Safe Social Media Act

Bill C-34, Safe Social Media Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-34 would do

The bill would create the Digital Safety Act and set up the Digital Safety Commission of Canada to oversee it. Operators of regulated social media and chatbot services would have to mitigate exposure to harmful content, label synthetic content, and protect children through design features and age limits. Platforms would also have to remove non-consensual intimate content and child sexual abuse material, and submit digital safety plans to the commission.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

12 statements

Rachael Thomas, Lethbridge

Conservative
“Canadians want to protect children online. But this bill does not say which social media platforms it covers. Those choices will be made later behind closed doors, not by elected members of Parliament. I want the member to explain how the government will decide which platforms are covered and which ones are not.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague outlined the concerns of his constituents. I imagine that most of them would be happy about the idea of having legislation that would protect their children online. I think the vast majority of Canadians, of course, want that. The question with the legislation, however, is, who would kids be protected from? Which platforms would be scoped in? Would Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat be scoped in? The legislation does not actually state that. It says that is yet to be determined in the regulations that we can expect at some date in the future. These types of decisions would be made behind closed doors rather than by elected officials in the House. I am curious if the member could indicate how that would be determined. Which services would be scoped in, and which services would be allowed to continue to allow predatory practices with regard to our young people? Clearly, not all would be held accountable.

Mike Lake, Leduc—Wetaskiwin

Conservative
“I want this bill sent to committee. Social media companies design their apps to grab our attention to make money, and it harms kids by showing them content about eating disorders, gambling, and pornography. Teenagers are not ready to handle these platforms. A committee should study this bill to check how it affects free speech and what powers it gives to regulators.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this piece of legislation today. I have been thinking for some time about the issues raised by the legislation, in my capacity as shadow minister for mental health and wellness and in working with many stakeholders who are very concerned about the impact of social media on our kids. To start, I am actually going to talk about something from my own experience that I think speaks to the very things we are talking about today. A few months ago, my mom was having a fairly minor surgery. One night as I was getting ready for bed, I thought I should text my mom to find out how her surgery went. The next morning, for whatever reason, I was about to text her about something else. I opened up my phone and realized I had never texted my mom the night before to ask her about her surgery. What I had done was open my phone with the full intention of sending a text, but I saw an Instagram notification, just that little dot on the Instagram logo that we cannot ignore, and clicked on something that was not important at all. Instagram was just getting my attention, as it does. I spent probably an hour scrolling reels on Instagram, and none of those reels was important. The types of reels that get my attention on Instagram, generally, are fantastic sports plays set to great music. Certain comedians also get my attention, so my algorithm has Nate Bargatze, Jimmy Carr and other comedians. It also has videos that explain things through AI-generated songs that are kind of funny and maybe clever, maybe not filled with really accurate information. I do not know. The other thing, though, that I notice about my algorithm is that it is filled with some things that are not so light. Recently, oftentimes, my feed would be filled with crash videos, sometimes plane crash videos. I fly a lot, and for whatever reason, if I see a piece of video or something like that, I will linger on it maybe a little longer than I should. I have noticed recently that my feed is filled with RIP content about people who have recently passed away. In retrospect, I know why that has happened. I believe in the JFK quote “Things do not happen. Things are made to happen.” There is a reason why I see what I see. It is that a few prominent people whom I followed have passed away in recent times, and I read the stories about them. It was enough to feed my algorithm, and now what has happened is that my algorithm has way more content related to sadness and death than it used to have. What this has done is manipulated my natural love for people, my natural empathy for people, and has replaced that with a kind of rumination on tragedy, I would say. One other comment is that on X, there is the ability, in some cases, to say, “I am not interested in this.” I have a specific ad that keeps popping up on X, a series of ads. I have clicked “not interested in this” at least four or five times, but they just keeps coming anyway. I cannot get rid of them. What does that look like for kids? I think that is the question we have to answer today. It is one thing as a 57-year-old to be drawn into social media. I would not phrase it as an addiction for me right now, but it definitely is something that is very compelling and takes me away from things I care about doing. What does that look like for a 13- 14- or 15-year-old? They might sit down to look something up on their phone to do some homework or study for something, or maybe there is something that would just be interesting that adds value to their life, or they are texting a friend to make plans, but they get locked into some kind of notification or addictive scrolling session that might last an hour, or two or three hours, when they were just going on their phone to make plans with their friends to do something in person. What does the content look like for kids? Too often, we are hearing that the content that our kids are seeing on there might be related to eating disorders or to the way that someone ought to look. It might be related, in many cases now, to gambling. Maybe it is just fun games at first, but it does not take very long before the algorithm starts to feed them gambling ads. Pornography is another thing that is drawing many kids in. There is a question that we have to ask ourselves, because some people might have a conversation. I think there are some legitimate conversations around free speech in the debate. It will be interesting to see when we go to committee and hear from experts on the impact of other parts of the bill as they relate to free speech. However I would say, for the social media part, for me personally as I am looking at this, I do not see the issue of whether a 15-year-old should have access to social media as a free speech issue. In my view, 15-year-olds are not equipped to be signing contracts with social media behemoths and signing away access to their attention, which is what is happening. It is not a coincidence that we are all seeing what we see on our social media feeds. It is not a coincidence that kids are seeing what they are seeing on their social media feeds. People are paying for them to see what they are seeing on their social media feeds, and the more time they spend on their devices, the more money someone makes in the background. That is an issue. Again, I do not believe that 15-year-olds are equipped to be entering into contracts that they do not fully understand and that tie them into seeing things that they did not expect to see and do not understand why they are seeing them. I have a quote from C.S. Lewis that I love, and I think it kind of highlights where we are right now. He said: We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. I want to think about the place we want to be, which C.S. Lewis talks about. I think we all want to be in a place where our kids can thrive, where we all can thrive, where we all can flourish and where we all can live up to our potential. I like to think of a world where our kids can play like we used to play. Jonathan Haidt’s work has been raised in a lot of the conversations around social media age limits particularly, of course. He has four norms that he points to, in terms of his work. He talks not only about a social media age limit, but also about a restriction on smartphones in schools, which provinces across this country have enacted. He talks about parents deciding to delay smartphone access for their kids to 14 years old. The fourth norm is more play in the real world. There is incredible research being done on the power of play in the real world. I think of my friend Lenore Skenazy and her work on free-range kids, and Mariana Brussoni, a Canadian who does incredible work on unstructured play and the power of risky play. If we are going to go down a road with less social media access for kids, we have to have alternatives for our kids to undertake. I would say, as a country, one thing that we have to look at is where the spaces are where our kids can get outside and play, so more green space, but more green space where kids are safe to explore like we used to explore. I know my time is running short right now. I am very much looking forward to this bill getting to committee. I think there are some legitimate concerns that folks would have about the bill that relate to fairly undefined powers of a regulator, the impact of some of the freedom of speech provisions within the bill that are not related necessarily to a social media age limit, and others. Right now, I look forward to questions, but I really look forward to the conversations that are going to happen at committee on the bill.

Mike Lake, Leduc—Wetaskiwin

Conservative
“Many people want us to help kids spend less time on screens. Privacy is a big issue here, and the committee will study it. But I also want us to focus on helping kids spend less time on devices so they have more time to play.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 20 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Of course, I assume we have all been lobbied by the unplugged folks who are so passionate about this issue on behalf of their kids, which I think is more than 10,000 strong in terms of the impact. We have all gone back to our constituencies and talked to people. In relation to the privacy issues the member raises, I want to give kudos to the member for Lethbridge who has consistently, as we have been having this conversation, been raising those issues. I expect they will be significantly raised in the committee as well. Again, I come back to my focus and the work I have been doing and intend to be doing. There is a real power to play, and in order to make room for play, getting off or reducing time on our devices is going to be critical.

Mike Lake, Leduc—Wetaskiwin

Conservative
“I want the committee to take enough time to study this bill properly. People have raised many real concerns, and provinces need a chance to share their views.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from Alberta, I would share those thoughts. Obviously, if the committee is given a strong enough mandate and enough time to study this piece of legislation, provinces will have a chance to weigh in, either at committee or by sending comments to the committee, and I think that would be really important. It is important to me, more than almost any other piece of legislation I have seen, that Parliament, through the committee process right now, take the time to get this right. There are many legitimate concerns that have been raised, and it is very important that the committee that undertakes this study take the time to really hear those concerns and get it right.

Rachael Thomas, Lethbridge

Conservative
“This bill does not say which safety features social media platforms must use to protect children. Those rules will be decided later. Based on the member's research, what are two or three features he wants to see included in those rules?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech and the incredible work he has done on this file over years, if not a decade, as a member of Parliament. Bill C-34 does not outline the types of design features that should be put in place by platforms in order to keep kids safe. That is going to be determined later on. Given the member’s tremendous amount of research and expertise in this area, I wonder if there are two or three design features he would hope to see come out of the regulatory framework that would be created.

Mike Lake, Leduc—Wetaskiwin

Conservative
“We need social media companies to be open about why they show us certain content, like with infinite scroll. Right now, people see posts without knowing why the app chose them. The committee studying this bill should look into that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when we take a look at the different design features, such as infinite scroll, one of the conversations we need to have, and this is broader than just children, is on some transparency around why we see what we see. I think, for all of us, that is a huge issue. We just take what is given to us and go on to the next thing, and we do not know why we are seeing what we see. Some transparency around that is tremendously important. Again, this will probably be one of the key things that the committee looks at from witnesses who—

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“I am worried about this bill because the Department of Justice admits it threatens basic rights. It threatens free speech, equality based on age, and privacy rights when collecting personal information to check people's ages. We also do not even have the actual rules yet to know how this will work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting speech. In its charter statement, the Department of Justice recognizes that the bill engages freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) and the right to equality guaranteed under section 15 because it makes a distinction based on age, as well as the right to privacy under section 8 because the age verification or age estimation measures may require the collection of personal information. What strikes me is that the charter statement is based on guidelines that will be developed later by the commission, on future regulations, and on an exemption for services that provide—

Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore

Conservative
“We must protect children from online bullying and exploitation. We should hold big tech companies accountable and help parents, instead of growing the government. I want this bill sent to committee so we can check it carefully and make sure it truly keeps kids safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to rise in the House as the voice of Calgary Midnapore. I am so grateful for my citizens. Many of my citizens, including my parents, of course, and myself, are parents. When we talk about being a parent, we may have many other titles and roles in our lives. We may be a sister or a cousin. In our work, we have many roles. We may be a colleague, perhaps a subordinate or even a leader, a boss, someone who has to take the care and responsibility of others into consideration. I know that any parent, not only in Calgary Midnapore but across Canada, would agree that there is nothing more important than their role as a parent and the safety of their children. We all love our children. I cannot think of anything more dear or precious to me than my son, and I know all parents feel this way about their children. It should be known to Canadians that protecting kids online is non-negotiable for Conservatives. However, good intentions require sound mechanisms. We must be focused on holding tech giants accountable and empowering parents, not expanding government bureaucracy. As this bill moves to committee, we will scrutinize its provisions to ensure that it delivers real protection for children. As a parent, I want nothing more than that for our children and for the parents of Canada. Online harms are a real problem, and the problem is twofold. Number one, children are exposed to addictive platforms. I see this in my household, and when friends come over, all the time. There is inappropriate content, exploitation and many other harms. Secondly, parents are overwhelmed by rapidly changing technology and fighting an uphill battle against big tech. This was never more prevalent than during COVID, when all parents across the nation all of a sudden had to become IT consultants, so to speak, as they navigated schooling for their children during that difficult time. These are real problems. According to Statistics Canada, one in four children aged 12 to 17 has experienced cyber-bullying, and police reported online child sexual exploitation incidents reaching 16,905 in 2024, up 347% from 2014. Cyber-victimization is also associated with serious mental health outcomes, including suicidal ideation and attempts. Canada has experienced the devastating impacts and real-world consequences of online harms. The tragic case of Amanda Todd, who died by suicide after experiencing sextortion and cyber-bullying, illustrates the devastating impact these harms can have on young people. In addition, I have two examples from my home province of Alberta. Dated September 25, the headline on the first article states, “After 2 youths stalked on Snapchat, review your kid’s settings, police urge”. The article reads, “Police in Alberta are urging parents to check the location settings on their children’s social media and communication apps after two youth allegedly being sexually exploited in Edmonton were followed to their homes.” This is outlining the threats. “‘The victims reported that they complied out of extreme fear for their safety and the safety of their family,’” again outlining the threats. The article continues: “The suspect allegedly tracked the victim’s location via Snapchat and travelled to their family home. ALERT said they allegedly knew both the victims’ home address and what school they attended.” This is the type of threat that exists as a result of social media. That is one example from my home province of Alberta. The headline on the second article says, “Edmonton teens, 14, charged after AI used to make sexualized images of classmates”. The article states, “Two Edmonton junior high students are facing child sexual exploitation charges for allegedly using AI to generate sexualized images of classmates. Such charges are only the tip of the iceberg in an emerging area of online child sex abuse, police say, adding it remains difficult to hold AI platforms themselves accountable.” Problems for children are many, and children spend a large portion of their lives online. For today’s youth, digital platforms are not separate from everyday life. This is where they socialize, build relationships, access information, express themselves and, increasingly, interact with AI. As a result, what happens online can have profound real-world consequences, including exposure to cyber-bullying, sexual exploitation, self-harm and eating disorder content, violence, and other harmful material. Children are vulnerable to the ways that platforms are designed. Platform features, such as recommendation algorithms, push notifications, endless scrolling and autoplay can repeatedly direct youth towards content that keeps them engaged. These design choices can amplify exposure to harmful material and make it difficult for young users to disengage. At the same time, AI chatbots and digital companions are becoming increasingly integrated into the platforms used by young people, creating new and largely untested risks. In addition to problems for children, there are problems for parents. Parents cannot solve the problem alone, and they are asking for help. They can set boundaries, monitor devices and talk to children about online safety. We have done all of this in my home, but parents cannot control how platforms and algorithms recommend content, prevent strangers from contacting their children or remove harmful material at scale. Parents need technology companies and governments to share responsibility for creating a safer online environment for children. We do not ask parents to enforce car seat standards or alcohol laws by themselves, and online safety should be no different. In fact, according to an Angus Reid survey, 75% of Canadians, and 70% of parents with children in the home, support banning social media for youth under 16. I will give an example in my province of such legislation. This legislation exists not only in Alberta but also across other provinces in the federation. On June 17, 2024, it was decreed: Parents, teachers, students and our education partners were clear that the use of personal mobile devices and social media in the classroom was of concern. We’re taking a measured approach to protect students by restricting the use of personal mobile devices during instructional time to reduce distractions and bullying, maximize learning time and support student mental health. This is one province that has taken an approach to such threats and such risks, because the threats, as I said, are very much real. We need to consider also the duties of operators, because these operators have a duty to protect our children. They should require social media services and chatbot services to implement design features respecting the protection of children, as per future regulations. They should require social media services to implement age verification estimation to prevent users who are under 16 from setting up or maintaining accounts. As well, they should require regulated services that provide access to pornographic material to implement age verification or age estimation to prevent children from getting access to these platforms. These operators have a duty to act responsibly. They should require social media services and chatbots to assess and mitigate the risks associated with several categories of harmful content. As well, they have a duty to make certain that certain content is inaccessible and require social media services to take down content that sexually victimizes children. Our Conservative principles regarding online safety are clear, and as a parent and as a mother, I ask the government to consider them.

Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore

Conservative
“I am glad the member agrees we must hold social media companies accountable for children's safety. Parents are not sure if this government is willing to stand up to big social media companies. I take her words as an acceptance that it is the government's job to do so.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear my colleague across the aisle indicate that she believes holding social media platforms accountable for the safety of our children is important. It indicates to me that she recognizes that her role as a government member is to create this environment and enforce it with social media platforms. In this moment, I think that Canadians and parents across Canada are uncertain if the government is willing to do the difficult things and stand up to big social media regarding keeping our children safe. I will take her words and her commentary as an acceptance of the responsibility of government to hold social media companies to account.

Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore

Conservative
“Protecting young people is everyone's job, including parents, companies, and the government. That is the most important part of this bill. I hope the government will take on that responsibility.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think it is everyone’s responsibility to protect young people. I think that is probably the most important aspect of the bill. Protecting young people is up to me, as a parent, but it is also up to the government and companies. I hope the government will accept its responsibility in that regard.

John Barlow, Foothills

Conservative
“This bill has good goals, but it might create more red tape that slows down police. I want the member to explain her concerns about that red tape and other parts of this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the member’s speech, she mentioned that, although the bill is well-intentioned and there are some good elements to it, one of her concerns was the potential of adding additional bureaucracy, which could slow down some of the things we are trying to accomplish with the bill, certainly in ensuring that the tools are there for our law enforcement to act on these things. Could the member build on some of her concerns regarding other elements of the bill, including the bureaucracy, that are a concern to our stakeholders?

Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore

Conservative
“I am worried about the new bureaucracy in this bill. It will cost too much money. It lets ministers pass the blame to officials instead of taking responsibility for protecting children. It also gives unelected officials the power to harm people.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. There are three concerns when it comes to bureaucracy. The first, of course, is that bureaucracy always has a price, and with this government, it is a very big one. Second, a bureaucracy allows the government and the ministers to deflect responsibility back onto the bureaucracy when they themselves should be taking responsibility, especially in a situation where something so precious as our children is involved. Finally, a bureaucracy gives unelected officials power to harm people. I am very concerned about the bureaucratic aspects of this, because as we can see, the risks are many.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 158

  1. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 38 statements
  2. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 81 statements
  3. Oral Questions International Trade 18 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 8 statements
  9. Oral Questions Government Appointments 5 statements
  10. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 7 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  17. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 23 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 42 statements
  20. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Families, Children and Social Development 2 statements
  23. Private Members' Business National Strategy for Soil Health Act 16 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements