“I want all members, especially the Conservatives, to vote for this bill. It protects children under 16 from harmful content online, including sexual abuse, self-harm, and violence. It creates an independent group to hold tech companies responsible and fine them if they do not keep kids safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my comments, I will emphasize that the government, coming out of the last federal election, made commitments to Canadians in regard to the Internet and how we can protect children. That is really what Bill C-34 is all about. If we were to canvass and talk to the constituents we represent, we would find that there is genuine concern in regard to some of the harmful things that are on the Internet. The bill is not meant to replace parents but is rather to support parents. The Internet is 24-7. There are things on it that are very harmful, particularly for children 16 and under, and there is a role for government to play. We have seen other countries take action, as we are taking action. I appeal to my colleagues across the way to listen to what is being expressed through our constituents, which is genuine concern over the harmful things that take place on the Internet, and vote accordingly in regard to Bill C-34. The bill is a solution, in good part, that would protect and complement what parents have to go through in raising a child. The Internet did not exist when my children were young, and I can only imagine what parents today have to go through given the seven-day-a-week, 24-hour availability of the Internet. The Internet is going to power our economy and society in many positive ways; there is no doubt about that, but to ignore the potential harm, particularly to our children, would be irresponsible. We have had other private members’ bills on the issue of our children and what is on the Internet that causes problems. I made a note of some of those things. We can think of what harmful content is. I have heard Conservatives talk about it, and obviously many members of the Liberal caucus have had opportunities both inside and outside of the House to talk about it. These are the types of discussions that take place in our communities. There are things such as sexually victimizing a child, revictimizing a survivor, using intimate content without the consent of the person and inducing a child to harm themselves. Just the other day, a Conservative MP was talking about an incident where committing suicide was being promoted. Unfortunately, these are the types of things we see. They are things that promote extreme hatred or violence, or that deal with issues like terrorism and the promotion of terrorism. One could easily classify these things, I would suggest, as harmful content. It is one thing to talk about harmful content. I suspect if we were to canvass the House, we would find virtually unanimous consent that there is harmful content on the Internet. The challenge I put across the way to my Conservative friends in particular is, what are they prepared to do about it? Bill C-34 has an action that would protect children and support parents. That is why I believe it is time for us to not only talk about this, but look at taking substantial action. The establishment of an independent digital safety commission is long overdue. It would have a profound, positive impact on the children of Canada no matter where they live. If members believe that there is harm on the Internet and we have a role to play in Ottawa, I suggest that supporting an independent digital safety commission is something they ought to be voting in favour of. If they cannot vote in favour of it, I believe they owe an explanation to their constituents as to why they do not see the merit in doing that. Having a commission that has the ability to ensure there is a higher sense of responsibility and duty to act responsibly is critically important. We could regulate service providers, as an example, to assess and mitigate risks in the form of a report, with a sense of accountability and transparency. We could enable the commission to do the follow-through, to the degree that it would have the ability to go after the major players, not only here but also abroad, and levy fines. These are all ways in which we can play a role in protecting the children of Canada by having a ban on social media content for children under the age of 16, with the opportunity for some exceptions if they are proven to be safe for our children. This is good legislation. I hope every member of the House will get behind it and vote for it.”

“The minister told me that experts helped choose the age limit in this online safety bill. If the member has proof that the age should be lower, he should show it to the committee or the minister.”

“Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to chat with the minister responsible for the legislation earlier today. He amplified and explained in great detail the degree to which there is a high level of expertise. The age has been well documented. If the member believes that the age should be lowered, he should attend the standing committee and make his case. If he is inclined to suggest that he has the evidence and science that demonstrate that it would be better to lower it, he should share it with the minister. There are certain aspects of note in the legislation, but I will wait for my next question.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 38 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Parliament needs to help protect children from online harms. This bill supports parents instead of replacing them. The minister wants to work together on this, and I want us to keep talking about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the minister has made very clear that he wants to work collaboratively. The simple message that needs to get across is that there is a role for the Parliament of Canada to protect the interests of our children from the negative side, the very hurtful side, of social media and the Internet. I would suggest to the member opposite, who I know has a number of young children, that this is not to take away any sort of parenting from the child, but is rather to complement the parent’s role. At the end of the day, there is a wonderful opportunity to have that dialogue. The minister is very much open to it, and I look forward to ongoing discussions both here and at committee.”

“Parents cannot protect their children from the dangers of social media all the time. I want the member to explain how this bill would protect children.”

“Mr. Speaker, I too grew up in an era that did not have the Internet. All we had was a land line, which we used to phone our friends to talk to them. However, I am the father of two young children. My daughter is now 15, and, of course, she is exposed to things like social media. I have seen things that I have never had to deal with. I wish I could protect her 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but unfortunately we cannot do that. The member talked about protecting children. I have heard it from a lot of parents. He has probably heard it from a lot of parents. Can he expand on how he feels this bill would protect them going forward?”

“This bill would set rules for major social media platforms, AI chats, and other online services. A safety commission would enforce those rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, because it is important to recognize that Bill C-34 would create the digital safety act. It would regulate major social media services, AI chat services and some other online services. Through those regulations, we would have the opportunity to have them enforced by the safety commission.”

“I support this bill because it creates a commission that can actually punish companies with fines. Does the Conservative Party support this commission?”

“Mr. Speaker, what I like about the legislation is that by establishing the commission it does not just talk to it. My understanding is that there would be between three to five members on the commission who would have the ability through regulation to put in fines, and so forth. The commission would actually have teeth. I think that is so critically important. Does the Conservative Party in principle support the concept of having that commission?”

“Most people agree that harmful things online hurt kids under 16. We need a law to protect them, and we need a commission with real power to enforce the rules. Does the member support protecting kids this way?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the comments I put on the record in seeing the bill. In my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority understand that there are harmful things on the Internet that have an impact on children under the age of 16. We have had endless examples provided to the House. To me there is a responsibility to not only put something into legislation, but also ensure that the legislation has some form of enforcement, that the commission being proposed would ensure there are consequences and that regulations are put in to protect our children. Does the member support the principle of protecting our children through legislation and having a commission?”

“This bill creates a commission to enforce rules and fine internet companies. We need this commission to protect children from harmful content online. I want to know if the member supports having this commission.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the response I got from the member, but I really want to talk about the principle of having the commission, because the commission, from my perspective, is what gives it real teeth. We are talking about three to five members who would sit on a commission and ultimately be responsible for administering regulations. They would have the power, for example, to give fines. They would have the power to hold some of these Internet service providers responsible through regulation. They would have the authority necessary to protect the interests of our children and protect them from harmful content. Is that something she supports in principle?”