“I want this bill passed to protect children online. Like alcohol and tobacco, social media can be addictive and bad for their health. Most platforms already require users to be 13, and raising that age to 16 will keep kids safe without taking away their right to speak online.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was saying that a group of students from the faculty of law at Université de Sherbrooke had drafted a bill setting the minimum age for accessing social media at 16. They drew a parallel with substances such as alcohol and tobacco. Obviously, these substances are comparable not only because they are addictive but also because of their adverse effect on health. This student-led initiative resulted in Bill 796 in Quebec City and received unanimous support when it was introduced in June 2026. I would also like to highlight the commitment of the Sherbrooke region’s school services centre, which has launched a program called “Social Media: Connected, Safe and Legal” to provide parents with resources on cybersecurity, cyber-bullying, and privacy. This brings me to the concerns that some of my colleagues may have about this bill. Freedom of expression is a known and important concern, but it is fully integrated into the bill we are proposing. Young people under the age of 16 will still be able to express themselves online. The only difference is that they will do so on platforms that are not considered addictive and that will not put them in harm’s way. The commission created under this act will also have the authority to exempt services from this minimum age requirement as long as they provide adequate child protection guarantees. My colleague, the member for Outremont, aptly said in her speech last week: “Safety must be a design choice too.” Canadians want us to take effective action on solving this problem. We should also keep in mind that the digital platforms already apply a default condition that requires users to be at least 13 years of age. This bill would raise that condition only slightly but would produce considerable benefits. Healthy children are the foundation of a healthy society. Honestly, I fear for the state of our society in the not-too-distant future if we fail to adapt to the forces that are disrupting it. The fact is that Canada is fully capable of responding proactively to the changes brought about by this new digital era. We have a fundamental obligation to today’s young people and to future generations. Everyone gathered here today is already aware of these issues. We know they are gaining momentum, so let us get to work. Let us ensure that our laws keep pace with society’s needs. The House sees its share of disagreements, and that is healthy. Debating the issues that Canadians care about and working together to move our great country forward is part of our job description as members of Parliament. When it comes to keeping kids safe, we should all agree on one thing: We have to protect them as much as possible without infringing on their rights. That should be something we can all agree on. Less than a month from now, on November 20, we will celebrate National Child Day, as we do every year. On this occasion, I will think of all the children, especially our own, and of our great responsibility to them.”

“I want this bill to pass because it protects children. It sets rules for social media and AI chatbots, and it lets a new commission fine companies that break them. I want my colleague to speak about why passing it matters.”

“Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to have discussions with my seatmate. I know how important this issue is, and I appreciate that she has consulted with young people. Bill C-34 would put in, through law, regulations that would protect children across the nation. I see that as a very strong positive. Not only would it provide the opportunity to have regulations for service providers and AI chatbots, but it would also provide the opportunity to institute fines through the establishment of a commission. I am wondering if my friend could provide her thoughts on how important it is that we bring forward the legislation and ultimately see it pass, because it is all about protecting our children.”

“I support this bill. Creating this commission will make sure companies follow the rules and keep children safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard. The creation of this commission will help ensure that regulations are complied with and that service providers are held to account. This is another step in keeping our children safe.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects kids by keeping them away from harmful content, but it still lets them use social media. One in eight children see posts that push hate or violence every day without searching for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, young people will still be allowed to use social media and other platforms. Bill C-34 will simply make the use of those platforms less harmful to children. We are protecting them by limiting their access to certain content. According to Statistics Canada, one in eight children see content that incites hatred or violence every day without even searching for it, which is why it is so important to move forward with Bill C-34.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 16 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Women face more harm online than men do. Programs that protect female politicians are important, but this bill is also a very good way to solve the problem.”

“Madam Speaker, studies and analyses do indeed show that women are disproportionately affected by everything that happens online. In fact, colleagues in the Pacific region have launched a free program called Face Forward, which was developed by Areto. This initiative protects female members of Parliament by giving them access to all kinds of resources and a network through which they can communicate. An initiative like this is important. However, everything we are proposing in Bill C-34 is also a very good solution.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 18 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill because it protects children from harmful online content. It creates a team of experts that can fine social media companies and chatbot services. I want to know if the member agrees we need this group to hold these platforms accountable.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member put on the record. I too am very much concerned about things like algorithms. I am very much concerned about the harmful content out there today. That is why Bill C-34 would establish a framework that would see regulations put in place to protect the children of Canada. That is a significant thing. Not only would it put in place regulations or allow for them, but it would also put in place a commission. Through that commission, we could see fines. The bottom line is that there would be more accountability on things like service providers, platforms, AI chatbots and so forth. Does the member agree with the principle of having a commission to ensure that we see follow-up, a commission that has a high level of expertise on the issue?”

“I want the House to pass this bill to regulate social media companies and protect children online. Social media is causing real harm to young people, including higher rates of depression, anxiety, and online exploitation. Social media companies will not fix this themselves, and our current laws only step in after harm is done. This bill does not hurt free speech or private messages. It sets clear rules for companies to remove dangerous content, stop kids under 16 from having accounts on unsafe apps, and keep children safe.”

“Madam Speaker, freedom of speech has its place. Let me say that first, because it is where this debate must begin, and nothing in this bill changes it. The question before us is a different one. How do we use a technology without building a society that is splintered by thought? We have a society of isolated groups that are increasingly speaking past one another, whose ideas are reinforced whether they are the brightest glimmers of hope that come with the dawn of a new generation or the darkest of thoughts only shared behind a screen through a fictional ID and the clicks of a keyboard. I speak, of course, of social media, and we should make no mistakes about its dangers. Biases are being reinforced. Isolation is increasing. In the space that exists between us, there are those who insert misinformation on purpose. Social media was meant to be a common space, a space that was created to bring people together, but its very essence is more divisive than it has ever been. Its guardrails are intentionally taken down, and it is increasingly a place of bots and misinformation intentionally injected to create division and chaos. That matters more than ever, because these platforms have become for many Canadians a source of news and information. I am old enough to remember that, when I was growing up, there was a set number of channels we watched and, in my father’s generation, a set of radio stations he would listen to on his morning drives. We were given, within reasonable bounds, a common set of facts we could all agree upon, a shared reality. Today, we live in a world where inconvenient facts can be spun as lies and expedient conjecture can pass for truth. The information we get from search and social media is subject to manipulation and uneven distortions. When social media was in its early days, there was a great hope that it would become the new public square, a space where people could come together and discuss things freely without fear of retribution or censorship, but what we have seen, when these companies engage in content moderation, or worse distortion, and individuals hide behind fictional identities, is that social media has become less of a public square and more of a space of silos, where hatred is monetized, with little room left for robust public debate. If we, as relatively informed adults, have become so susceptible to lies and conspiracy theories from social media, we should be concerned about the effects on those whose minds are still developing. Social media companies engage in content moderation. The problem is that the industry standards have fallen. Children are entering the digital world at ever younger ages, often without their parents’ knowledge. With a few clicks, a child can open an account on a platform designed to hold their attention, expose them to harm and collect their personal data. The evidence is serious. Youth who experience online victimization report three times the suicide ideation. Over the past decade, depression among Canadians 15 to 24 has doubled, and anxiety has quadrupled. In 2023 alone, police recorded almost 20,000 incidents of online child sexual exploitation. That is a 59% increase in a single year, and a 500% increase since 2014. We can tell parents to monitor more closely, but they are already stretched thin, and no one can watch a child’s screen 24 hours a day. No parent can inspect an algorithm. Here is the heart of the matter. We have laws for when the harm has already happened, but almost nothing that requires platforms to prevent it. If we have learned anything over these last years, it is that we must lower our expectations of what social media companies would do on their own and raise expectations of what government must do in their place. Government regulation must become part of the solution. Let me say plainly what Bill C-34 does. It creates three duties: a duty to act responsibly, to assess the risks on their own platforms and reduce them by design; a duty to protect children and build age-appropriate safeguards into the product itself; and a duty to make certain content inaccessible, which requires the rapid removal of child sexual exploitation material and intimate images shared without consent, including deepfakes. The bill would prohibit children under 16 from holding social media accounts. However, it is not a wall without a door. A platform can apply to the new digital safety commission for an exemption if it can demonstrate that its products are safe for children. The ban would give companies a reason to compete on safety, because safety is what opens the door. AI chatbots would not face an age ban, because they would be bound by the duty to act responsibly and the duty to protect children, and they would need to direct users to intervention services when someone expresses thoughts of suicide or self-harm. Platforms would publish a digital safety plan telling Canadians what risks exist, what they are doing about them and how much harmful content has been flagged. An independent commission of three to five experts would review those plans, assess whether age verification actually works and issue penalties of up to 3% of global revenue for failure. This is lower than Australia, the EU and the U.K. Let me address the concerns that have been raised, because they deserve a serious answer. Some will say that this would threaten free speech. I take that seriously, which is why I began where I did. Let us look at what this bill would define as harmful: content that sexually victimizes a child; intimate images shared without consent; content that induces a child into self-harm; content used to bully a child; and content that foments extreme hatred, incites violence, or promotes terrorism. These categories are narrow and clearly defined. This bill would not touch everyday conversation or lawful debate. The commission would have no power to arrest anyone. The bill would place responsibility on the platforms, not on citizens. Some will say this bill invades privacy, but private messaging would be specifically exempt. Data gathered for age verification would be securely collected and swiftly destroyed. The bill would not dictate one method. It would put the onus on platforms to build systems and on the independent commission to judge whether they are adequate. Others will say this is simply another layer of bureaucracy. I would ask them what the alternative is. Is it leaving it to the companies we have just discussed, or to politicians trading shots across this chamber every time a crisis breaks? The purpose of an expert, independent commission is to take this issue out of political point scoring and replace it with consistent, measured expertise. There are critics who say the commission’s details remain unclear. I think that is a fair point. Some respected scholars have called it opaque, and some groups are withholding full support until the regulations are final, but the commission must be independent, and prescribing every decision in statute would undermine that independence. We are acting quickly, but we intend to get this right. We are not alone. Pediatric hospitals and children’s health groups have called this an important step forward. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has called it “a crucial step”. Some, like the Phone-Free School Movement, want us to go further. This tells me that the direction is right and that the debate is about how far to go. Canadians are with us, as 77% say we should consider restricting social media for those under 16. That is true of 67% of those aged 18 to 34 and 83% of those 55 and over. It is rare to find a consensus that crosses every generation. The question is not whether we believe in free expression; we do. The question is whether a space built for connection can once again be worthy of that name, whether our children can grow up with a shared reality, with room for real debate and with protection from those who profit from their harm. We cannot rebuild that common ground in a single bill, but we can lay the foundation for a safer space. Let us do it. Let us pass Bill C-34.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

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

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 28.

  Every time it was said →

“Parents have tried to control their kids' social media use for over ten years, but kids are still struggling. This bill brings in government rules to help parents who are stretched thin. There will also be a good process to choose the best experts for the new commission.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member’s comments. I really enjoy working with him at committee as well. As to his questions, I think parenting should be left up to parents. We know that parents have tried, for the last decade-plus, to regulate the social media usage of their children, but we are still seeing problematic behaviours arise. We are still seeing problematic data that shows us that children are struggling with social media use and parents are struggling to regulate their social media use. This bill is meant to bring in government regulation where parents really are being stretched thin. The second part of the question was in regard to the experts on the commission. I look forward to this being fleshed out in more detail. I am sure that, for the three- to five-member commission, there will be a process in place to pick the best qualified individuals to serve.”

“What do you think about freedom of expression and the criticisms people have raised about this bill?”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member about his thoughts around freedom of expression and some of the criticisms that may have been expressed in this chamber regarding the bill.”

“This bill does not stop free speech. Free speech is protected by the Charter. The bill only targets harmful speech, and it clearly defines what that is. It does not target open debate.”

“Madam Speaker, freedom of speech is a concept that is fundamentally important to me as a lawyer and as a new member of the Ontario Bar. This bill does not regulate free speech. Free speech is fundamentally protected under our charter. It does define harmful speech, and I mentioned that in my speech. These categories are narrowly defined and very clearly stated. If there is open, robust debate, that is not something that this bill is targeting.”

“We need an independent commission because politics gets in the way of good debate here. An outside group of experts can handle problems calmly. Canadians elected us to protect people, especially young people, and this group will help do that.”

“Madam Speaker, I think an independent commission is necessary because, as we can see, sometimes with the debate in this chamber, it can get highly politicized. Rather than moving from crisis to crisis, the independent commission could bring measured expertise. Canadians elected the government on a mandate to protect Canadians, especially young Canadians, whose minds are still developing. I look forward to the work that the commission will eventually do in furthering that work.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 25 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Social media traps people in separate groups where computers only show them things that feed their fears. We need real-world spaces where people can talk and debate. I want this bill to pass so the new commission can help fix these online problems.”

“Madam Speaker, I think the problem really arises because online spaces have become spaces of silos, where whatever beliefs or fears one has get reinforced by the algorithms. One of the ways that we can protect against that is to have an online space but then to come to a real space where we can actually have dialogue and debate. I look forward to the work that the commission will do to help alleviate problems with the online spaces.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →