“I want this bill sent to committee so we can study it carefully. Social media harms children's mental health, and we need rules to make online platforms safer. But I do not want a new government office acting as internet police and censoring what Canadians say. We must protect kids without taking away our basic freedoms.”

“Madam Speaker, over the past decade, we have seen an alarming rise in rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm and other mental health challenges among young people. Many parents, educators and health professionals have raised concerns about the role social media may be playing in this trend. Social media has fundamentally changed childhood. While these platforms can help young people connect with friends, learn new things and access information, they can also contribute to sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, loneliness, social comparison and addictive behaviours. The reality is that many social media platforms are designed to maximize the amount of time users spend online. When platforms offer services for free, it is often because the users themselves have become the product. Their attention is a valuable commodity that companies compete to capture and sell to advertisers. The longer users remain engaged, the more profitable those platforms become. As a result, companies are often competing against one another for our attention and, in some cases, the attention of our children. Too often, the incentives in the marketplace reward engagement rather than well-being. That is why many Canadians are asking whether more should be done to encourage safer online environments for young people. Children should be protected from products that are intentionally designed to be addictive. I believe social media companies should recognize their responsibility to design services that put the best interests of children first. However, given current business practices and market incentives, many believe legislation may be necessary to encourage different behaviours and different design choices. Governments have a role to play in creating those incentives and in providing parents with the tools they need to make informed decisions about how their children engage with the online world. This brings me to Bill C-34, the safe social media act, which is before us today. The legislation would establish new responsibilities for organizations that operate social media platforms, AI-powered chatbots and other online services. For example, regulated social media services would be required to provide users with tools to block and report harmful content as well as with access to support resources. In addition, the legislation would create a new regulator responsible for overseeing compliance and enforcing these requirements. The bill is built around two key obligations. First, there is a duty to protect children. This includes safety-by-design requirements, age-appropriate design features and measures intended to limit children’s exposure to harmful and pornographic content. Second, there is a duty to be transparent. Platforms would be required to maintain records demonstrating compliance and publish a digital safety plan in a clear and accessible format. The legislation would apply to three categories of regulated services: social media services, including livestreaming and adult content platforms; AI-powered chatbot services, which are treated as a distinct category with their own obligations; and certain other online services, including websites and applications that allow users to interact with them. In short, Bill C-34 seeks to establish a framework for digital safety, transparency and accountability in online spaces. While I will be supporting the bill to be sent to committee, I have some apprehensions with the legislation. While I will always support the right of parents to control what their children see online and believe they should be given the tools to do so, I take issue with the creation of a new federal bureaucratic department to act as the Internet police. We must be careful that in our effort to make the Internet safer, we do not create a system that places excessive power in the hands of government regulators or imposes burdensome requirements on platforms without delivering meaningful results for Canadian families. As legislators, we must exercise caution whenever we grant government new powers over what Canadians can see, share or access online. Protecting children is an important objective, but it must not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms. We must ensure that this legislation contains clear safeguards and accountability measures so that it cannot be used to expand government control over online speech or set a precedent for future censorship. This is something Conservatives will continue to champion as this bill moves through the legislation process. It is also important that we examine real-world examples of similar legislation. In December 2025, Australia implemented a ban on social media access for children under the age of 16. Rather than placing responsibility on parents or young people, the Australian approach focuses on holding social media platforms accountable for enforcing the rules. Oversight is provided by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which issues guidance on the measures platforms must take to prevent underage access and has the authority to impose significant financial penalties on companies that fail to comply. As Parliament studies Bill C-34, we should carefully examine the results of the Australian model. What has been the outcome in Australia and has it been effective? Early evidence suggests there is reason for caution. In March 2026, the Molly Rose Foundation conducted the first large-scale survey of Australians aged 12 to 15 following the introduction of the social media ban. The survey found that 61% of young people who previously had accounts on restricted platforms continued to have access to at least one active account. More than half of those who had used platforms such as TikTok, YouTube and Instagram remained able to use those services, while 70% of children who continued to access restricted platforms said it was easy to circumvent the ban. The survey also found that 51% of respondents believed the ban had made no difference to their online safety, while 14% reported feeling less safe online. Although some children reported spending less time online, the overall impact on well-being was mixed. These findings suggest that while the objective of protecting children online is laudable, legislation alone may not be sufficient if young people can easily bypass the restrictions and continue accessing social media platforms. The Australian experience shows how difficult it is to keep children safe online. In many ways, it is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Technologies move quickly and young people often find ways around restrictions that governments and platforms put in place. This is why Parliament must take the time to thoroughly study Bill C-34 at committee. We should hear from a broad range of witnesses, including parents, teachers, child advocates, civil liberties advocates, legal experts and those working in the technology sector. We all agree that children should be protected online, but good intentions alone do not make good policy. Before moving forward, Parliament must ensure the measures proposed are active, effective and practical and that they strike the right balance between protecting children and preserving the rights and freedoms of Canadians.”

“Teens started using smartphones in the early 2010s. This changed how their brains and social lives grow. I think it is the biggest reason kids are struggling today.”

“Madam Speaker, it goes back to asking what on earth happened to teens in the early 2010s. It was the move from regular phones to smart phones. The rewiring of childhood has interfered with children’s social and neurological development. I think that has been the greatest cause for the crisis we are in today.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We need to study this bill carefully in committee. We want to protect young people and hold social media platforms accountable. But the government gives the new commission too much power with too little oversight. We need to add real safeguards before this becomes law.”

“Madam Speaker, I completely agree that this matter should be studied thoroughly. Conservatives want to ensure that young people are safe and that platforms are held accountable. However, many Canadians are concerned about the very broad powers the government wants to grant the proposed commission without sufficient accountability mechanisms. Bill C‑34 deserves much closer scrutiny in committee. We need to take the time to study it carefully and ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 28 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We want to keep kids safe and hold social media platforms accountable. But this bill gives a new commissioner too much power with too little oversight. A committee needs to study this bill much more carefully across party lines to get it right.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want to make sure kids are kept safe and platforms are held accountable. The concern many Canadians have is that the Liberals would give the proposed commissioner sweeping powers with little accountability. Bill C-34 requires much more scrutiny at committee and needs non-partisan work to get it right.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Protecting kids online matters to every parent. I hear a lot of worry from people about internet dangers. I want the member to share what the parents in his riding are telling him about this.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interest in this very important question, namely protecting young people online. I would ask him to speak on a more personal level and tell us about the people in his riding. This is an issue that concerns more than just the members of the House. The protection of children online is a concern for all parents. Is he, like me, hearing more and more about people’s fears regarding the many dangers that now lurk online for young people?”

“People in my riding and in my family are worried about what is happening on social media. Technology used to change slowly, but social media is moving alarmingly fast.”

“Madam Speaker, yes, that is absolutely the case in my riding. Closer to home, in my family, I have three young people who are parents, and they tell me all the time that what is happening on social media today is very worrisome. In my grandmother’s day, as I was saying, progress took a long time. We went from horse-drawn carriages to the telephone, then to radio, television, and sending a man to the moon. All of these things took a long time. However, today, social media is advancing alarmingly quickly.”

“I have concerns with this bill. It is not currently possible to verify people's ages safely, as Australia's experience shows. We also cannot make big tech companies keep their promises to delete stored data.”

“Madam Speaker, this is a very important subject. The member across the way mentioned that there would be highly secure age verification. How would this be done? It is not actually possible right now, as we can see with what has happened in Australia with its policies. He also mentioned that the big tech companies would promise to erase the data they store. How is that possible to regulate? He can understand why we have concerns with the bill.”

“I do not support this bill as it is written. We need to help parents protect their kids online, not replace them with government rules. This bill forces Canadians to prove their age before privacy rules and exemptions are even set up. It violates privacy and free speech, and it will not stop kids from viewing harmful content without an account.”

“Madam Speaker, like many members of Parliament this past summer, I consciously spent some time speaking with residents in my riding about this proposal, which was introduced before the summer recess. The reviews were mixed, I have to say. Some were in favour of it, some opposed, and I will get into some of the reasons for that. I met with one specific group that stood out to me, and I want to give them a bit of a shout-out. It was a young moms’ book club in Uxbridge. There was one very brave dad who also attended this book club, and he was a good sport throughout the entire meeting. I want to thank these young moms from Uxbridge, and one young dad, for taking the time to discuss this issue with me and, in fact, for proactively reaching out to me in the summer to have a discussion. In fact, they got a bit of special treatment because during the book club meeting where we were discussing this Liberal proposal, the leader of the official opposition called me on my cell phone. Naturally, when the boss calls, I answer. I spoke to him about the issue he was calling me about, and then I said, “I’m here with a group of moms talking about this proposal, Bill C-34. Would you take a minute, on speakerphone, to talk to them and hear what they have to say?” He very kindly agreed to do that. They had a great interaction for about five or 10 minutes with the Leader of the Opposition. They were surprised and quite happy to have the opportunity to advocate their position to the Leader of the Opposition. I think that is a great story about Canadian democracy and how accessible all members of Parliament really try to be. One thing I think we agree on, moms, dads and Conservative members of Parliament, is that children do seem to be facing challenges online, being exposed to inappropriate content and potentially being exposed to exploitation. Parents, equally, are facing challenges online by trying to parent in a rapidly changing technological environment where children often are better equipped than parents themselves. I only have a one-year-old, but she already picks up my phone and tries to scroll because she sees what we are doing. I am a little worried she has already picked up the bug. Lastly, I think moms, dads and Conservative MPs agree that technology companies need to do better in responding to these potential dangers. One of the overarching principles in this debate, which I will express now and throughout this debate, whether here or in committee as the bill progresses, is that we need to seek to empower parents, not replace them. We want to put power in the hands of parents, not in the hands of technology companies, and certainly not in the hands of government. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, from a common-sense point of view, parents know their children better than anyone else. Parents must and do have primary authority and guardianship over their children, and that makes sense because parents love their children and want the best for them. It also makes sense because, increasingly, Canadians do not trust the government. It is not too hard to see why. Canadians do not trust the Liberals with these issues because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Previous Bill C-63, the online harms act, was a failure. Previous Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, is a failure. Bill C-9, the so-called Combatting Hate Act, is another failure. It is not clear to me that the proposals the government brings forward really empower parents in any of these situations. They certainly empower a new regulator, but I see more support for that than for empowering the people who are raising children. I want to point out a few of the flaws that I see in this bill that I hope can be addressed. The first, of course, is this idea of a ban itself. The government has touted a social media ban, but really, when we peel back the pages of this proposal, it is a temporary ban. It is a temporary ban, but one that would impose permanent infringements on Canadians’ privacy. The government has said it would move quickly to bring the ban into force, without waiting for the new regulatory body to become fully operational. By the government’s own estimates, it would likely take between 12 and 18 months, or more, for the regulatory body to be appointed, pass regulations, make orders or provide guidance. Imposing the ban before all of that is ready would have serious consequences. There would be no standards for age verification, no privacy review, no exemptions and likely no or little enforcement. Perhaps most obviously to me, it would mean that millions of Canadians would be required to verify their age immediately, even though regulated platforms may later be exempt from age verification. That makes little sense to me. It is also odd because it is the opposite of the approach taken by the Australian government, which Canada’s government has touted as an example for itself. Australia passed its law, and it did not take effect for over a year, so the very things I am talking about, like the establishment of a regulator and the passing of regulation and guidance, could be done before any sort of ban took effect. This means that services likely to qualify for an exemption, something like YouTube Kids, which provides parents with parental controls, content limits, etc., would not get an exemption for many months or years, if at all, but it would likely be entitled to one anyway. Moreover, it is not clear to me that this approach would even address the harms it sets out to address, because as I read the bill, it would only prevent the creation of a social media account. It would not prevent access to social media content or the browsing of it. This is an admission the government makes, even in the charter statement. Underage users would still be able to access content that the government says is harmful. Lastly, a flaw that I see is that the bill is premised on subjecting platforms to regulation based on their number of users. With too small a number of users, we would catch everyone, and with too large a number of users, we may miss people. There is no answer provided by the government to that question. I also want to talk about one question that has not received enough attention in second reading. In fact, I reviewed the minister’s speech and the parliamentary secretary’s opening speech, and they did not mention this issue at all. It is the question of whether the proposals in the bill, age verification and a temporary ban, are consistent with the Constitution and are consistent with the charter. The charter statement, which was submitted late by the government, correctly noted a few charter rights that would be engaged by the bill. The requirement, for example, in the bill to control how and when content is accessible to users obviously engages section 2(b), which guarantees the freedom of expression. I do not think there is any serious argument there that, on its face, the bill would infringe that expression. The question is whether it may be saved or not. Another issue flagged in the charter statement, correctly, if even limited in its treatment, would be the ability to close a hearing to the public. Obviously, that engages free expression and the open court principle. Age verification and the collecting of personal information engages section 8 of the charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The commission’s proposed ability to compel the production of papers, summon people and enter premises engages sections 7 and 8 also. These questions have not been answered, and I want to dig into this a little in the remaining time I have. First, as I noted above, the temporary ban would come first. Exemptions and rules would come second. The charter statement does not even address this issue at all. Is it constitutional to subject millions of people to temporary age verification? There is no answer. Moreover, the charter statement really only considers one side of the issue of expression. It rightly points out that the harmful expression identified in the proposal, things like subjecting people to sexually explicit material, falls far from the core guarantee of freedom of expression. There is no argument from me on that, but it utterly fails to address the inevitable likelihood that other content would be subject to complaints to the regulator and ultimately censorship. Perhaps most fatally, even if the so-called safeguards, like privacy protections in the bill and exemptions for platforms in the future, would make this bill constitutional, the problem remains that none of those protections would be operational when the bill is passed. That is a fundamental question that the bill does not answer, and the government has not provided an answer either, so I hope we get one. In closing, I want to give a short message to the moms and to the kids. Social media is not always real life. Someone is not defined by how many likes their Facebook post receives. They are not defined by how awesome the world they built in Minecraft really is, nor are they defined by one mistake they may make on social media. I think that is a lesson that all members of Parliament can take too.”

“I did not call the father scared. I called him brave for coming to speak with his MP about this issue. The member opposite should not insult his parenting or treat this as a joke.”

“Madam Speaker, I hope the member opposite is not impugning a dad who came to listen to his MP and impugning his ability to parent his children, because I think that would be offensive to him. For the record, I do not believe I said he was scared. I said he was brave, and he was brave. He was brave to be there to speak to his MP and tell his MP what he thought about the issue. If that is funny to the member across the way, I think she should consider her opinions.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Criminal law belongs to the federal government, not the provinces. Even so, the federal government can and should consult Quebec and the other provinces on these issues.”

“Madam Speaker, I am always open to consultation with the provinces. I talked about constitutional issues. One, of course, is the division of powers. I am not sure I agree with the member’s premise. The Criminal Code is obviously within the purview of the federal government, not the provinces. However, there is nothing that prevents the federal government from consulting with Quebec or any other province on these issues, and I think it should do that.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I worry that banning social media for kids under 16 will not protect them. When teenagers are told they cannot do something, they often just get better at hiding it. A ban might push them to sites that parents cannot watch, which could make them less safe. I want my colleague to tell me if a ban would actually protect kids.”

“Madam Speaker, I have raised five teenagers, and one thing I have learned is that telling a teenager they cannot do something does not necessarily mean they will not do it. Sometimes it means they will get a whole lot better at hiding it. That is what worries me about banning social media for kids under 16. Of course, we want to protect our kids, but we also have to be realistic about how teenagers behave. If they find ways around a ban or end up on platforms that are even harder for parents to monitor, have we made them any safer? I wonder if we could end up making things worse for the kids we are trying to protect. Perhaps my colleague can speak to that.”

“This bill might not work to protect kids. In Australia, many underage kids still use social media by using VPNs. Kids might also just move to smaller websites that are not regulated. We need to think about whether this bill will actually stop harms, or if it will cause more harm instead.”

“Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. It raises the issue of the efficacy of this proposal. What we have seen is that there are mixed reviews of efficacy. If we look at the Australia model, which the government touts, a huge number of underage children access social media anyway through VPNs or other means. There is also the issue of the number of users on platforms that would be regulated. There is evidence that children may migrate to smaller platforms that are unregulated. I think we have to consider whether the bill is achieving the reduction in harms it seeks. On the other hand, through the means it is choosing, is it harming people disproportionately on the other side?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to create a new regulator. It will make too many decisions after the bill passes, and we do not know what they will be. We should keep the Privacy Commissioner in charge of this instead.”

“Madam Speaker, the member points out a big problem with this bill, which is the regulator. It is going to make dozens and dozens of decisions after the bill is passed, and we have no idea what those decisions may be. We had an independent review through the Privacy Commissioner, which this bill would remove. I would think the starting place would be to get back to having the Privacy Commissioner involved in this issue more than now.”

“I am giving my remaining speaking time to the previous member so he can finish his points.”

“Madam Speaker, I will keep this brief and give the member whatever time he has left to restate or add to the arguments he has already made.”

“We need to protect children online. We also need to protect Canadians' privacy rights, and I hope we can find the right balance between both.”

“Madam Speaker, I would reiterate that many of my colleagues and I agree that there are issues we need to address for the protection of our children. I think we are trying to get to the right balance here, one that seeks to protect children and protect the privacy rights of Canadians, and I hope we get there.”

“Children need real protection online. I question if this bill is the best way to do that, because a similar plan is not working in Australia.”

“Madam Speaker, children need real protection online. Is Bill C-34 the best solution? That approach is not working in Australia, for example.”

“I want this bill sent to committee so we can study it and fix it. Children are exposed to violent content and predators on social media, and current safeguards do not protect them. Social media companies and parents need to do more, but this bill must not go too far. It must protect children's private data, respect parents, and not give one government official too much power.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that we are discussing a topic that is on the minds and in the hearts of just about every parent with young children today. Young people want to have access to social media because of social pressure, because their friends have access to social media. Young people want to use Facebook because their friends are on Facebook. Young people have access to social media as early as age six or seven. It is easy to get on social media. A person just has to enter a false date of birth, and that is it, they have a Facebook account. Add to that the complicity of parents who are not able to say no to their children, and it really is easy. Now it has gotten to the point where, if users type a few certain words into a search engine, they could be taken to websites that they do not necessarily want to see. Children are no exception. There are curious young people out there—kids who want to see everything. As a result, they can find themselves exposed to intimate images or graphic violence, particularly given the growing prevalence of violent material online. Sometimes, if they are watching a video on YouTube, YouTube will subsequently suggest another video that is completely unrelated to the previous one. Why does that happen? We do not know. If a young person does not have a YouTube account, the platform will sometimes suggest videos based on viewing patterns. These might be clips from violent movies, videos of incidents involving the police or who knows what else. The young person is exposed to what others are seeing in their algorithm, and that is truly harmful. If I sound as though I know a thing or two about this, it is because I spend a great deal of time with my grandchildren. Like many children, they enjoy watching simple videos, funny clips on social media, little Lego-building videos and the like. We let them watch, and then suddenly we hear a scream, as if a monster had just emerged out of nowhere. The algorithm automatically took them somewhere else. As a parent or grandparent, that is the moment when concern sets in and one wonders what the child is watching. One quickly realizes that, despite the safeguards in place, despite being present, and despite the content being displayed on a 55-inch screen, if one gets up to turn off the dining room light, it is no longer the same video when one comes back. That is a significant problem, and it is important that we address it. I did not survey a youth council, as the member who spoke just before me did, but I have seen first-hand, day after day, just how harmful it can be to leave young people unprotected in front of these major digital platforms. I asked myself what I could do to keep my grandchildren from seeing that kind of content and from ending up there in the first place. I thought there must surely be safeguards or tools available to prevent it. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any. I then began wondering how I could educate them. I started looking into how best to teach kids aged five, six and eight to navigate these issues and use these technologies responsibly. My colleagues know as well as I do that, even if I found a way to educate them, young people have become more skilled than I am at distracting the adults and watching whatever they want. It is incredible: The youngest is only three years old, but he can turn on the TV and go to YouTube. Now I have to be careful to make sure he cannot get on there. I have a responsibility at home. Once the TV is on, we have to protect children from accessing that kind of content. We must protect young people who will later become victims themselves, young people who have been lured in by third parties, by people with bad intentions, who, through messages on social media, such as Messenger or any other communication platform out there, will trick them into letting their guard down, even though we have told them not to talk to strangers, not to give out their names, and all those things. Despite all that, there are people who are so skilled that they will manage to get what they want from these young people. Why? It is because young people are impressionable by nature. Yes, this is worrisome. How can we stop kids from using social media? When they are four, five or six years old, it is easy. Parents can turn off the TV and stop them from having access to all that. Problem solved. If we take a close look at all the terms and conditions on Facebook or most social media, 12-year-old kids are not even supposed to be there. However, there are not many 12-year-olds who are not on some kind of social media, be it TikTok or some other platform. How can we stop kids from being kids? That is the big question. Is Bill C‑34 the answer? There are some answers in Bill C‑34. Does it contain all the answers? I do not know. Above all, as we venture into this area, we need to be careful not to go too far, because this is the technology of tomorrow. I remember the initial reaction when computers and social media first came along. Our parents and grandparents would ask what we were doing on “the Internets”. They would say it was dangerous and that people were selling drugs on there. In the end, I have to say that it has proven far more useful than many of us thought at the time. My parents used to say they would never, ever use it. I remember when people said that every family would one day have a computer. Well, that is not what happened. Every family now has more than one computer. My cellphone is more powerful than the first computer I ever owned. It contains more images than I could ever have stored on 56, or even 50,000, floppy disks. That is the reality. The real issue is what we do with the technology and how we use it. The challenge is figuring out how, as a society, we can protect our children while continuing to benefit from social media and all of its positive aspects, and at the same time succeed in getting rid of all the junk we find on those platforms. In Quebec, children are no longer allowed to bring their cellphones to school, and we have seen a real improvement. I do not have any statistics to share, but what I am hearing from teachers and from everyone is that there has been a real improvement now that children no longer have access to their phones at school. They are socializing more, talking to each other more and participating in more activities. At lunchtime, they do not stay on the school grounds. I think they are quick to scatter. That is another issue. Anyway, there has to be some control. Parents play an important role. Any legislation must recognize the role of parents. Parents often feel as though they are at a loss when it comes to how to help their children. We must recognize that they have a role to play. No law will be able to prevent a young person from going somewhere if the parents do not co-operate. I think that is important. There is also the role of these major social media platforms, these digital giants. They have a role to play. They are the ones who enable this kind of content to be distributed and posted and who make it accessible to young people. They, too, have a responsibility, and I think there are technical ways for them to prevent young people from accessing this content without us necessarily having to give them all our personal data so they can build a massive database. Imagine if a database of young people with Internet access fell into the hands of people with malicious intent. Protecting young people’s privacy is just as important. With this kind of database and the artificial intelligence we see everywhere today, if someone were ever to get their hands on a list of all the young people who visit this kind of site, it could cause serious harm. We have a role to play, and the government has a role to play. At the same time, the government must not take on the roles of judge, adjudicator and punisher all at once. It must exercise a certain degree of control. We cannot appoint someone to be the czar of communications with children. We need to appoint someone who is genuinely committed to protecting children. Protecting children means safeguarding their data and supporting parents. It means being there to support them, not to make all the decisions for them. We will study Bill C-34 in committee. That is important. I hope I will have the opportunity to add my views, because I do have some recommendations to offer, based on my experience as a grandpa.”

“I do not fully support this bill. It gives a new commission broad powers to make rules later without asking the House. Too much of this bill is still unclear. A committee needs to study it so we can understand it before we take a position.”

“Madam Speaker, I did not say that I fully support Bill C‑34. I want to be very clear about that. As I said, certain aspects of Bill C‑34 are noteworthy. There are provisions that we can support, but other parts concern me, particularly the broad powers being granted to the commission. The commission would be empowered to do a great number of things that are not specified in the bill and would be determined at a later date without coming back to the House. That is a major concern for me. I therefore cannot answer my colleague’s hypothetical question. There are a number of matters in the bill that remain undefined. That, too, is troubling. That is why the bill must be studied in committee. We need to shed light on those undefined provisions so that we can then take a position on the matter my colleague has raised, as well as on several others. Quite simply, too much remains unclear.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Everyone, including big tech companies, must help protect mental health. No one should be allowed to manipulate someone else's mental health, especially young people who are easily harmed. I will support any measure that protects young people from this.”

“Madam Speaker, I will not repeat what I hear on TV because it would be a little disrespectful, but it was not very pretty. It was a really horrible sound, enough to make me go back to the living room to see what was happening on television. That is all I will say. Concerning my colleague’s question, I think that is a different matter. Where mental health is concerned, I believe that everyone, even the web giants, has a role to play. We cannot allow anyone to manipulate the mental health of another person in any way. We cannot let people who have been manipulated in some way go untreated or without services. This is an important issue made all the worse when young people are involved, because they are even more easily manipulated, and their mental health is more easily affected. I will say yes to anything that will spare young people problems like this. No matter what is involved, I am ready to give it my careful attention.”

“This bill does not clearly define key words like online bullying or the social media sites it targets. I want the member to explain how we can measure its success when we do not even define what we are measuring.”

“Madam Speaker, I assume the Liberals are aiming to have some definite outcomes from this bill, but we are lacking definitions. For example, one of the main items they are discussing is online bullying, yet we still do not have an official definition of bullying. We do not even have a definition of the social media they are targeting. Could my hon. colleague mention how on earth we can measure something when we do not even know the proper definitions to measure it by?”