. Online safety cannot rest with parents alone, but neither should it be the exclusive responsibility of government bureaucrats. Technology companies need to take responsibility for the systems they build and operate. They should be transparent about the risks their services create and the steps they take to address them. Parents need practical tools to guide their children’s online experiences. Law enforcement needs the tools to pursue people who exploit and abuse children. Parliament must ensure that any regulatory framework is clearly defined and proportionate, and that it has the proper mechanisms for meaningful accountability. We should also learn from previous legislative efforts, including the stated objectives of Bill C-11 and Bill C-63. However worthwhile and grand they seem, this must never prevent us from scrutinizing a bill’s mechanisms, consequences and the powers it would create. If, as I expect, Bill C-34 proceeds to committee, we will have an opportunity to hear from a wide variety of witnesses, including parents, child safety experts, privacy specialists, social media companies, law enforcement, and legal experts. We should examine the evidence, identify gaps and pursue practical improvements. Above all, we should determine whether these measures would work, whether they could be enforced, whether they would protect privacy and whether they would make children safer in their everyday lives. We need to take the time to make sure we do this right.”

“Everyone in Parliament agrees with the goals of this bill. There are still many unanswered questions. I want to send the bill to committee so we can answer those questions and fix what is missing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the intent and the goals are agreed to by everybody in Parliament. There are a lot of questions that are still left unanswered, and I do believe we will want this bill to go to committee to answer those questions and develop what is missing. I am fully supportive of it going to committee to get those questions answered.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill addresses parents' concerns. We need to give them tools to protect their children, but the law must fit those goals fairly.”

“Mr. Speaker, with regard to positive things, it is addressing the concerns of many parents. We need to give them some of the tools. We need to make sure the legislation is appropriate and proportionate to what the goals are to help parents going forward.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“My colleague showed how this bill could be better. I want him to tell us more about what people in his community are saying about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague laid out a number of ways that the bill could be improved and a number of things that the government should pay attention to in moving forward. I would like to ask my colleague to share a bit more about what he is hearing in his community and the concerns various groups may have.”