“I told the member that children are more anxious because online groups feed their fears. Now I want him to answer what he thinks is causing this rise in anxiety.”

“Madam Speaker, the member asked me a question regarding what I thought were the reasons for the rise in anxiety among children, and I said it was because of silos, where fears are reinforced. I would like to pose the same question to the member about what he thinks the reason is for the rise in anxiety.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 40 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 →

“We need a commission to enforce rules and protect children online. Commissions like this work well in Canada, and a committee can still improve the rules later. Does the member support creating this commission?”

“Madam Speaker, the CRTC is a great example of a commission that has worked well for Canada. We would establish a commission that would have the expertise to deal with protecting children in Canada. We would have regulations, and the committee would have ample opportunity to look at ways they can be potentially modified, but the principle of a commission would ensure that there is enforcement and real progress on protecting our children. Does the member support the principle of the commission?”

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly. It makes social media companies protect children by designing safer platforms, keeping kids under 16 off risky apps, and quickly removing harmful content.”

“Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-34, the safe social media act. We are here to debate what I would suggest all parliamentarians hold as a fundamental and heartfelt responsibility: the safety and well-being of Canadian children. I am speaking not just as an MP but also as a parent and as a former public health physician. Let me begin with the third. In public health, one of our responsibilities is to identify threats to health, identify the causal or aggravating elements and intervene before preventable harm occurs. We do not wait until a crisis unfolds to take action. Now, for over a decade, pediatricians, emergency doctors and primary care physicians alike have witnessed a troubling trend amongst young people: a surge in rates of anxiety, depression, clinical loneliness, cyber-bullying and even self-harm or suicide. Children and youth are also spending increasing amounts of time online, exposed to platforms deliberately designed to maximize attention and keep users engaged for as long as possible. These are highly sophisticated systems that personalize content, shape behaviour, and influence emotional well-being in ways that are difficult to navigate, even for adults let alone children. I am also speaking today as a parent. I am the parent of two young people who have had to navigate this digital frontier. Like so many Canadian parents, including many members of the House, I have seen first-hand how incredibly difficult it is for a developing adolescent brain to pull away from a screen filled with ever-refreshing images, algorithms designed to capture and hold their attention. My children have fortunately managed well, but that siren-like attraction can bring young people to dark places. The Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Canadian Mental Health Association and many other medical and health organizations are urging us to pass this bill. “It’s time to put kids over profits”, says the CMA. As an MP, a doctor and a parent, I say we cannot leave families to fight this battle alone. A substantial majority of Canadians support this legislation that would place the responsibility where it belongs: on the platforms that create and profit from these online environments. At the heart of this bill lies a clear legal principle, namely the duty to protect children. This legal obligation applies to all regulated digital services, including social media and regulated chatbot services. Currently, our legislative framework allows web giants to operate reactively, meaning that they moderate content or correct vulnerabilities only after a child has been exposed to harm. Bill C-34 changes that. It legally requires tech companies to build security, privacy and age-appropriate features directly into the very architecture of their products, right from the design stage. Children’s safety will no longer be an optional feature or a hidden setting. Going forward, it will be the baseline legal standard for operating in Canada. Bill C-34 would introduce strict, age-appropriate design obligations, and this would require developers to explicitly prioritize the safety and developmental needs of users under the age of 18. Just as recommended by the Canadian Paediatric Society, the legislation would directly target the predatory, addictive features designed to capture young minds. A key pillar of the duty to protect children is an obligation to prioritize age-appropriate design, requiring developers to take the interests of users under the age of 18 into account when designing services, including incorporating design features that protect children and create safer online experiences. The goal of age-appropriate design is simple: to make online environments safer for children, reducing the risk they will encounter harmful content. The legislation intentionally stays at a level where the digital safety commission would be able to work with experts, industry and Canadians to develop appropriate measures through regulations. This regime would ensure that protections remain evidence-based, adaptable and effective. With Bill C-34, digital services that present high risks to youth would be prohibited from allowing children under the age of 16 to create or own accounts. Learning from experience elsewhere, Canada is pursuing a sophisticated and innovative approach rather than a rigid blanket ban. The bill would utilize an earned exemption model. That is, if a social media platform or digital service can explicitly prove to the digital safety commission that its environment is measurably safe, free from addictive feedback loops and scrubbed of predatory elements, it would be allowed to apply for an exemption. Operating a platform accessible to Canadian children is a privilege that tech companies must earn through proven safety metrics. It is not a default right to exploit data. We are also taking a decisive stand to protect minors from explicit material. Bill C-34 would mandate that regulated services implement highly secure privacy-preserving age verification or age estimation technologies to ensure that users under the age of 18 cannot access pornographic content in Canada. Let me clarify a point of public debate. This does not mean age-gating the entire Internet for adults, nor would it infringe upon freedom of expression. It simply means placing a reliable digital barrier in front of explicit adult content. Furthermore, the bill would enforce strict privacy protections on the tech platforms themselves. Any personal data collected to verify a user’s age would have to be heavily encrypted, be used strictly for the purpose of age assurance and be permanently deleted immediately after the check is complete. As a former public health professional, I know we must always look ahead to emerging vectors and be alert for emerging patterns of harm. Social media feeds are no longer the only risk. With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, Canadian youth are spending hours a day interacting with advanced AI chatbots. Children are uniquely vulnerable to these systems, which frequently employ manipulative techniques to encourage deep emotional dependency and unearned trust. Developers would be required to implement safeguards that identify and address foreseeable risks, prevent the promotion of self-harm or other harmful content and ensure that users are clearly informed when they are interacting with an artificial intelligence system rather than with a human being. The risks associated with AI also require immediate attention. Bill C-34 responds directly to this new reality by imposing a duty to react specifically on chatbots. The designers of these AI systems will now be legally required to implement rigorous emergency response protocols, systematically block the distribution of content promoting self-harm, and explicitly remind users at all times that they are interacting with a machine, not a human being. Finally, the legislation would apply a zero tolerance mandate to the most severe forms of online trauma. When content involves the sexual victimization of a child or the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, platforms would not be able to hide behind slow internal review processes. Bill C-34 would legally mandate that tech platforms remove this highly destructive material within 24 hours of its being flagged. In public health, we should not and do not hesitate to regulate the safety standards of the cars our families ride in, the food our children eat or the toys they play with. It is our long-overdue obligation to ensure that the digital space where our children spend hours every day is likewise comprehensively included. As a parliamentarian, I recognize our legislative duty. As a physician, I recognize our obligation to address a serious and growing public health problem. As a parent, I know how desperately Canadian families are looking for structured and reliable support. Bill C-34 would give our country the tools to enforce compliance. Platforms that fail to protect our kids would face historic financial penalties of up to 5% of their global revenue. Canada’s leading pediatricians, public health experts, and parents agree the status quo is untenable. I urge all members of the House to support the swift passage of the proposed safe social media act so we can finally build a digital world that prioritizes the safety of Canadian children.”

“This bill only sets the standards. Experts and regulations will work out the details later. Tech companies will have to figure out how to check people's ages and follow the rules.”

“Madam Speaker, the legislation would set the bar. The actual mechanisms would be determined through the expertise of the commission when it is set and through the regulations. Therefore, the onus would be on the tech companies to provide, for instance, the age verification mechanisms and to work out the details. Again, the legislation, really, would set the standard and the bar. The onus would be on the tech companies to determine the exact mechanism.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The federal government is working with the provinces and territories on this bill. Everyone will have a role to play, and this bill will support them.”

“Madam Speaker, this legislative effort is being led by the federal government in co-operation with the provinces and territories. The provinces and territories, along with all levels of society, will have a role to play, but with the support provided by this legislation.”

• 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 →

“Public health officials in my area shared disturbing facts about social media harming young people. Since the member is a doctor, I want him to say more about what health workers are seeing happen to our youth.”

“Madam Speaker, I did a couple of round tables on the safe social media act in Hamilton and nearby, and some of the most interesting and, frankly, disturbing testimony came from public health officials. I know my hon. colleague already talked a bit about his perspective as a physician, but perhaps he can expound a little more on what family or public health officials are saying about the dangers our youth are facing and the consequences they are seeing among our youth.”

“Doctors and public health experts agree that social media is hurting children. Emergency rooms are seeing record numbers of young people with anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts caused by it.”

“Madam Speaker, I have rarely seen such uniformity among not only the public health community but the medical community at large, including the front line. We are hearing from pediatricians and emergency physicians who are seeing the effects. I remember the minister remarking when presenting this legislation that emergency physicians are asking to see more broken bones and fewer broken souls. This speaks to the uniformity of consensus on the public health effects on children. Anxiety, depression, cyber-bullying, even self-harm and suicide are occurring at rates never seen since the promulgation of this social media blitz.”

“I want to ask the member why a dad needs to be brave to join a book club with mothers. If he is afraid of that, how can we trust him to keep kids safe online?”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to take the member opposite back to his first statement, because it kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I would like to ask him why a dad would have to be very brave to join a book club with a bunch of moms. If he is so afraid to join a book club with a bunch of moms, do we really trust him to ensure that his children are safe online?”

“If the member is worried about the powers of an independent body, what kind of monitoring, transparency, and oversight would he suggest instead?”

“Madam Speaker, if the member is concerned about the powers of an independent body, what type of monitoring, transparency and parliamentary oversight would he propose?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Social media is harming young people's mental health, and parents cannot protect their kids on their own. Social media companies must be required to keep children safe and quickly remove harmful content.”

“Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to share the views of my constituents in Trois‑Rivières, as well as those of my family. I have two kids aged 16 and 18. My daughter just turned 16 yesterday. They are not affected by the bill, but it was a close call. They are certainly interested in it, though. We have had some lively discussions about it. As the mother of two teens, I can say that I lost the social media battle a long time ago. Obviously, the pandemic did not make things any easier. My children have both been active on social media for quite some time now. I think that I will bring a practical perspective to the discussion because I have gone through all this myself, and I am still dealing with it every day. As a mother, I had to find other ways to ensure that my children were using social media safely because I could not necessarily trust the platforms. For me, that means periodically reviewing the content my children have access to, asking questions about what they are looking at and explaining how algorithms push content based on what they click on. Despite all that, despite the time I have spent every day having these conversations with my kids, they are still among the too many young people today who are living with anxiety or mental health issues. As studies show, there is a link between the use of social media, the content that is generated, the content our kids have access to, and the state of their mental health or anxiety levels. The numbers are getting higher and higher. Young people who experience online victimization report three times more suicidal ideation. That was just in the past year, so there is a real impact. Depression has doubled and anxiety has quadrupled among Canadians aged 15 to 24. These figures show that even supervision, open communication and an understanding of how things work are not enough. Simply keeping a watchful eye on things is not enough. My children have certainly been affected, as have many other children. I cannot even begin to imagine the pressure this puts on parents who may not be equipped to have these conversations, to provide this guidance, or who do not have the time to keep such a close eye on their kids. Some parents might have one, two or three jobs. As we know, it is difficult. Our government was elected with a mandate to protect Canadians. Clearly, we are living in a digital world and, as we know, the evidence points to serious and growing mental health challenges among young people. Furthermore, online harm is on the rise. We see this every day, even as parliamentarians. Regardless of our political affiliation, we all receive comments on our social media accounts. Our children are also exposed to this. They are exposed to the same kind of treatment. I believe we have a duty to act. We introduced Bill C-34, the safe social media act, precisely to regulate online activities and better protect our children. Bill C-34 introduces a duty to act responsibly and regulates certain services, requiring them to assess the risks associated with harmful content. It also establishes a duty to protect children by ensuring that services incorporate age-appropriate safeguards into the design and operation of their platforms and products. Finally, it introduces a duty to make certain content inaccessible to underage users. Obviously, in some cases, this will mean the faster removal of content that victimizes young people, sexual exploitation material and intimate content. We must put frameworks in place. These things happen every day in schools across Canada and in Quebec. We need to establish a regulatory framework to combat this. Most Canadians believe that the status quo is unacceptable. That is why we are introducing this bill. I would like to talk about what people told me this summer back home in Trois-Rivières. I had several discussions with stakeholders in the health and education sectors. In fact, yesterday, the Mauricie youth council, a non-partisan council, was here in the House. We are really making sure that we hear young people’s opinions. I had discussions with police representatives who work in schools to combat bullying. We also held round table discussions with students in grades 10 and 11. These discussions allowed us to hear the perspectives of both young people and stakeholders on certain issues. These discussions were insightful, constructive and nuanced, and they demonstrated young people’s interest in issues affecting their safety and experiences online. They shared their ideas with us and were very engaged in the discussions. We began the conversation by asking them whether they felt safe on social media and to rate that feeling on a scale from 1 to 10. What was interesting was that the boys’ sense of safety was around 9, while the girls’ was between 6 and 7. We then had a discussion about whether this was related to the type of content they are shown or are more likely to be exposed to. That led to a rich and insightful exchange. Several key findings emerged from those consultations, and I would like to bring them to the attention of the House so they can be taken into account in the important debate before us today. First, young people agreed that online safety is a shared responsibility. A number of different actors have a role to play. Platforms, of course, bear the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of young people. We also discussed the ability of platforms to remove harmful or abusive content quickly. That was one of the young people’s main concerns. Users themselves obviously bear a significant share of the responsibility. The young people also said that parents, schools and all levels of government have an important role to play. What is interesting is that, at the beginning of the conversation, the young people were uncomfortable with the idea of the government getting too involved. However, as we explained the bill and they discussed it amongst themselves and shared their experiences with social media, they began to change their minds. By the end of the conversation, many of them recognized that governments did in fact have a responsibility. They understood that the goal was not to prevent them from using social media before they were 16 but to make the platforms take accountability and create a safe online environment. We also talked about age. Interestingly, the young people we talked to suggested a gradual approach. For example, they said that if they were allowed to get a job when they were 14 but could not use social media until they were 16, then they would not be able to communicate with their co-workers about their shifts or availability. They really made some interesting points. In closing, I would simply like to say that our children have the right to a safe online environment and that they deserve to be protected. When children leave the house, we protect them and we want to know who they are with and what they are doing. We need to give ourselves the necessary tools to protect them the same way when they are online in a virtual environment.”

“This bill is necessary. After talking to my children, young people, and experts, I know we need it. It creates a new commission to hold online platforms accountable and make them protect Canadian children.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking her question in French. I appreciate it. That does not mean that we agree, but I am still appreciative. From what I heard from my children, the Mauricie youth council and stakeholders, I can say that this bill is necessary. It enacts laws like the digital safety act and digital safety commission of Canada act. It creates a new commission. We really want to put the tools in place to achieve our goal of holding the digital platforms to account and ensuring that they do what it takes to protect our children here in Canada.”

• 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 →

“We need an independent group that has the power and knowledge to protect children online and hold social media companies accountable. I am ready to hear ideas to make this plan even stronger.”

“Madam Speaker, it is true that we have worked together productively at the HUMA committee on a number of issues that have a real impact on people’s lives. In my view, the right approach is to establish an independent Canadian commission with both the power to legislate on such cases and the expertise to identify the best way to protect our children and secure the necessary commitments from the platforms. However, if the member has any ideas to put forward to strengthen this aspect, we are ready to listen to them and consider them.”

“This bill can fine companies up to 3% of their global income. How will that make companies, especially large international ones, follow the law?”

“Madam Speaker, the bill provides for financial penalties of up to 3% of a company’s global revenue. How will these penalties encourage companies to comply with the law, particularly large multinationals?”

“Some online platforms have already started making changes to protect young people. Fines will help make sure they follow the rules. Being held legally responsible and protecting their reputation will also push them to do the right thing.”

“Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question from my esteemed colleague. Over the past few months, we have witnessed a number of high-profile disputes involving online platforms. In response, many of these platforms have already begun voluntarily introducing the sort of environment we want for our young people. Financial penalties will certainly be a further asset. However, beyond financial penalties, there is also the question of a platform’s liability and reputational damage. We know this now: Our young people are capable of making choices, and they do exercise those choices.”

“I want this bill passed to keep kids safe online. Large social media companies need to do their part. If we remove the fines for breaking the rules, how will we get them to obey the law?”

“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague’s speech, which neatly summarized all the issues facing parents and grandparents. His willingness to contribute to this bill is clear, and I thank him for that. With this in mind, what would encourage businesses to comply if we were to remove the financial penalties for non-compliance? Large companies have a role to play. How can we get them on board to help us get this vital bill passed?”

“I want everyone to agree to end debate early and start private members' hour now.”

“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. so we can begin private members’ hour.”