“Protecting children online is important to me as a parent. Will the Conservatives vote to send this bill to committee so we can study it?”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it has actually been quite a productive debate this morning on this very important piece of legislation. It is obviously an issue of public policy, but I think, for many of us, it is also a personal issue. I have young children. They are nine years and six years old, so they are still too young to be in the online world, which is a positive thing, but of course all of us as parents, uncles, aunts or whatever the case might be, want to make sure children are protected. I think the member raises some interesting points. Is it her intention and the intention of the Conservative Party to support this legislation at second reading so it can move to committee and get the detailed study that I think we all agree it deserves?”

“I support this bill to protect children online. Parents cannot stop platforms designed to be addictive. The bill requires companies to build safer platforms, removes the worst harms quickly, and sets a minimum age of 16. It protects free speech and private messages while preventing harm before it happens.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure, a sense of responsibility and, above all, gratitude that I rise today to speak to Bill C-34. To explain why this bill matters, I would like to begin with an image that is familiar to every parent in the House here in Ottawa. It is 11 o’clock at night. The house is quiet. The lights are off, and yet, beneath our child’s bedroom door, there is still a faint blue glow—a screen still lit, a thumb continuing to swipe, scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. We believe our child is safe. They are at home, under our roof, only a few metres away from us, but in reality, at that hour, they could be anywhere, with anyone, facing all kinds of risks. It is for that child that I rise today to support Bill C-34, the safe social media act. I have spent my professional life at the intersection of information technology and public safety. I taught in the field of technology, particularly artificial intelligence. I served on Montreal’s city council for eight years and on the city’s public safety commission. I also worked as an adviser to the Montreal police service. If I have learned anything, it is that behind every statistic is a face. As we look at the numbers, let us think about the faces. According to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, 52% of Canadian teens have received unwanted sexual images online and 44% say they have been pressured to share or send these types of images. That is one in two teens. Let us imagine a high school classroom. Every other row of students has experienced this. In only one year, 2023, Canadian police recorded 19,516 incidents of online child sexual exploitation, a 59% increase over the previous year and a 500% increase over 2014. Among young people aged 15 to 24, in a single decade, depression has doubled and anxiety has quadrupled. In addition, young people who are victims of online harm are three times more likely to consider suicide. Yes, three times more likely to consider suicide. I am not just quoting statistics here. I am talking about our children, children in Montreal, Calgary, Rimouski, Ottawa and all across Canada. I am talking about all of our children, including my own. For far too long, parents have been told to keep a closer eye on their children, set limits, check their phones, check their computers, and check their electronic devices and smart phones. Let us be honest, parents are already overwhelmed. We cannot ask them to monitor their children’s digital lives 24 hours a day, seven days a week, especially when, on the other side of the screen, there are systems specifically designed by the world’s top engineers, with input from sociologists and behavioural experts, to capture our children’s attention and never let go: endless scrolling, autoplay, algorithms that learn what catches a child’s attention and keep serving them more and more of it. Online harm does not stem solely from individual misbehaviour. It also stems from the way these systems and services are designed. Let us talk about what is known as safety by design. This is a very important concept that Bill C-34 is set to implement, and one that has been emphasized quite a bit by our colleagues in the Conservative Party. I will come back to this later. I would also really like for us to talk about AI, chatbots that talk to children, virtual companions that mimic friendship and even affection, that respond to young people at three o’clock in the morning when no one else is there for them and that sometimes give young people in distress the worst possible advice and answers. When a toy is dangerous, it is pulled from store shelves. When a car has a defect, it is recalled. When an infant car seat fails safety tests, it is never put on the market. Why then should social media platforms, where children spend hours and hours each day, be the only exception? These platforms had a chance to take action voluntarily. They did not do enough. Our laws have not kept pace. We have laws that punish after harm has been done, but we have almost nothing to prevent harm in the first place. Bill C-34 changes all that. This bill is based on a simple idea: safety by design. I am going to list three duties that will help achieve that. First, there is the duty to protect children. We need age-appropriate safeguards built into the products. Companies need to mitigate addictive features, add warnings and provide safe search settings. I repeat: This is a duty that begins at the design stage. Second, there is the duty to act responsibly. Companies must identify and reduce risks, provide effective blocking and reporting tools, and label deepfakes and content created by AI. Canadians deserve to know what is real and what is not. Finally, there is the duty to make the most serious types of content inaccessible: child sexual abuse material and intimate images shared without consent. Once reported, such content must be removed within 24 hours. If the platform does nothing, the victim will no longer be alone. They can turn to the digital safety commission of Canada. Chatbots need a crisis protocol. When a young person expresses an intention to harm themselves or others, the bot will no longer be able to simply continue the conversation. It will be required to refer the person to appropriate help. For social media, users will have to be at least 16 to open an account. However, the door is wide open for platforms to be granted an exemption if they can demonstrate that their service is safe for children. The message is simple: Platforms are welcome to seek an exemption if they can prove that their product is safe and truly reliable for users. I talked about it with my 14-year-old son. I told him that our government was planning on imposing a minimum age of 16 for the use of social media. It sparked quite a discussion, but my son eventually came around to the view that this objective was very noble, because protecting young people is so important. All of this will be overseen by Canada’s new digital safety commission, which will be independent and made up of three to five expert members. It will review the safety plans published by the platforms, handle complaints, support victims and have the power to impose fines of up to 3% of global revenues. I am hearing some concerns today. They are legitimate, and I want to address them frankly and clearly, but above all in a responsible manner. With respect to freedom of expression, it is protected by the charter, and this bill does not restrict it. The bill covers seven categories of harmful content, each of which is deliberately narrowly defined. The bill does not cover debate, disagreement or criticism, even when expressed in the strongest possible terms. What is more, the commission will have no power to arrest anyone. With respect to privacy, private messaging is specifically excluded. Data collected for age verification purposes must be protected and then promptly destroyed. It can be used for only one purpose: to prevent harm. This bill does not target what Canadians say. It focuses on how platforms are built. Seventy-seven per cent of the population wants us to take action, so that is what we are doing. Pediatricians want us to take action, and so does everyone else. I will return to the image of the faint blue glow under the door. I do not long for a world without screens. That world is gone. Digital media offers a marvellous opportunity for our young people—if it is used right.”

• 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 →

“Experts, not politicians, will run this commission, and they care about our children's future. This bill sets the minimum age for social media at 16.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his highly relevant question. We need to bear in mind who is going to sit on this commission. It will not be politicians or decision-makers from the House of Commons, but experts who, obviously, care about our children’s future. My colleague talked about age. Let me say again that the minimum age for social media will be 16. That is what the bill provides. Let me also say again that the commission will be composed of experts.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Social media companies must be required to follow the rules, and they must face penalties if they do not. Without penalties, rules are just suggestions. We need this bill to protect children, and big international companies will not stop us.”

“Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. However, it is not just about cooperation. It is also an obligation, one that has to come with penalties. When obligations are imposed without accompanying penalties, then they are just a suggestion. That is not the intent of Bill C-34, quite the contrary. The bill aims to protect our children. Everyone knows as well as I do that protecting our children is essential. International companies will not stand in the way of the government’s determination.”

• 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 my colleague to explain why we should pass this bill. How will it protect Canadians, especially young people?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and the extraordinary work he does to serve his constituents. I would ask my colleague to tell the House and the parents and young people in his riding why it is important for us to adopt Bill C-34. What will this do to better protect Canadians, especially young Canadians?”

“I want this bill passed to protect children online. When a toy is dangerous, stores take it off the shelves. Parents cannot watch what their kids do online all day, but social media companies have the tools to do it and should be required to.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who represents the riding neighbouring mine, for that great question. It is very simple. As I mentioned, I have a 14-year-old son. We know full well that when a toy is dangerous, it is taken off the market and off of store shelves. My son spends most of his time in front of a screen. I think we need to address this issue much more seriously. I cannot ask parents in Bourassa and across Canada to monitor their children’s online activities 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is virtually impossible. However, the platforms have the means to do so, they have the algorithms to do so, and they must do just that.”

“I want everyone to vote for this bill. It is a step forward and a world first. It covers social media, artificial intelligence, and safety design in ways that Australia did not.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for asking her question in such elegant French. I appreciate it. The unique thing about this bill is that it is a world first. It is a step forward, and I hope that everyone here will vote to support it. There are three aspects. Australia did not regulate all of the aspects I listed in my speech, including the issue of social media, AI and platforms, as well as safety by design.”

• 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 opposition to help pass this bill quickly. It holds big social media companies accountable to keep children safe online.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for speaking to Bill C-34. I always say crime is a non-partisan issue. My colleague and I sit together on the public safety committee and work together on so many bills that we passed last year. In June, we worked on Bill C-22 in committee, which is on lawful access, and complementary legislation to Bill C-34. It would provide law enforcement agencies with additional tools to help solve these criminal issues and keep our children safe online. With Bill C-34, our goal is to hold large social media companies accountable. Unfortunately, Bill C-22 was delayed by opposition members. My question is as follows: Will my colleague and members of the opposition party commit to supporting Bill C-34’s timely passage and ensuring that big tech companies will be kept accountable to keep our children safe?”

“I support this bill to protect people, especially children, from online harm. It makes things that are already illegal in real life illegal online, too. A new commission will make sure social media companies follow these rules, without letting the government look at your private data. We can work out smaller details, like how to check users' ages, at committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. Today, I will be speaking about Bill C-34, but before I begin, I want to take a moment to honour the memory of Chief Warrant Officer Ron Nutt, from my riding, who served in the 1st Hussars for over 30 years and sadly passed away at age 67. Taken too soon, he was a quiet, gentle man, but a really intelligent, forceful human being. He will be sorely missed. When it comes to Bill C-34, I can tell members that I have been in Parliament for quite some time, and this is the third version we have seen of the bill. I am really happy. The first two were terrible, but this one is much better. My colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, tabled a private member’s bill on this topic, because I think we all agree that we need to protect children from online harms. That private member’s bill, Bill C-216, informed a lot of the work of this one, which is definitely helpful. What the bill would do is make what is illegal today in the real world illegal in the digital world. That is a simplification, but it is essentially what is happening. We really need to protect our children and ourselves because the rise in online harm has been unbelievable. In 2023, half of students were experiencing online bullying. In 2024, police reported 19,516 instances of online child exploitation, an increase of 59% over the previous year and an increase of 500% since 2014. In terms of harms, we see that they are not just online. They are becoming physical and mental harms. I am still struck and saddened by what happened to Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons. We studied this the first year I was elected. These girls had, without their consent, intimate images of them put up on Facebook, and as a result, they both took their own lives. It is just terrible. This is where online harm can become physical harm. We also see the impact on our children. The pandemic was a time when many people spent more time online and could not go outside. Young people’s depression doubled. Their anxiety quadrupled. The suicide rate among young people doubled as well. Online harms are a real deal for our kids, and we all want to protect our kids. Each parliamentarian in the House has probably experienced online vitriol aimed at them. Certainly I have. It was awful when I started, but I have seen nothing like what I saw in the last year. These are harms. These things are illegal, and we have to address them. When it comes to online harm, people will ask what it really is. The things that are defined in the bill include content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, intimate content communicated without consent, content that induces a child to harm themselves, content used to bully a child, content that foments extreme hatred, content that incites violence, and terrorism or violent extremism content. Essentially, those things would be covered. There have been concerns expressed about the freedom of expression and some of the charter rights. Everyone will know that I am a passionate defender of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and certainly the government is well aware that people are concerned about who is going to determine what can be said and what cannot be said. We have a good definition of hate speech, which has been recently improved, but we need to make sure that everything is clear and that we not have overreach happen. In terms of privacy, I have also heard the concerns there. Bill C-36 would address many of the concerns that I have heard raised in debate today. In addition to that, people have talked about the need for transparency. I want to be clear about the digital commission that would be put in place. Obviously, if we are going to try to do something about online harms, we need somebody whose job it is to respond when bad behaviour is pointed out and come up with a remedy. That is why we want to take the idea from Bill C-216 to put the onus on service providers to make sure they are enforcing the standards. However, this digital commission, which would have three to five experts in the area, would be responsible for enforcing the laws that are described, and every year it would report to the minister and produce a report that would be tabled here in Parliament. Then Parliament could have oversight to make sure that it is working, that there are no abuses and that we are comfortable with where it is headed. There have also been discussions about under-16 age verification. Different techniques can be used, and I look forward to the discussions at committee reviewing what other countries have done and reviewing what people think is a better method to ensure age verification. There is everything from uploading an ID, which some people think is a privacy violation, to using AI to guess how old someone is. That is getting very accurate, but I do not want it to guess how old I am, so I will stop there. The other thing we have to do is be realistic. We know that when Australia implemented this, 70% of kids under 16 found a way around the system, so this will probably happen. It is important to say what is bad behaviour, say it is illegal and put mechanisms in place to enforce the rule of law, but we will have to deal with how we as parents and legislators encourage kids not to expose themselves at a young age to what is really the wild west of the Internet, where content that they should not be seeing is showing up. We know it is harmful to them. I think about when I grew up. I did not even have a TV until I was eight. I never had a cellphone until I was 30. There would be some advantage to not having the social harms that kids have to deal with when their maturity and the confidence they have in themselves are not yet developed. Let us talk a bit about what the safety commission would do. It would review the safety plans that are prepared and published for the different social media AI chatbot services. It would evaluate whether the age verification mechanism that the services are using is adequate. It would maintain transparency from both social media and chatbot platforms in publishing their policies and thresholds for notifying the RCMP, police or other law enforcement. Let us keep in mind that what is illegal in the real world would be illegal digitally, but the people who would follow up on that would not be in the digital safety commission; they would be the police of jurisdiction in that area. The commission would also provide support for victims of online harms and users of online services, and it would have the ability to issue fines to platforms of up to 3% of their global revenue. I have a lot of respect for the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. He has encouraged the government to consider more serious sentencing, especially in cases of child luring and sexual exploitation. I think the government should take that into consideration. There are some potential myths we have heard about this bill because of some of the previous versions that were not great. Let me just quickly look to those. One is that the government would get access to our private data. That would be specifically excluded; that would not happen. I already talked about the freedom of speech and already talked about the other concerns. I have also heard from the Bloc the concern that this bill would violate provincial jurisdiction. I look forward to hearing those discussions at committee. They have implemented something with age 14, so the discussion of what age it should be is a very good discussion. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.”

• Echo ×6

  A repeated line

  “Content that induces a child to harm themselves.”

  Said 6 times by 6 members since October 28.

  Every time it was said →

“I am not a lawyer, so the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola should answer the question about the legal definition. Bullying can involve sexual images, and people can look at what is posted about me online to see what bullying looks like.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, so I highly recommend having a discussion with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola because he will know the answer to that, but I believe there is a bullying definition used in the law. I would reiterate that some of the types of bullying we see use sexual images, for example, as in the Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons examples. I would point the member to the Twitter feed about me this past year if he wants to see what bullying looks like.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not know enough about how this works in Quebec, but Quebec has more experience with this issue. I would welcome changes to the bill when it goes to committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation in Quebec. I believe that Quebec has more experience with this issue, and I would be very pleased to see amendments tabled in committee.”

“I want the member to explain how this online safety bill is better than older versions, and what she likes most about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong for her outstanding work. I was honestly quite touched to hear her talk about her experience. She has been very courageous in all of this. I am very pleased to have her on our team. As I said, she is doing a great job. That said, she mentioned at the beginning of her speech that there were other versions of this legislation that were not as good as this one. I would like her to tell us about the main ways in which this bill improves on them and what she likes most about this version of this very important bill.”

“Earlier versions of this bill let people be sent to prison for up to 25 years just because someone thought they might commit a hate crime in the future. That went against the Charter of Rights. I am glad it was taken out.”

“Mr. Speaker, there was something unacceptable in the previous versions. The first two versions said that if somebody thought a person was going to commit a hate crime in the future, that person could be put in prison for up to 25 years. That seemed, to me, very much like the movie Minority Report. It is certainly not charter-compliant, so I am glad to see that it was removed.”

“I want this bill to go to committee, and I want to see the member's changes. We should put more details in the law itself instead of leaving them to bureaucrats.”

“Mr. Speaker, as an engineer, I am very detail-oriented in general. I would say the more detail we can put in the bill and not leave to regulators or bureaucrats, the better. I look forward to the amendments the member opposite will bring to committee.”

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly to keep young people safe online. Social media is hurting children's mental health, and police reports of online sexual abuse against kids are rising fast. Other countries have already banned social media for kids under 16, and doctors and experts agree Canada needs to act now.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am truly grateful for this opportunity to speak to a topic that matters so much to me and to our fellow citizens. The digital safety act is not a response to some naive or made-up concern, nor are the proposals within it based on wishful thinking. It addresses a need that Canadians have been telling us about for some time. The whole world must contend with new realities, and it is time for our country to evolve and adapt to those realities. There is no doubt these challenges will keep getting bigger as technology evolves and as the people we represent require protection from new threats. Let us wait no longer. Let us show that Canada knows how to evolve with the times. Let us also demonstrate, once again, what Canada is made of: We act for the good of all, including our young people. Other G7 countries have passed legislation in response to this threat targeting our young people. For example, Australia has already enacted legislation raising the minimum age for social media access to 16. Here in this country, all Canadians, including parents and guardians, expect us to take action too. Just as concerns about teenagers’ access to social media platforms are well founded, the age proposed to allow them to access these platforms is also not random. It has been shown that the digital landscape is not safe for children under 16. For these children, the scales are more likely to tip towards harms than benefits. Setting a limit for children under 16 is consistent with scientific research, as well as with what other jurisdictions around the world have done. Let me share some statistics. In 2023, Canadian police recorded 19,516 incidents of online child sexual exploitation over the course of the year. Again, there were 19,516 incidents of online child sexual exploitation over a 12‑month period in our country. That amounts to more than two cases per hour, every hour, over one year. That is unacceptable and alarming. This was a 59% increase over the previous year and a 500% increase over just a few years. We can therefore conclude that the longer we wait before taking real and effective action to put an end to this type of appalling behaviour, the more it will increase exponentially. We must work together to address this threat, because there is still time. Bill C-34 is not a quick fix or a band-aid solution. Bill C‑34 is not just about demonstrating that we are fulfilling our duty to protect Canada’s young people. It is supported by many expert organizations, including the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, the Canadian Paediatric Society, Kids Help Phone and the youth advocacy sector. I would also note that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child encourages the protection of young people from information or material that is injurious to their well-being. Bill C‑34 will ensure that we are in compliance with international ethical standards. I would like to come back to some statistics. While social media cannot be blamed for everything, it is clear that its impact extends beyond physical safety of our kids, because it also has an impact on their mental health. Rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation have risen exponentially among young Canadians over the past year. I would like to reiterate some of the figures my colleagues have already highlighted. Among Canadians aged 15 to 24, rates of depression have doubled, while rates of anxiety have quadrupled. Without a robust bill such as Bill C-34, these statistics will continue to rise. These statistics represent the next generation of Canadians and the impact this has on their individual life paths. I do not have enough time today to provide all the statistics on this subject. For example, I did not mention that one in four young people between the ages of 12 and 17 in this country report having been cyber-bullied. One in four is a lot. We cannot allow this situation to keep getting worse. Instead, we should help young people experience this brief period of their lives in safety, as most of us had the opportunity to do, without being exposed to the same level of harm they face today. At the very least, the far more limited exposure many of us experienced likely spared us some of the dangers and mental health challenges. Now is the time to step up and demonstrate that we care about our children. I would also like to acknowledge my riding’s efforts in this regard. Sherbrooke is at the forefront of efforts to protect young people online. One notable local initiative was spearheaded by a group of law students at the Université de Sherbrooke. Last spring, they drafted a bill to address the harmful effects of excessive screen time on young people. Among other things, the bill would ban access to Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat for those under 16. During a visit to the legislative buildings in Quebec City, the students said that they specifically targeted these apps because they are addictive. They also drew parallels with the arguments that led to the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco for minors.”