“We need to pass this bill right now. Technology changes quickly, and if we wait to make the rules perfect, we will leave gaps that hurt children. Other countries are using this same approach.”

“Madam Speaker, I have heard those concerns raised, but where I come down on this issue is believing we need action today. We need a commission that is going to be flexible, that is going to be able to adapt to the way technology is changing in front of our eyes right now. If we wait to get that just perfect, if we wait to hammer out all of those details, the technology, the platforms will continue to move and there will be gaps we do not anticipate today that are going to be on our children’s screens tomorrow. This is why this framework is necessary, and we are not alone in the world in pursuing this course. There are countries across the EU, across the G7 and G20 that are pursuing this as well, that are looking towards this type of framework. We are on the right track.”

• 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 member to explain more about why tech companies will not fix the harm caused by their apps, and why the government needs to step in.”

“Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague’s speech; she has so much commitment and expertise on this issue. I am wondering if she could expound on a point she made in her speech around the inability or the unwillingness of companies that have been faced with these issues, the research in front of them and the increasingly concerning effects being caused by their technologies. I wonder if she can describe in fuller detail what it is that is preventing them from acting and why government action is necessary.”

“Social media companies design their apps to be addictive and keep our attention. They know their platforms have harmful content, but they avoid their duty to remove it quickly.”

“Madam Speaker, over the last 15, nearly 20 years that we have been living in a digital world, from YouTube to the iPhone to the social media that we know today, such as Facebook and Twitter. Platforms have been evolving. What we do know consistently is that they have been evolving and growing in a way that is designed to create attention, that is designed to create addiction, that is designed to create clicks and likes. Platforms know this. We have had variations of this debate at different times in the last 15 years. For things like figuring out how to take down content quickly, we know that many of these companies have had to stand up thousands of employees to do that work, but they are shirking their responsibilities to do it quickly and to address all the different types of harmful content that we know they know are out there.”

“This bill punishes social media companies if their products are not safe. The companies want to sell here, so they will follow the rules. Other countries and even Ontario school boards are also taking these companies to court to hold them accountable.”

“Madam Speaker, the bill would make provisions for penalties in this scheme, and the companies have an interest in having their products in market. We want to make sure those products are safe, so if they are designed safely and if they meet the test the commission would set out, then we are going to feel much more reassured about their presence inside our digital borders. We definitely know there are multiple tracks at play here. We are seeing this in the United States. We are seeing it in Europe. We are seeing it even with the school boards in Ontario, which are taking many of these companies to court. I would offer my colleague across the way some hope that there are going to be multiple pathways we can look to in order to ensure that these companies are truly held liable for the social costs of the products they have put in all of our houses.”

“The member only raised questions instead of taking a clear stand on this bill. Will he vote for it, yes or no?”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague brought up a lot of questions and hypotheticals. He criticized the use of regulation, which is a normal process in this House. He seemed to have a lot more questions than an actual position on or insights into the legislation. Will he be supporting this bill, yes or no?”

“We need to protect children. As a father of a 12-year-old, I want to know how we will protect young people from the harms of AI chatbots.”

“Madam Speaker, right now we are addressing the very important topic of child protection. I am the father of a 12-year-old daughter. I would like to ask my colleague a question concerning the regulation of AI chatbots. How do members propose to protect young people from the risks associated with AI chatbots, especially their ability to reinforce behaviours harmful to our children?”

“We made this bill to protect children online. Conservatives are only talking about the problem. Will the member support sending this bill to committee?”

“Madam Speaker, it seems that Conservative Party members are talking about the problem. We have a good understanding of the problem. That is why we have Bill C-34. It is there to protect the interests of children in Canada. Does the member support the principle of having the legislation go to committee?”

“Parents feel pressure when other kids get phones, and they have to monitor what their kids do online. It is easier for families when schools or governments set shared rules. That way, individual parents do not have to make unpopular choices alone. I want the member to agree with that.”

“Madam Speaker, I have a pretween daughter, and there is a very real conversation that happens in our school, with the parents in our school community, about who is going to give their child a cell phone first because when that one parent gives that one tween-age child a phone, it creates the desire for this object among all of the other students and puts incredible pressure on us parents, so much so that we wish the school would simply ban the use of these devices so that individual parents would not have either the burden of monitoring their child’s social media and Internet use or the social pressure to keep up with the Joneses and the latest technology, etc. I wonder if the hon. member for King—Vaughan would agree, as a mother and a grandmother, as she said, that some of these decisions are actually made easier for parents and for families when they are taken at the collective level. When a school or an institution such as government makes an evidence-based, rational decision, that makes a standard common to everybody and relieves parents of the individual responsibility of having to make that unpopular decision that their son or daughter cannot have a phone.”

“Our government has introduced several bills to protect Canadians and young people. I want the member to tell us if she supports any of them.”

“Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused by both members opposite who spoke on the issues. We have a slew of different bills. We have Bill C-36, we passed Bill C-16, we have Bill C-25, and of course there is Bill C-34, which we are debating today. This a series of bills that really look for ways to protect Canadians when it comes to young people and when it comes to all Canadians. These four bills really look for ways to protect Canadians. I was hoping the member could reflect on any of those bills to see if they align with anything that she has mentioned today and if there is support for any of those four bills that I just mentioned.”

“I want the House to pass this bill to keep children off social media until they turn 16 and make platforms remove harmful content. Parenting alone cannot protect kids from the depression, violence, and abuse they see online. Other countries have passed similar rules, and keeping children safe is a matter of public safety.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville. I rise today in support of Bill C-34, the safe social media act. I will begin by sharing that I am a mother of three children, ages 10, 13 and 16. I, like all parents, am keenly aware of the risks of social media, and I understand the difficulties of regulating its use by our children and our youth. Even though I feel fairly confident that my kids are generally well protected, I cannot be sure, because parenting alone is not enough to protect our children. Many parents do not want their children on social media at a young age, but it is incredibly difficult to keep them away when all of their friends are online. It can be a major source of family tension and stress, to say the least. This is not a failure of parenting. We want what is best for our children, and a large part of that is ensuring that they are not isolated from their peer groups. It is also important to recognize the ease at which these services are accessed. Often without their parents’ knowledge, children are entering the digital world, and with only a few clicks, they can create an account and begin using platforms that may contain harmful content and expose them to dangerous actors at an early age. A World Health Organization study found that more than one in 10 adolescents showed signs of problematic social media behaviour, struggling to control their use and experiencing negative consequences. Notably, this report also included the following call to action: “Ensure social media platforms enforce age restrictions and create a regulatory framework encouraging responsible design of digital tools for young users.” With the introduction of Bill C-34, this is exactly what we are aiming to do. The bill covers both aspects of that call to action. It would create a nationwide restriction on social media services for Canadians under the age of 16 and implement 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 action on the most serious victimizing content: child sexual exploitation material and intimate content posted without consent. Technology is ever-adapting, and our legislation must reflect that. Online harms are intensifying, and our laws have not kept pace. Protecting our kids from the harms of social media is a responsibility that I know we all share. The digital world connects us, it educates us, and it drives our economy. Unfortunately, it has also become a space where too many children are exposed to preventable harm. A study co-led by researchers at the University of Alberta found that spending more time on social media is making Canadian teenagers, especially girls, feel anxious, depressed and disconnected. The results showed that just one extra hour of daily device use was linked to a 15% higher chance of moderate to severe depression, along with a nearly 13% higher likelihood of similar levels of anxiety. This is not just a concern for parents at home. This has societal implications that go beyond one child and one family. That is why it is our responsibility to act to address these rising trends. We are also seeing a rise in dangerous behaviour being presented online, and without effective safeguards in place, our children are subject to observing, internalizing and repeating these behaviours. A report released by Stats Canada in 2024 found that one in eight young people saw online content daily that could incite hate or violence. A study from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection found that 50% of youth had watched the Charlie Kirk assassination video, while 33% had seen videos of mass or school shootings. Despite these high rates of exposure, only a small minority said they had actively searched for that content. Instead, most said that the content frequently appears unexpectedly in posts by strangers or in algorithmic platform recommendations. There is an unfortunate connection between viewing this sort of content and repeating it in real life. The same report from Statistics Canada found that more than a third of people suspected of cyber-related hate crimes were between the ages of 12 and 17. The harms being perpetrated online are not being left on the screen. They are being translated into real-life actions in our schools, in our homes and in our communities. Moving past the physical violence, these harms extend into sexualized violence and graphic content. Statistics from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection show that 10% of Canadian youth reported exposure to child sexual abuse material, while 13% had seen a video of adults being sexually abused. Anything above 0% is completely unacceptable, in my view. The reality is that there has been endless research done that showcases a clear link between social media use in adolescents and mental health concerns, rising hate and sexual violence. This research is well documented and well studied. It has been presented with the backing of parental safety organizations, our world-class research institutions and even tech companies. This topic was first brought to my attention when similar legislation was presented in my home province of Nova Scotia by Iain Rankin, member of the legislative assembly for Timberlea-Prospect and the interim leader of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party. In presenting his piece of legislation at the provincial level, he started a conversation that introduced me to the work of Jenna Poste, a tech executive by trade and founder of the Nova Scotia chapter of Unplugged Canada. Jenna and the team at Unplugged Canada have been advocating for this sort of action for years. Jenna spoke at a press conference where she highlighted a point that I made in my speech earlier, which is that many parents do not want their children to have a presence on social media, but when that comes at the cost of social ostracization, it sometimes becomes too difficult to make that decision and enforce it. The most common criticism I have heard since this bill was first tabled in the spring is that the government has no place in parenting. I agree, but the government does have a responsibility to step in when it comes to matters of public safety. Canada does not have to reinvent the wheel. Similar laws have been passed in a number of jurisdictions around the world, including Australia, Norway, Spain and Greece. Even provinces such as Manitoba are also looking at taking matters into their own hands at a provincial level. I also want to present a historic comparison with regard to opposition to matters regarding public safety. In 1984, when Nova Scotia was implementing its mandatory seat belt legislation, it came with much public outrage and scrutiny. In my research regarding Bill C-34, I found an archived CTV interview with people who were opposed, in which a Nova Scotian justified that opposition by calling the legislation “something that infringes on the petty details of the organization and conduct of people’s lives.” I feel quite confident that if we ask most Canadians today, they will recognize that seat belt laws are appropriate measures to protect our citizens, and I feel quite confident that 42 years from now, this legislation would be met with the same wide-reaching opinion. As we continue to debate on this important legislation, I urge my fellow members to consider the public safety concerns I have presented today and remember the full range of regulations that exist within this piece of legislation that would not only protect our children but also provide sufficient opportunities for social media platforms to implement necessary safeguards, because the safety of our children must be our top priority and should not and cannot be a responsibility left to parents alone. The digital environment is not safe for children. Leading health authorities now warn we cannot say that social media is sufficiently safe for young people and that governments must act decisively to reduce these risks. We are proposing this legislation because it is our responsibility to act, to act now and to act with urgency.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Our laws have not kept pace.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 28.

  Every time it was said →

“People should probably be 16 to use social media. Even more importantly, the companies that make money from our youth must keep them safe online, no matter how old they are.”

“Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his upcoming additional child, number seven. It is fantastic news. My understanding is that we are looking at age 16 and over as the appropriate age for being responsible and mature enough to navigate social media. The more important thing would be requiring the platforms profiting off our youth to do the work to make sure they are protected. In whatever ways that needs to happen, we need to make sure we are providing a safe online environment for our children, whether they be 10 years, 16 years or five years old. It is is really important and worth investigation.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 42 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I agree. This bill makes online companies responsible for the harm they profit from. It sets rules to stop the terrible things that have happened online in Canada and around the world.”

“Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly that a lot of what we are aiming to do is put the responsibility properly on those who are profiting from these online platforms and to put guardrails in place so we do not have the terrible incidents we have seen in the past in this country and across the world. That is exactly what we are aiming to do.”

“Laws are important, but they cannot fix this on their own. Parents, teachers, and communities also need to help keep kids safe online. I want to know how the member thinks parents and other people can help solve this problem.”

“Madam Speaker, legislation is of course important, but there are many roles that society can play. When it comes to parents, guardians, next door neighbours, faith groups, educators and community-based organizations, many people can play a role in making sure we provide young people with the skills and tools they need. I would like to know from the member if she has put some thought into different ways in which parents and other members of society can play a role to really help tackle this huge challenge we have in front of us.”

“Children need to spend less time on screens and more time outside with other people. Too much screen time makes kids act out. Getting into nature and being part of a real-world community helps them.”

“Madam Speaker, a big thing I think about often is getting our children outside, getting them out of doors and connected to real people in three dimensions, in real time and in nature. I have seen, even with my children, that if they have too much screen time, the behaviour starts to get a little wonky. They start to fight with me, my other kids and my husband. When we all get out of the house and go for a walk, we reset. It is really important for kids to have, as they are growing up, a sense of community, whether that is a religious community, a neighbourhood community or an activity community. We gravitate to those supports, and the more we can do to get our kids and youth off screens and actually engaged in the world around us, the better we will be.”

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly. Social media companies use addictive designs and algorithms that hurt the mental health of young people. Parents cannot watch their kids' screens all day. This bill holds online platforms accountable for the harms they cause and sets clear safety rules for them to follow.”

“Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-34, the safe social media act. We have been hearing a lot about the duty to act responsibly, the duty to protect children, and the duty to make certain content inaccessible. When we talk about protecting our next generation, we have to talk about the digital world they are growing up in. Even as one of the youngest MPs of the House, and the youngest member of Parliament for British Columbia, I belong to a generation that experienced a full childhood before social media became part of our everyday lives. I remember a time when, after school, I would catch up with friends meeting them in person. If we wanted to talk to somebody, we picked up the land line and hoped they were home. I spent time outdoors biking with my friends to the corner store, skateboarding, playing tag and making memories away from a screen. Today is a bit of a different world, of course. Children are growing up in an environment where social media is always within reach. Endless scrolling really is endless. Instead of simply catching up with friends, they can find themselves spending hours online, caught in addictive algorithms designed to keep them scrolling for many hours. There are concerns about what they are exposed to, how online platforms influence their behaviour, and what happens to their mental health as they grow up spending more time on their phone. There are ways to mitigate this, of course. Consider YouTube, for example, which has been a bit of a leader in this space. It allows users and parents to turn off endless scrolling in the settings, to limit the addictive nature and the endless scrolling that many kids are growing up with these days. This is an example of the options we want our social media platforms to allow as settings. We cannot expect our children to navigate these challenges on their own. Protecting young people means taking a serious look at how these platforms are operating and the responsibility they have to the children who use them. Social media does create opportunities for people to connect, to explore, to learn and to express themselves, but we cannot ignore the risks that come with it, especially when it comes to their mental health and personal safety. Algorithms can amplify harmful content and expose young people to unrealistic standards, which they see day in and day out. For some people, this can contribute to anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and feelings of isolation. All these have been on the rise, as reported by psychologists, especially in younger age groups, which are using these technologies on a very frequent basis. At the same time, online platforms can also expose users to cyber-bullying, harassment, exploitation and other harmful content that can have very serious real-world consequences. In 2025, 23% of Canadian youth aged 16 to 24 reported spending almost one-third of their day on social media. Research has associated longer screen times with poorer mental health indicators, including higher levels of anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, as well as reports of suicidal ideation. This matters because protecting young Canadians is about making sure the digital world does not come at the expense of their well-being or their relationships with others. Young people need supportive environments where they can build meaningful connections and access help when they need it. We also have to recognize the role that social media platforms play in shaping what young people see online. Algorithms influence the content they are exposed to, and recommendation systems can repeatedly push harmful material onto someone’s screen. For a young person already struggling with their mental health, repeated exposure to harmful content can create additional risks. Over time, this can normalize very dangerous behaviours and make it harder for young people to seek help. It is crucial that online platforms take greater responsibility to ensure that their algorithms prioritize safety and well-being, especially for vulnerable users. It is also very important that the social media giants that are monetizing the attention span of our next generation be held accountable for the harms they are causing, and that our legislation have teeth to enforce consequences for the social media companies that are providing these harms to our youth. I will soon be introducing my own private member’s bill, which is a national strategy for suicide prevention. Of course, one of the main things it is also looking at is what some of the risk factors are for suicide, which is unfortunately all too common in our modern day and age. It is an unfortunate reality that there is content on social media that can sometimes propagate tendencies toward self-harm and toward suicidal ideation. It is very important that it is not just up to parents to regulate the things their kids are seeing and to be the police of the content their kids are taking in. That is why it is up to us as government to do that. We need to ask ourselves this: Is it fair to expect parents to manage these risks on their own while the companies designing these platforms face limited accountability? Parents are already balancing the pressures of everyday life. We cannot expect them to monitor everything that their children do 24 hours a day, particularly when kids have their own screens. We cannot constantly see everything that our kids are seeing. It is, frankly, impossible. Parents have an important role to play, of course, by setting up certain settings on devices, but protecting children cannot fall on their shoulders alone. Social media companies design these platforms. They design how content is recommended and how users interact with these services. That is why we need clear expectations for these companies. They must take meaningful steps to identify risks and reduce harm. Just as importantly, they must be transparent about what they are doing and demonstrate that their efforts are making a difference. Canadians should not have to simply take a company’s word that a platform is safe. Technology has moved faster than the rules to protect our people are keeping up. We have been slow to respond to these changing online environments, and we need to take action. As a result, harmful content can spread unchecked, and dangerous behaviours can be amplified. Vulnerable users can repeatedly be exposed to materials that put their well-being at risk. Bill C-34 takes an important step toward closing that gap by recognizing that those who design and profit from these platforms also have a responsibility to prevent foreseeable harms, the harms that they know they are causing. We should not wait for a young person to experience harm before expecting action from the companies that operate these services. The legislation would establish clear expectations from social media platforms. Companies would be required to assess the risks associated with harmful content on their services and take proactive steps to reduce those risks. Users would have access to a clear reporting and complaint mechanism so they know where to turn when they encounter harmful content or have concerns for their own safety. It is important that we make sure this happens with a very quick process, because throughout this, we do not want to see young people turn away from platforms that we are familiar with and go toward corners of the Internet that might be less regulated. That is why it is important that the legislation move quickly. If we stand these things up, we can prevent people from going to less safe corners of the Internet. Another factor here is, of course, the new challenges emerging with artificial intelligence. AI has made it easier to create fake or manipulated images that damage someone’s reputation. Some content can go viral within minutes. It can also make it much harder for people to distinguish between authentic content and material designed to mislead them. We have now entered an age where when we see a photo, it is virtually impossible to tell if that photo is real or if it has been generated in a matter of seconds by somebody on a keyboard anywhere on the planet. AI chatbots raise additional concerns, particularly when they interact with young people who are experiencing emotional distress. These interactions feel very personal, and young users may not always understand the limitations of these systems. We need appropriate safeguards to reduce the risk of harmful responses and ensure that vulnerable young people are not left without proper support. Take the example of somebody using an AI chatbot as a counsellor, for example. These chatbots are not registered counsellors and can sometimes give very misleading and harmful advice to the young people who are using them. Some government oversight is very needed here. We cannot wait until harm has already occurred before asking how these technologies should be used responsibly. Platforms must take responsibility for the risks associated with the services they provide, including the AI tools that they make available to their users.”

• 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 →

“We must make sure online platforms are safe for young people. Platforms that are safe can stay online for youth. Platforms that fail to protect them should be banned until they do, especially the most harmful ones.”

“Madam Speaker, it is very important that in this process, we make sure that these platforms are fit for young people to be on them. If they are deemed fit for use, then of course that is great and youth will be allowed to continue to use them. However, if there are platforms that are deemed to not be taking these measures, then there will be a ban until they are. It is an age ban particularly for the platforms that have the most severe consequences.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 43 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  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 →

“This bill must have strong penalties for big social media companies. A slap on the wrist is not enough. If companies do not quickly take down fake sexual images of children, they must face real consequences.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to first off thank my hon. colleague for the question. I would also like to say hi to Walker and Pam Jennings, with whom we share a mutual friendship. I agree with my hon. colleague that this legislation needs to have teeth. We, of course, are talking about very large social media giants, and a slap on the wrist would not be enough for enforcement. We need to make sure we have penalties, particularly for the worst cases and worst offences. These are things too horrible to even talk about, but when we talk about about sexualized deepfakes of children, for example, they must be removed in a very swift manner, and if not, there need to be consequences for the social media giants.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government must protect children online while respecting parents. How will this bill help quickly remove intimate photos shared without consent and sexual content that harms children?”

“Madam Speaker, the government has an essential role to play in protecting children and keeping them safe while respecting parental authority. The goal is to strike a balance between protecting children and respecting parents’ responsibilities. Can my colleague explain how this bill would help speed up the removal of intimate content distributed without consent and content that sexually victimizes children, in order to better protect them?”

“Social media companies must remove harmful content quickly.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. It is important for social networks to ensure that this type of content, which is harmful, is removed within an acceptable time period.”

“We both want to protect children online. This bill regulates social media platforms to protect young people's mental health from harmful content. If the member supports this goal, will he vote to send the bill to committee for study?”

“Madam Speaker, after listening to my colleague, I realize that we both care about protecting our children online. I think that if we did not care about this issue, we would not be here tonight at this late hour. Bill C‑34 proposes several improvements to better regulate social media platforms in order to protect young people from harmful online content that could have an impact on their mental health. If my colleague supports the bill’s guiding principles and the broad objectives it seeks to achieve, will he vote to send it to committee so that it can be studied in depth?”